Sitting of 12 November 1918

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
South Metropolitan Gas Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Smith Estate Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, without amendment.
Ipswich Dock Bill [Lords] (by Order),
As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
Clyde Valley Electrical Power Order Confirmation Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Clyde Valley Electrical Power Company," presented by Mr. MUNRO; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow.
Dunfermline District Water Order Confirmation Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Dunfermline District Water," presented by Mr. MUNRO; read the first time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act) to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 20th November, and to be printed. [Bill 109.]
Brentford Gas Bill,
South Shields Gas Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

JERSEY (WAR CONTRIBUTION).
Copy presented of Treasury Minute, dated 17th October, 1918, as to the disposal of a further Contribution from the States of Jersey to the War [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL EXPENDITURE COMMITTEE.
Copy presented of Memorandum on Sixth Report from the Select Committee on National Expenditure [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
FORESHORES.
Copy presented of Statement of Sums received in the year ended 31st March, 1918, in respect of the rights and interests of the Crown in the Foreshores of the United Kingdom [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented of Colonial Report, No. 976 (British Guiana, Report for 1917) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
GOVERNMENT CHEMIST.
Copy presented of Report of the Government Chemist upon the Work of the Government Laboratory for the year ended 31st March, 1918, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (JOINT COMMITTEE) REGULATIONS.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 8th November, 1918, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, entitled the National Health Insurance (Accounts of Insurance Committees) Regulations (Ireland), 1918 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  RUSSIA.

    MR. LOCKHART'S REPORT.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date Mr. Lockhart returned from Russia; whether he has yet presented his Report; if so, can its main purport be stated; if he has not

    2467
    yet reported, what reason can be given for this delay; and whether he will be asked to expedite it?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): Mr. Lockhart reached this country on 19th October, and has submitted a Report, which is now under consideration by His Majesty's Government. The answer to the third part of the question is in the negative, and the rest does not arise.
    Mr. KING: Is it proposed to issue through the Press Bureau or otherwise any of the contents or results of Mr. Lockhart's Report?
    Mr. BALFOUR: So far I have not come to any decision on that point. It is possible I may publish something.

    RELATIONS WITH GERMANY.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether diplomatic relations between Russia and Germany have been broken off and the Russian Minister has left Berlin; whether the reason is the alleged attempt of the Russians to stir up propaganda against German autocratic rule; and, if so, whether the Government will withdraw their assertions that the Russians are paid by secret allies of Germany?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I have seen the report to which the hon. Member refers in the first two parts of his question. I do not know what assertions he refers to in the last part. There has never been any suggestion that the Russians as a whole were the paid allies of Germany. But there are very strong grounds for believing that many highly placed personages in the Soviet Government were the conscious agents of the German military autocracy.

    CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the Russian Government has made an approach through neutral Powers for a cessation of hostilities; and whether any statement can be made as to the conditions tinder which our hostile operations in Russia may be concluded?
    Mr. BALFOUR: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The Maximalist authorities in Russia have, I understand, inquired whether a neutral Government would promote
    2468
    negotiations between them and the Allied Powers. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

    SOVIET GOVERNMENT.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether the Versailles Council or the British Government has considered or decided on a policy towards Great Russia; whether military or political action is to be brought to bear in order to remove or to obtain terms from the present Soviet Government of Russia; and whether the military expeditions in Russia will be pressed when and although armistices with all the enemy States of Germany, the Dual Monarchy, Bulgaria, and Turkey have been concluded?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I can make no statement.

    MR. D. CHRYSIN.
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether the official who was so ill that the inquiry into the case of Mr. D. Chrysin was delayed is well enough now to allow the inquiry to be concluded; if so, with what result; and whether an apology will now be offered to Mr. Chrysin?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): The officer who was responsible for a mistake in his report which led to the statement that Mr. Chrysin had left this country is still ill. I am, however, informed that Mr. Chrysin showed by certain actions some months ago that he was then closely identified with Mr. Litvinoff, and that though subsequently, as he now says, he severed that connection, he did not bring this change in his position to the notice of the authorities, and when Mr. Litvinoff was interned for a time as a hostage he was interned also. It was therefore proposed that when Mr. Litvinoff was repatriated Mr. Chrysin should go with him. Eventually he was allowed to stay here. It is not a case in which, in my opinion, any apology is due.
    Mr. KING: Is not the whole point that the Home Office said he had been deported when he had not been deported? Is it not a gross injustice to declare to the public that a man was deported when he was never deported at all?
    Mr. BRACE: A great deal of this trouble arises from the man himself.

  PRISONERS OF WAR.

    HAGUE AGREEMENT.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the ratification of the agreement negotiated by Lord Newton and General Sir Herbert Belfield is unconditional, or whether any and, if so, what conditions are attached?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): In view of the armistice, this question does not arise.
    Colonel LOWTHER: Is it a fact that all offices relating to our prisoners, held by Lord Newton and General Belfield before the armistice, automatically lapse with the armistice?
    Mr. HOPE: No, Sir.

    CHEVRONS.
    Mr. HAROLD SMITHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will reconsider the question of refusing chevrons to unwounded officers and men for the year or years of their captivity; and whether he will recommend the granting of such chevrons on conditions similar to the granting of the Mons star to unwounded officers and men?
    Mr. BRUNNERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any distinction is made between wounded and unwounded prisoners of war with regard to the wearing of the 1914 star and ribbon and service chevrons; and whether he will state the reasons for such distinction, if any?
    Mr. HOPE: I am informed by the military authorities that the Army Council have decided that both wounded and unwounded prisoners of war shall count time spent in captivity towards the award of additional chevrons. No distinction is made in the award of the 1914 star.

    ESCAPED BRITISH PRISONERS.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the alleged harsh treatment by the War Office of British soldiers who have returned after escaping from Germany; and, if so, can he make any statement in regard to the matter generally, and also in regard to the specific instances mentioned?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): In connection with this question my hon. Friend has brought to my notice
    2470
    certain statements which appeared recently in the Press. The first was that an escaped officer prisoner of war is ruined in his military career. This is not true. The conditions of the promotion of officer prisoners of war are laid down in Article 47 of the Royal Warrant for Pay, Promotion, etc. The Army Council have decided that one step in rank only shall be given while an officer remains in captivity, and that, after release, promotion should be given, as far as practicable, by promotion to the substantive rank—such promotion being antedated—for which officers would have been selected had they not been taken prisoners.
    The next point was that officer prisoners of war whilst in captivity are charged with the cost of their food. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary is answering later which deals with the matter. I would add to his reply that, as far as I am aware, the same arrangements are made by the Dominion Governments. I cannot say what the position is as regards all our Allies, but I understand that, in the case of the French Army, officers do not receive full pay while they are prisoners of war. A further statement dealt with the treatment of an escaped prisoner of war on arrival in this country. I have no knowledge of the case referred to, but I know that every assistance and kindness is extended to escaped prisoners of war. They are received by civil and military officials on arrival at a British port, and sent to London where they report to the War Office. They are detained in London only long enough to complete their interviews with officials at the War Office and with the Government Committees which inquire into the treatment received whilst in enemy hands. They are then given three months' leave, and issued with free travelling warrants to their own homes. As to the other points, if my hon. Friend means the same officer as I mean, it is not true that he was sent for by the War Office, nor is it true that he was placed under arrest, nor called a fool with an expletive by a high War Office official.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: Will it be possible now for the War Office to recognise the escaped officer and men prisoners who behaved with such extraordinary gallantry, by the granting of honours and awards?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I think my answer shows that we are very fully alive to this question. With regard to the granting of

    2471
    honours, prisoners of war are entitled to wear the Mons ribbon. Certainly repatriated prisoners are entitled to wear it, and both wounded and unwounded officers and men are entitled to wear the chevrons.
    General CROFT: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether escaped officers and men who ran such tremendous risks should not be eligible for the Distinguished Service Order, the Military Cross, and the Military Medal?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No, Sir; I cannot add anything to the answer that I have given.

    GERMAN PRISONERS.
    Colonel McCALMONTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case in which a party of German prisoners were found stealing potatoes from fields at night; whether these prisoners were supposed to be under military guard; and what steps have been taken to deal with those responsible and to prevent the recurrence of such an incident?
    Mr. HOPE: I am informed by the military authorities that the report asked for on this case has not yet been supplied.
    Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these guards are provided with ammunition or not?
    Mr. HOPE: I imagine that they are provided with ammunition.
    Colonel McCALMONTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether a farmer's son was recently fined for giving a shot-gun to German prisoners; what form of supervision was being exercised over these prisoners at the time; and what action has been taken in the matter?
    Mr. HOPE: In view of the particulars supplied by my hon. and gallant Friend, the War Office have called for an early and detailed report on this case, but it has not yet come to hand.
    Colonel McCALMONTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether a party of German prisoners driven in a motor lorry through Edgware on the 30th October gave offence to local inhabitants by singing, whistling, and shouting to passers-by; what form of control or discipline was being exercised over this party at the time; and what steps have been taken in this matter?
    Mr. HOPE: The military authorities inform me that they have been unable to obtain any confirmation of any such incident as is suggested in the question.

    TREATMENT IN GERMANY.
    General CROFTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has ascertained if escaped and exchanged prisoners of war are forbidden to give information regarding their treatment as prisoners in Germany; and, if so, by whom and on whose instructions such orders are given?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the statement which I made on Wednesday last.
    General CROFT: I beg to give the right hon. Gentleman notice that I shall raise this question in the Debate on the Vote of Credit.

    OFFICERS' PAY (FOOD).
    Mr. BRUNNERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether officer prisoners of war have had deductions made from their pay for food supplied to them in Germany; whether this food was practically non-existent, necessitating large expenditure by their relatives on parcels; and whether any steps will be taken to refund these deductions?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): Deductions are not made from the pay of officers for food while prisoners. They receive a regulated amount of pay from the captor Government and purchase with it such food as they may require, and can obtain, the rest of their pay and allowances being credited to them at home.

    DISTINGUISHED FIELD SERVICE.
    Mr. BRUNNERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether officers commanding units who have been prisoners of war are allowed to bring to notice the names of officers, non-commissioned officers, and men under their command who especially distinguished themselves in the field but on such occasion were taken prisoner; and, if they are not so allowed, whether he will state the reasons?
    Mr. HOPE: I am informed by the military authorities that it is permissible for an officer commanding a unit who has been a prisoner of war to bring to the

    2473
    notice of his superior commander in the field such cases of conspicuous bravery, provided the responsible commander is satisfied that the individual has been captured through no fault of his own.

  ARMISTICE TERMS (TURKEY).

    ARMENIA.
    Mr. BUXTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the reports of disorder in the Armenian vilayets; and whether the Allies will take steps to place without delay detachments of Allied troops at the chief centres of population, in accordance with the provisions of the armistice, in order to prevent the occurrence of massacres on a large scale requiring the employment of large forces?
    Mr. BALFOUR: The hon. Member may rest assured that the Allied Governments and their executive officers on the spot will exercise the utmost vigilance in regard to Armenia, and that all possible steps will be taken to protect the population.
    Mr. BUXTON: May we assume that the Allies are in a position to send relief wherever it is necessary to prevent starvation?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I can hardly give any promise of that kind. If my hon. Friend will reflect upon the gigantic area of the country in Europe and in the East where food conditions are unsatisfactory, he will see that I can give no pledge that food will be allocated to any particular district.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    RUSSIAN SUBJECTS (POLISH ORIGIN).
    Sir HERBERT NIELDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether, as His Majesty's Government has recognised the political independence of Poland as far back as May, 1917, he can inform the House if it is by arrangement with the National Polish Committee that Poles continue to be conscripted in this country and forced into labour battalions; whether such action is authorised by any convention or other act of the State; if not, by what authority has his Department informed the King's Bench
    2474
    Division of the High Court of Justice that these persons are still to be regarded as Russian subjects?
    (2) Whether he is aware that resentment has been aroused by the persistence of the Ministry of National Service and of the military authorities in treating the subjects of Poland in this country as the subjects of Russia for the purpose of Conscription; whether, with a view to encourage feelings of amity and international good will, these men will be given the right to serve in combatant units, and will not be compelled to serve in labour battalions?
    (3) The Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Polish subjects, the political independence of whose country was officially recognised as far back as May, 1917, are still being recruited compulsorily under the guise of Russian subjects and, instead of being permitted to join ordinary Infantry units, are being forced into labour battalions in the same manner as though they were incapable of any intelligent military service and were mere serfs; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    (4) The Minister of National Service whether he proposes to continue to press for compulsory enlistment of subjects of Poland, the independence of whose country has been officially recognised by His Majesty's Government as far back as May, 1917; whether he claims to conscript these men under any convention; if so, what; if he will state what the military value of these men is either as members of labour units or otherwise; and whether he will explain why money is spent in conscripting them and in endeavouring to insist upon the Courts regarding them as Russian subjects in view of the recognition of Poland's independence?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I propose to answer together the four questions which the hon. Member has on the Paper with regard to Russian subjects of Polish origin, and would refer him to the replies returned to the hon. Member for North Somerset on 24th June last, and to the hon. Member for Perth on 29th July. I think that the military authorities must decide the corps in which such persons can be most usefully employed.

    ARMY SERVICE CORPS.
    Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Under-Secretary of

    2475
    State for War whether he is aware that Farrier John Johnson, No. 8282, Army Service Corps, aged forty-nine, Category B2, who was invalided home from Salonika as unfit for further service, after severe attacks of malaria and rheumatism, is now serving in France and sleeping under canvas; and whether, in view of his age and low medical category, he would make arrangements to send this man home, where employment is waiting for him?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am making inquiry in this case and will write to my Noble Friend as soon as I am in a position to do so.

    RETIRING OFFICERS (HONORARY RANK).
    Colonel McCALMONTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, under the present system of granting honorary rank to officers on retirement, an officer who is granted temporary or acting rank for the command of troops, and who fails to hold such rank for six months owing to wounds sickness, or the arrival of a senior officer, will not receive such honorary rank on retirement, whereas officers granted rank for non-fighting services run no such risks of losing it; and whether he will state the grounds upon which this discrimination is shown against the fighting officer?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: There is no discrimination in this matter. No officer loses his temporary or acting rank when sick or wounded, but any officer relinquishes his acting rank when the permanent holder of the appointment returns.
    Colonel McCALMONT: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the order under which officers who fall sick or are wounded retain their acting rank is a comparatively recent issue, and that many hundreds did lose their rank at the beginning of the War owing to being wounded or falling sick? Is there not therefore a distinct favour shown to those who did not undergo those hardships of war?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not think so. I think that a Committee investigated the matter.
    Colonel McCALMONT: What Committee?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not know. I will make inquiries and inform my hon. and gallant friend.

    LEAVE (B CLASSES).
    Colonel BURNasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if men who are classed B2 can only obtain six days' leave in every nine months while B1 men are granted the same privilege every six months; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I presume my hon. and gallant Friend refers to the issue of warrants for free railway journeys. Troops who are liable for service abroad may be allowed a free railway journey to proceed on leave every six months while those who who are not available for service overseas may be granted the same concession once every nine months. In addition to these free journeys, all soldiers serving in the United Kingdom may be granted not more than six return journeys or twelve single journeys a year at one-half the old rates.

    ONE-MAN BUSINESSES.
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if, on the declaration of peace, he will immediately release from military service all men who, prior to enlistment, were engaged in single-men businesses and also key men who are necessary for the re-establishment of ordinary business pursuits?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The scheme of demobilisation provides that special consideration shall be given to the claims for early release of those men who, prior to the war, were engaged in single-men businesses, or are key men who are necessary for the re-establishment of important trades or industries.
    Sir J. SPEAR: Would that apply to ploughman and skilled men generally in agriculture?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I will look into that question. I am not quite sure of my facts, but I will put forward the representation.

    ARMY SERVICE CORPS (PRIVATE LEE).
    Mr. COTTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War why the discharge from the Army is being delayed of Private W. W. Lee, No. 339549, Army Service Corps, Mechanical Transport, who was invalided from France, and, after being in

    2477
    hospital at Halifax, Norwood, and Croydon, has again been admitted to hospital in this country; and whether this man is now totally unfit for military service?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid my hon. Friend is misinformed. Private Lee is fit for military service in category B2, and I regret therefore that his discharge on medical grounds cannot be sanctioned.
    Mr. COTTON: Is the right hon Gentleman aware that this man is again in hospital now?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: All I know is that he is fit for military service in category B2.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the Home Secretary if he will place upon the Table of the House the recent correspondence he has had on the question of the conscientious objectors now imprisoned?
    Mr. BRACE: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Can copies of this correspondence be obtained, and has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to placing them in the Library?
    Mr. BRACE: It is a correspondence we do not think ought to be placed on the Table of the House. If the hon. Member wants it, he will find copies in the Press.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the Home Secretary if he will say how many conscientious objectors are now imprisoned and how many are under medical treatment?
    Mr. BRACE: There are 1,382 such prisoners at present in custody in the prisons in England and Wales. To ascertain how many of these are under medical treatment would require reference to every prison.

  BRITISH GRAVES IN FRANCE.
  Mr. STANTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if his Department will, after a reasonable time has passed and peace been declared, consider some scheme whereby those who have sons, husbands, or brothers buried upon the battlefields of France may have free passes to visit the graves at the nation's expense?
  Mr. FORSTER: This proposal shall be very carefully considered.

  DEMOBILISATION.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there is anxiety among the troops serving abroad as to the plans of the Government for demobilisation of the forces; and if the Government will circulate the outlines of their plans for demobilisation among the troops before the cessation of hostilities?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I am fully aware of the importance of the diffusion amongst the troops serving abroad of information as to the Government plans for the demobilisation of the forces. Arrangements have been made by which full information concerning the method of demobilisation will be given to the troops when the situation is suitable. Lectures are already being given at the front dealing with the outlines of the procedure to be adopted.

  DEMOBILISATION.

    MARRIED MEN (RELEASE).
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Prime Minister whether on demobilisation the urgent claims of the elder married men to immediate release will be favourably considered?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The claims of married men to early release have been recognised, and it has been provided in the scheme of demobilisation that, other conditions being equal, married men shall be selected in preference to single men for the drafts for disposal.

    TEMPORARY NAVAL OFFICERS.
    Colonel YATEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what provision has been made for the payment of a gratuity to temporary naval officers on demobilisation similar to that payable to temporary Army officers of corresponding rank?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir. I need hardly remind my hon. and gallant Friend that the conditions affecting the two Services, including, as they do, prize money for the Navy, are too dissimilar to warrant precise uniformity of treatment.

  GENERAL RESERVE OFFICERS (PROMOTION).
  Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary for War if he can now state what decision has been arrived at by the Army

  2479
  Council regarding the promotion of officers of the General Reserve of the rank of lieutenant-colonel who have hitherto been refused promotion in spite of the provisions of the Royal Warrant and the Army Council Instructions under which they are eligible for it?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I stated the decision in this matter in reply to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend on the 22nd October. The regulations governing the selection of lieutenant-colonels for promotion to full colonel are not applicable to officers on the reserve of officers, but such officers are eligible for brevet promotion to colonel.
  Colonel YATE: Where is it stated that these lieutenant-colonels are not eligible for promotion to colonel?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot recollect at present, but I will find out and inform my hon. and gallant Friend.
  Colonel YATE: I will put down another question.

  COAL SUPPLY (RELEASE OF MINERS).
  Mr. WINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if it is possible to release early a large number of miners, in view of the shortage of coal?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: This question is constantly receiving attention, and coal-miners are released from the Army from time to time in accordance with the decisions of the War Cabinet. In view of the present situation, as many additional miners as possible who are serving at home will be released, and I understand some are being released from France.

  GENERAL ELECTION

    SOLDIERS IN UNIFORM.
    Colonel LESLIE WILSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the majority of the male population between the ages of eighteen and fifty are serving in the forces, he will amend, for the period of the War, King's Regulation No. 451, which the Government has announced is to be rigorously enforced and which will prevent any soldier attending any political meeting if in
    Mr. MACPHERSON: It has been decided in the event of a General Election taking place that officers, non-commissioned officers, or privates will in no case be allowed to appear in uniform as candidates, agents, members of election committees or canvassers. Officers and soldiers home on leave or stationed at home when off duty will, however, be allowed to attend meetings in uniform to learn the views of candidates.
    Colonel W. THORNE: Will it be a breach of the Regulations if a soldier in uniform does any work for a candidate?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, certainly, in uniform.
    Mr. KENNEDY JONES: Will a soldier in uniform be permitted to ask a question or to make a speech?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I should certainly think that the making of a speech was within Regulation 451; but as to asking questions, in my judgment he would be quite justified in doing so.
    Mr. JONES: Who is going to decide where a question ends and a speech begins?
    Colonel McCALMONT: If application is made, will permission be given to wear private clothes?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I think so, certainly.

  CANTEEN BOARD (IRELAND).
  Colonel McCALMONTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War the number of civilians employed under the Canteen Board in Ireland who have never served in the armed forces of the Crown, and how many of these are of military age; whether there have been a number of applications from ex-Service men for these appointments; and whether men of military age who have never served will be replaced forthwith wherever ex-Service men are available and qualified?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The total number of men employed by the Navy and Army Canteen Board in Ireland who are between the ages of eighteen and fifty-one is 919. This number includes ex-Service men and unfit. Owing to the fact that there is no compulsory medical examination in Ireland, it is impossible to state what proportion would have been fit for military service. Arrangements have

  2481
  been made whereby ex-Service men who are available and qualified are given employment in preference to any others.

  ARMY DOCTORS (WOMEN).
  Colonel THORNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he can give any reason why the War Office refuse commissions to women doctors; and if he will take action in the matter?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave on Wednesday last to my hon. Friend the Member for London University. I am informed that, even if the Government agreed to the proposal, there is no possibility of the necessary legislation being introduced this Session.

  YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION HUTS.
  General CROFTasked (1) the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has any official information showing that the Young Men's Christian Association huts in France are being used as propaganda centres for certain political views; and whether he will make full inquiry into this matter, so that huts provided by national generosity may not be used in promoting, directly or indirectly, any political cause; (2) the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in the Young Men's Christian Association huts in France, trading is carried on at a profit; whether there is independent auditing of the funds of this society; and, if so, who is the independent auditor?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I have no official information which would enable me to answer No. 33, but I will make inquiries if my hon. and gallant Friend will furnish any information he possesses. The other question does not concern my Department, and I am not in a position to answer it.
  General CROFT: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me what Department is responsible for looking into the question whether the Young Men's Christian Assosiation is trading in France; and is it not a fact that they are trading under a charter from the War Office?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid this is purely a financial question. I cannot answer straight off. I will make inquiries.

  SALONIKA FORCES (LEAVE).
  Mr. BRUNNERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the men now coming home on leave from Salonika travel from Taranto to Cherbourg in box trucks, thirty per truck; whether the journey takes eight days and the men get no hot meal on the journey; and whether men who have served over three years without leave get only three weeks' leave?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, Sir, I am aware of the accommodation provided. Unfortunately, it is the best which we can provide. The wagons are covered in and are heated during the winter. The journey takes eight days, including the various halts, which vary from twelve to twenty-four hours. Hot meals are served to the troops at the halts. The period of leave is limited to twenty-one days to enable as many as possible to obtain leave.
  Colonel WHITE: Are there no rest halts in Italy, or are they only in France?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not quite sure about that. I know there are rest halts along certain parts of the line, but whether or not there are any in Italy I cannot say. I will inquire.

  INFLUENZA EPIDEMIC.

    PRINCE OF WALES'S HOSPITAL, MARYLEBONE.
    Captain CARR-GOMMasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many patients at the Prince of Wales's Hospital, Great Central Hotel, Marylebone, have died from influenza during the recent outbreak; and whether any attempt has been made to isolate the cases?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am having further inquiries made, and will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend as soon as possible.
    Colonel C. LOWTHER: Are not some of these deaths due to the paucity of food, which has become quite proverbial?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot say that, but I do assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I got a very full report from the investigation officer, and I should like to show both my hon. and gallant Friends that report.
    Colonel LOWTHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, I will, certainly.
    Captain CARR-GOMM: Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the heads of the Medical Department of the War Office the advisability of considering a general inquiry into the arrangements for sending new patients to hospitals where this influenza is rife, and also the advisability of taking steps to prevent men being sent there when it would risk their getting influenza?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend's supplementary question arises out of the original question, but I will certainly ask the medical authorities of the War Office to look into the matter.
    General CROFT: In view of the repeated doubts in regard to this hospital, would it not be wise to get rid of the German-Swiss manager there?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not think that point arises out of the question. I have written my hon. and gallant Friend on the question.

    CADET DEPOT, HAMPSTEAD.
    Mr. SMALLWOOD (by Private Notice)asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there has been a serious epidemic of influenza at the cadet depot, at Hampstead, and that the friends of boys who have died have made serious complaints of the breakdown of medical requirements, to which they attribute the deaths of the boys, and will he at once institute inquiries into these statements and say under what conditions cadets are now being housed, and medically treated?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I only got notice of this Private Notice question this afternoon and I have no information as to the facts, but I will make inquiry the moment I return to the War Office and communicate the result to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. SMALLWOOD: I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Estimate.
    Colonel W. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the National Service Department and get as many coffin-makers as can be got back as soon as possible in consequence of the deaths from the influenza epidemic, as there are hundreds of bodies in this country uncoffined?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. and gallant Friend came to see me about this matter at the War Office and I think that he will find that we have endeavoured to assist his branch, and I am quite sure that any representations made from any other branch will receive consideration.

  ARMY BOUNTY.
  Sir H. HARRISasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether Thomas Lee, late private No. 78614, Middlesex Regiment, has been refused the bounty usually granted to men retained in the Army beyond their period of service, on the ground that the time during which he was a prisoner of war could not be counted as service in the British Army; whether he was retained in the Army until his discharge in May, 1918, after his period of service had expired; and whether he will take steps to remedy this case of hardship?
  Mr. FORSTER: Inquiry is being made, and I will acquaint my hon. Friend of the result as soon as possible.

  ARMY DENTAL TREATMENT.
  Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will consider the advisability of so extending Army Council Instruction 1,187 of 1918 as to include provision, if desired, for dental treatment prior to discharge of all soldiers returning from abroad whose teeth have deteriorated during their period of active service, and also to provide for the dental treatment, if desired, of all returned prisoners of war whose teeth have deteriorated during captivity?
  Mr. FORSTER: This suggestion is not free from difficulty, but I will consider the question.

  ARMY OFFICERS (RETIRED PAY).
  Colonel McCALMONTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether under the existing Royal Warrant many Regular officers who have held lieutenant-colonel's and brigadier-general's commands in the field will have to retire on annual retired pay varying from £80 after fifteen years' service to £300 after twenty-eight years; and whether, in view of the altered conditions since 1914, the whole question of retired pay will be reconsidered?
  Mr. FORSTER: As regards the officers who commanded a brigade, I would refer to my reply of the 21st October to the hon. and gallant Member for Christchurch promising consideration. I do not think that retirement on £80 after fifteen years' service is likely to overtake any Regular officer who has held a lieutenant-colonel's command in the field.

  WOUNDED SOLDIERS (RELATIVES' RAILWAY VOUCHERS).
  Colonel THORNEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the reasons why only one railway voucher is allowed when a father and mother of a wounded son or relative wish to travel to a military hospital in the various parts of the country; and whether he will take action in the matter?
  Mr. FORSTER: I am not quite sure what my hon. Friend has in mind, as under present arrangements the voucher enables a father and mother to travel at reduced fares in this country in the circumstances narrated in the question. Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me the particulars of the case in point.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Mr. CROOKSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the childless wife of a soldier receiving family allowance can claim the supplemental allowance of 6s. 6d. if the conditions laid down in the new regulation are fulfilled?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen): The answer is in the affirmative.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    OFFICERS' WIVES' ALLOWANCES.
    Colonel YATEasked the Prime Minister what decision has been arrived at by the Cabinet Committee regarding increased allowances to the wives, children, and dependants of officers?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: This matter has been carefully considered by the Cabinet Committee, and I regret that it has not been found possible to make any increase in the allowances referred to.
    Colonel YATE: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that the officers deserve the same increase as the men?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, I fully realise that. I feel as strongly as my hon. and gallant Friend that whatever was given to the men should be given to the officers. This decision was arrived at on that basis.

    ROYAL WARRANT (MEN WOUNDED IN FORMER WARS).
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Pensions Minister whether the increased rate of pensions payable under the recent Royal Warrant dealing with men partially disabled in former wars is intended to be strictly limited to the specific injuries set out in Schedule 1 of the Royal Warrant of 1917; and, if so, whether he will consider a modification of this limitation in view of the fact that it results in very severely wounded men, who have not suffered amputation of a limb though seriously handicapped in the labour market, being deprived of an increase which may be granted to a man who has lost a thumb or two fingers only?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The increased rate payable under the recent Royal Warrant is strictly limited to the specific injuries set out in the Schedule. The question whether it is possible to extend the benefit to other classes of partially disabled men is under consideration.

    GLOUCESTERSHIRE REGIMENT (PRIVATE CARNOCK).
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Pensions Minister whether Private A. Carnock, No. 15321, 10th Gloucestershire Regiment, after

    2487
    two years' service abroad, was discharged suffering from tuberculosis; that with a wife and nine children he was pensioned at 50 per cent. only; that his daughter contracted tuberculosis from the father; that, whilst the father is now being given treatment away from home, the daughter has died and the local war pensions committee has refused the wife's application for the £2 10s. funeral fee; and will he at once deal with this matter?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Private Carnock was invalided from the Army with tubercle of the lung, the disablement being assessed at 50 per cent. He was last medically boarded in December, when the disablement was assessed at 30 per cent., but while he is under treatment and away from home he receives the equivalent of full pension and children's allowances as though he were totally disabled. The grant of the £2 10s. funeral fee is limited to the children of serving soldiers, and the local committee has no authority to extend the grant to the child of a discharged man.

    SEPARATION ALLOWANCE.
    Mr. NUGENTasked the Pensions Minister, whether his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. Maguire, of Shercock, county Down, mother of Private Thomas Maguire, No. 31513, and is he aware that previous to joining the Army Thomas Maguire was in receipt of 13s. 9d. per week as a rural postman and earned from 10s. to 20s. per week in repairs to bicycles; whether he is aware that the allowance of 9s. 6d. per week was granted as a dependant's allowance to Mrs. Maguire, but that no amount has been paid, and that a letter, dated 30th October, 1918, No. 321 and 2,784, D. 2, Accts. 3, from the War Office, St. Martin's Place, London, intimated that she had got the right to appeal, but not stating what amount or whether any sum would be paid her; and will he see that the case gets attention, and this woman gets a separation allowance based on the full income of Private Maguire previous to his joining the Army?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think the hon. Member will find, on further inquiry, that an allowance of 5s. a week is being paid. The local pension authorities are not agreed as to the actual amount of dependency. Mrs. Maguire has been told by the War Office how to appeal, but has not yet done so.
    Mr. NUGENT: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the letter which was addressed to Mrs. Maguire?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, I do not think I have.

    LONG-SERVICE PENSIONS.
    Sir H. HARRISasked the Pension Minister whether he is aware that in the assessment of the alternative pensions of discharged men and widows of deceased men a man's long-service pension is not deemed to be earnings, although a Reservist's pay is so reckoned; and whether, seeing that a long-service pension has been earned by the man for services rendered to his country, he will explain why such pension should be treated as different from other earnings?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The basis of the alternative pension is loss of earning capacity, the actual "earnings" being taken as the index of that capacity as existing before the War. A long-service pension is awarded in respect of past service and without reference to existing capacity, and therefore it cannot be taken into account in the assessment of an alternative pension. Reserve pay is in the nature of a retaining fee for service to be rendered in certain contingencies, and is thus on a different footing.

  PRISONERS (AMNESTY).
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Prime Minister whether the Government intends to declare an amnesty for political prisoners?
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether before the General Election the Government will order an amnesty of those prisoners who are at present in prison for offences under the Defence of the Realm and Military Service Acts on charges involving no moral turpitude and many without trial; and especially whether the Irish political prisoners in English gaols will be allowed freedom and facilities in cases where they are Parliamentary agents or candidates?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am unable to make any statement on this subject at present.
  Mr. KING: Can we be assured that the case of the Irish prisoners who are candidates for Parliament is under consideration, or does the Government intend to put all political opponents into prison in order to secure a walk over?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Oh, no! To put some of them in prison would increase their chances. All I can say is that the subject is being considered.
  Mr. KING: Where will the line be drawn?
  Mr. LOUGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will give a decision on this matter; will it be when he makes an announcement about the General Election?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot make any promise about it.

  VENEREAL DISEASE.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the Regulation 40D is regarded as offensive by the female sex, is unjust between male and female and between female and female, and is moreover futile as a health measure, the Government will take steps to withdraw the Regulation?
  Mr. BRACE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. I cannot accept the hon. Member's statements, but a Committee is now inquiring into the working of the Regulation.
  Mr. DILLON: Will not the right hon. Gentleman, in common justice, suspend the operation of this Regulation until the Committee reports, or until the House of Commons has had an opportunity of discussing the matter?
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this question will militate very largely against the success of the Prime Minister at the next election, unless he removes it?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: As this Committee has been sitting for several weeks, can the right hon. Gentleman say when it will report?
  Mr. BRACE: I cannot say, but I will see if we can expedite the Report.
  Mr. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question: Will he suspend the operation of this Regulation pending the Report of the Committee, or an opportunity being afforded the House of giving a decision on the matter?
  Mr. BRACE: No; I cannot promise what nay hon. Friend asks.

  SUPREME WAR COUNCIL (REPRESENTATION OF DOMINIONS).
  Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the disappointment caused to the country at the non-inclusion of a representative of our Overseas Dominions at the recent Versailles Conference; and will this omission be rectified at any similar Conference which it may be necessary to summon?
  Mr. MACMASTERasked the Prime Minister if the self-governing Dominions overseas were represented at and participated in the recent discussions in Paris with regard to an armistice; if so, who respectively represented those Dominions; and, in any event, will these Dominions be fully consulted in regard to the terms of peace and enabled to be represented at the Peace Conference, and to participate in the discussions previous to the signing of the Peace, or to the making of any other arrangements for securing the preservation of the peace of the world in the future?
  Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Prime Minister whether steps were taken to ascertain the views of the Dominion Governments principally concerned before the recent Conference at Versailles at which the terms were agreed upon which the Allies were prepared to grant an armistice; and, if not, whether at any future important conferences arrangements will be made for the opinion of the Dominions to be represented, in view of the efforts and sacrifices made by them in the present War?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer my hon. Friends to the statement which appeared in the Press on Saturday, in which the position is fully explained.
  Mr. MACMASTER: Is it not a fact that the statement which appeared in the Press on Saturday made no reference to the representation of the Dominions at the Paris Conference; and will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Dominions were directly represented at that Conference, when the question of the fourteen points of President Wilson was under consideration?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No; they were not. It must be obvious to my hon. Friend that the Dominions, as a whole, could not possibly be there. A definite promise was given by this Government that they would

  2491
  have their full share in the Peace negotiations. The Armistice terms is quite a different subject.
  Colonel LOWTHER: Why was not Mr. Hughes, who was in this country, not invited?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I really do not think one can go into details. I do not think it would be wise for me to add anything.
  Mr. MACMASTER: Are not the Peace negotiations perfectly distinct from the question which was under consideration at the Conference, that being how far the Conference was able to assent to the terms laid down by President Wilson—the fourteen points?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: In my view there is no real connection between the Peace Conference and the Armistice terms, because with the exception of one clause everything that the Allies and ourselves and the Dominions have ever asked can be claimed under these conditions.

  TRADE UNION CONDITIONS (RESTORATION).
  Mr. PRINGLEasked the Prime Minister when the promised statement of Government policy with regard to the restoration of trade union conditions will be made; whether an opportunity will be given to the House to discuss the statement; and, if so, when?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for York on the 7th of November.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to give a reply on the question before the House rises?
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the delay of the Government in dealing with the matter is arousing an immense amount of suspicion in the country?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope not. I think I have already given a definite reply, which is that the Government intends to introduce a Bill but has no hope of doing so this Session.

  OATH OF ALLEGIANCE (CIVIL SERVANTS).
  Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister what obligations the oath of allegiance imposes on Civil servants; if he is aware that various trade union bodies in Ireland have passed resolutions against the taking of it under compulsion; and if he will have the order withdrawn or made optional for Civil servants to take?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The obligation of the oath of allegiance in this case is precisely the same as in the case of a Member of Parliament.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether, in considering the League of Nations as one of President Wilson's fourteen points, any definition of the term "nation" has been reached; if so, what is that definition; and whether it is to be taken that the Yugo-Slavs are a nation and the Irish and Scottish peoples are not a nation?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The latter parts do not, therefore, arise.

  PROPAGANDA IN ENEMY COUNTRIES.
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether the propaganda in enemy countries directed by Lord Northcliffe includes propaganda in Russia; and whether propaganda in those enemy countries with which armistices have been concluded is being restricted, modified, or discontinued?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, this propaganda will be discontinued.

  MOST-FAVOURED-NATION CLAUSE.
  Mr. RUNCIMANasked the Prime Minister if he can now make his promised statement on the numbers of commercial treaties which have been denounced with the object of getting rid of the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause; and what provision is to take the place of this Clause?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: A statement on this subject will be made before the House rises, but I cannot yet name the exact day.

  GOLD PRODUCTION.
  Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether the Committee appointed to consider means of increasing the gold production of the Empire has reported; and if the Government will be in a position before the Dissolution of Parliament to announce as a result of that Report any measures which it may contemplate taking in conjunction with our Oversea Dominions?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, but I understand that the Committee hope to be in a position to report at an early date.

  INSURANCE AGENTS (WAR BONUS).
  Sir ALFRED YEOasked the Prime Minister if he has received a communication from the insurance agents asking that their companies may be empowered to grant them a war bonus; if so, what is the position in relation thereto, seeing that this is already being done by some companies; whether he is aware of the unrest among the thousands of these men because they are being told that the large companies have not the power under their charters to grant bonuses; and, if so, whether he will take such steps as will enable the companies to put their men on a war bonus basis as other workers?
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a Committee was appointed by the Ministry of Labour to inquire into the request for a war bonus by the superintendents and agents of the Prudential Assurance Company, and that the Report of the Committee has not yet been issued, but a statement has been made that the company cannot afford to pay a war bonus through the effects of the War; is he aware of the dissatisfaction which has been caused amongst the staff who have to meet the increase in the cost of living out of pre-war incomes; whether the Government intends to give the matter further consideration; and, if there are any difficulties
  2494
  in the way of the company paying a war bonus, will the Government take the necessary action to remove them?
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Roberts): I have been asked to reply to these questions. I understand that my right hon. Friend has received a communication from the insurance agents, but I am not in a position to add anything to the replies which I have already given on this subject. I would refer specially to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Newbury on 12th June.
  Sir A. YEO: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a good deal of unrest amongst this intelligent and industrious class of the population, and that if something is not soon done the Labour Department will be up against a great problem with which they will have great difficulty in dealing?
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: Does the hon. Gentleman's, answer mean that nothing whatever is going to be done to meet the claims of this deserving class, and are they not, in his opinion, equally deserving as other classes of industrial workers?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I am aware of the unrest which exists among these agents, but of course it is difficult to decide what the Government can do in the matter, which ultimately resolves itself into a lack of organisation on the part of the men themselves.
  Sir A. YEO: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some companies are paying a war bonus, and that in some parts of the United Kingdom already a strike has been precipitated?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I think I am aware of those facts.
  Mr. BYRNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this House twelve months ago appointed a Committee to look into the matter, and it made a recommendation asking the Government to insist on the insurance companies paying a bonus, and what has become of the Committee's recommendation?
  Mr. ROWLANDS: Was the hon. Gentleman replying to No. 54 or No. 60 in his second reply?
  Mr. ROBERTS: No. 60. I am aware that one of the Industrial Unrest Commissions raised the question of the wages or salaries of insurance agents. I then

  2495
  did all that was possible within my power to get an arrangement between the parties, but, having failed in that purpose, I am afraid I have exhausted all my powers. Any further suggestion which is made to me I shall be very glad to consider.

  LAW OF NATIONALITY.
  Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation in the near future dealing with the Law of Naturalisation and the status of Aliens?
  Mr. BRACE: No, Sir, not at present. There are, however, certain questions arising under the law of nationality, which were not dealt with in the Act passed last August, and which are under consideration in consultation with the Overseas Dominions with a view to legislation if necessary at a convenient time.
  Mr. McNEILL: When is this legislation likely to be introduced?
  Mr. BRACE: I am afraid not this Parliament.

  NAVAL ENGINEERS (HONOURS).
  Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that in the Royal Navy I engineer official out of 23, 1 medical officer out of 12, 1 accountant out of 9, and 1 executive officer out of 4 have received honours; if he can explain and will inquire into this difference which gives the engineer officers less than half the honours given to the accountants' branch; and if he will consider the matter?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I have been asked to answer this question. The numbers mentioned in my hon. and gallant Friend's question are not concurred in as accurate, and therefore I am unable to follow him closely in his comparisons. It is, however, undoubtedly the fact that, owing to the different duties of the various branches, individual acts of gallantry, initiative, leadership, and so forth, come more prominently into view in some branches than in others. The Board recently decided that this question required consideration, especially with reference to the engineer branch, and it is now engaging their attention.

  DUBLIN (DIVERSION OF TRADE).
  Mr. BRADYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why no cargoes of sugar, tea, or tobacco have been sent to the Custom House Docks, Dublin, during the current year, thus depriving the Dublin Port and Docks Board of their fair share of the storage; and whether he will take steps to remedy this state of things?
  Mr. BYRNEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller why no cargoes of sugar, tea, or tobacco have been sent to the Custom House Docks, Dublin, during the current year; why the Dublin Port and Docks Board is deprived of this trade; and if he will take steps to prevent Dublin traffic being diverted to other ports?
  Mr. FIELDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state what measures have been taken to prevent the diversion of traffic from Dublin and to restore its normal conditions of importation?
  Mr. NUGENTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of a complaint made by the manager of the Port and Docks Board, Dublin, with reference to the diversion of trade from Dublin to other ports; if he is aware that in the statement published by the secretary of the Port and Docks it is alleged that the stock of sugar on 31st December, 1917, was 48,000 bags, and on the 30th October, 1918, 1,379 bags; that no foreign sugar cargo has been sent to Ireland during the current year, although many have been sent to London, Liverpool, Manchester, Bristol, and Glasgow, involving transhipment, expense, and delay, and incidentally depriving the Board of their share of the storage; if he is aware that the normal stock of tobacco was 2,800 hogsheads, but that it is now 558 hogsheads, whilst the total imports into the United Kingdom were 170,000 hogsheads, 178,000 hogsheads, and 106,000, respectively, in 1915, 1916, and 1917, and 78,000 this year; that all tobacco is now being handled for Ireland at Liverpool and Manchester, where congestion is rife and delays vexatious, and the cost of cross-Channel freights have to be borne by the importers in Dublin, so that the Board are again deprived of their share of storage; if he is aware that the normal stock of tea was roughly 700,000 lbs., whereas the present stock is

  2497
  only 35,000 lbs.; that all Irish teas are now handled exclusively at Liverpool and Manchester, and the same remarks as to cost and delay apply as in the case of tobacco; whether he is aware of the proportions that the pilferage of tea has assumed; whether he is aware that the total stock of tea in bond in the United Kingdom on the 30th September was 90,000,000 lbs. against a normal 150,000,000 lbs. of five months' supply; that the proportion of the normal was ½ per cent., and the proportion of the present stock is only 1/25th of 1 per cent.; whether he is aware that the Board have exhausted every effort in making their representation to the Tea and Tobacco Controllers of the inconvenience and expense caused to the Irish consumers by reason of the neutral traffic being diverted to English ports, and the loss of revenue thereby caused to the Board; that the Sugar Commission informed the manager of the Dublin ports that they cannot see their way to send another sugar cargo direct to Ireland at present; and that this is detrimental to the port of Dublin and the Irish trade generally; and, if so, what action he intends to take in the matter?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): I have been asked to reply to these questions. We are fully aware of the difficulties referred to in these questions, which have been caused, as I explained to the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin on 6th November, solely by the exigencies of war. With regard to sugar, not only are supplies restricted, but for a long time past only unrefined sugar has been available, and this has had to be brought first to England to be refined. In the case of tea, I am informed that it was never delivered direct to Ireland in any quantity. Tobacco is still shipped direct by the Head Line, but calls are unfortunately fewer owing to losses and necessary diversions. We earnestly hope, however, that in the new situation which now obtains normal conditions can presently be resumed.

  ACETATE OF CELLULOSE COMPANY (INQUIRY).
  Mr. DILLONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cause of the delay in carrying out the inquiry into the affairs of the Acetate of Cellulose Company;
  2498
  what procedure has been settled by the Commission of Inquiry; and whether the proceedings will be conducted in public?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware that there has been any delay on the part of the British Cellulose Inquiry Committee in carrying out the inquiry. It has been found necessary to examine a large number of documents, and preliminary statements have been received from various persons, some of whom have been granted time in which to prepare their statements and evidence. It has been decided for the present to take evidence in private.
  Mr. DILLON: Are counsel allowed to appear on behalf of the various interests, and why has it been decided to take evidence in private?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot answer the first question. I have not made inquiry recently. But it was left to the tribunal itself to decide. As regards the second part, it was also left to the tribunal to have it in private or in public as it thought best. In any case the object was to have the report, and that will be given.
  Mr. DILLON: Was not the object stated in the House to be to enlighten the public and clear away misunderstandings, and how can you clear them away if the public do not see the evidence?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: From the very first it was put to me in the House when the Committee was set up, and I said then I would leave it to the discretion of the tribunals whether discussions should be public or private.

  BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.
  Mr. H. SAMUELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the speech of the chairman at the annual meeting of the British South Africa Company on 8th August, in which he is reported to have said that the administrative deficits of the company had been adjudged by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the recent case to be the liability of the Imperial Government, and that those deficits exceed £10,000,000 sterling; and whether he will give an assurance that no obligation will be assumed by the Imperial Government for any such deficits until a

  2499
  statement has been made in this House and an opportunity given for its discussion?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Hewins): I have seen the speech referred to. With regard to the last part of the question, I do not understand that any immediate question of settlement arises under the recent judgment, but I feel certain that whenever a question of payment does arise, the Government of the day will hesitate to commit themselves to make any payment such as is suggested without the authority of the House of Commons.

  REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE (ANNUAL STATEMENT).
  Mr. HUGH BARRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it is proposed to circulate the Annual Statement of Revenue and Expenditure, England, Scotland, and Ireland?
  Mr. LOUGHasked the Secretary to the Treasury why the Annual Returns of Revenue and Expenditure in Great Britain and Ireland, respectively, ordered by the House and usually laid upon the Table in the month of August, have not been furnished this year; and when will they be in the hands of Members?
  Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): These returns were issued yesterday. I regret that the great pressure on the Departments concerned has led to some delay in compiling them.

  JUVENILE OFFENDERS (ACCOMMODATION).
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the number of juvenile offenders and of juvenile-adults who are being sent to prison on remand or detention or to await removal to other institutions, he will take steps to provide suitable accommodation of a reformative character entirely separate from prison for such cases?
  Mr. BRACE: Under the Children Act no young offender can be committed to prison without a certificate that he is of so unruly a character or so depraved that he
  2500
  is not fit to be detained elsewhere under the Act. Such cases are few, and when a young offender (under sixteen) or a juvenile-adult (sixteen to twenty-one) is committed to prison on remand, etc., every care is taken to segregate him, as prescribed by the Regulations, from all adult prisoners convicted or unconvicted.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Home Secretary whether, when juvenile-adults of sixteen and seventeen years of age are sentenced to a term of imprisonment he will direct that, in order to avoid their association with ordinary prisons and prisoners, they are received into Borstal or other suitable institutions?
  Mr. BRACE: Prisoners between sixteen and twenty-one are and have been for some years past kept separate from others, and if the sentence is for more than three months they are transferred to special prisons, where, so far as permitted by the shortness of the time allowed for training and the other circumstances, the treatment and discipline are similar to those prescribed for Borstal Institutions.

  MOTOR-CAB DRIVERS (LICENCE RENEWALS).
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that the medical-history sheets of all motor-cab drivers who have been placed in Grade 3 and rejected are being used and that a private medical examination is being enforced on these men before renewing their licences; and whether this is a departure from the understanding that the medical examinations were to be used for military purposes only?
  Mr. BRACE: The Commissioner of Police, as the licensing authority, is under a statutory obligation to satisfy himself of the fitness of applicants to hold a licence, and makes use of the information afforded by the military medical examination only to satisfy this obligation and to ensure that the licence can be issued without risk of injury to the public.
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that, owing to the Military Service Act, the Commissioner of Police refuses to grant a renewal of the driving licence of Joseph Bailey, a motor-cab owner-driver, although he has driven a motor-cab for a number of years

  2501
  with no accident during that period, and is at present driving a medical officer with his cab transformed into a hackney carriage; and whether, under these circumstances, the case will be reconsidered, with a view to the driving licence being renewed?
  Mr. BRACE: This man was examined by an eye specialist, and his report showed that the vision of one eye was so defective that the Commissioner felt he had no alternative but to decline to renew his licence. In so doing he acted in accordance with the recommendation of a Committee of which my right hon. Friend was a member. I propose to reconstitute that Committee in order that the subject of the employment of injured men as drivers may be further considered in connection with demobilisation.
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that the Commissioner of Police has refused the renewal of the driving licence of motor-cab owner-driver W. B. Cayford, who lost an eye through a boy throwing a stone at his glass screen; and whether, in view of the fact that this man had driven a cab for a number of years and is still driving a hackney carriage, will he consider the desirability of renewing his licence or refer the matter to a medical committee of three, one to be appointed by the Commissioner of Police, one by the owner-driver's branch of the London and Provincial Union of Licensed Vehicle Workers, and one by the House of Commons?
  Mr. BRACE: I am informed by the Commissioner that Cayford surrendered his licence last March, saying that he had no further use for it. The rest of the question, therefore, does not arise.

  LIGHTING RESTRICTIONS.
  Mr. BOWERMANaskekd the Home Secretary whether he has received representation from local authorities regarding the insufficient lighting of the streets; and whether he will advise the controlling authority to relax the prevailing regulations and allow municipal authorities to remove the light-shading devices at present in use on street lamps and in shops, thereby brightening the thoroughfares and making the fullest use of the existing gas and electric supplies?
  Sir A. YEOasked the Home Secretary if he will cause instructions to be issued for the removal of all obstructions to the proper lighting of public vehicles, also to give public authorities power to have all street lighting improved by the removing of all arrangements made to obstruct light, in the interest of public safety and comfort; and whether, seeing that this can be done without extra consumption, he will take stops forthwith?
  Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the present military situation, he will allow public and private clocks to strike the hours at night and lights from windows to be exposed in inland places?
  Captain BARNETTasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to a statement by the City coroner that the number of street accidents is increasing and is largely due to reduced lighting; whether he is aware that at several inquests held in London during the past fortnight, and more particularly in the cases of Arthur William Pinson, aged twelve, Elizabeth Ann Soden, aged seventy-seven, and Gilbert Russell George Davison, aged seven, coroners' juries have added riders to their verdicts urging that the paint should be removed from the glass under-parts of street lamps so as to provide greater illumination with the same expenditure of gas or electricity; and, if so, whether he will direct the police to give immediate effect to this recommendation?
  Major NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has come to a decision as to the partial or total removal of the restriction of the lighting of streets in the London suburbs, apart from restrictions necessary in the interests of fuel economy?
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the President of the Local Government Board if he has received representations from Metropolitan local bodies regarding the inadequate lighting of the streets; and whether he will consult the responsible authorities with a view to the present regulations being relaxed to the extent of removing the light-shading devices from street lamps and shops, thereby utilising the existing gas and electric supplies to the fullest advantage?
  Mr. BRACE: Instructions were given yesterday morning that the shading of

  2503
  street lamps and of the windows of shops and houses may be removed, and additional street lamps may be lighted where those in use are less than half the normal number; but in view of the shortage of coal not more than half should be brought into use, and the prohibition of lights in shop windows and of advertisement lights must for the present be maintained. The Commissioner of Police has given instructions that trams and omnibuses may resume normal lighting, except that in the interests of safety the canopy lights and headlights on trams should not at present be increased. As to the lighting of public vehicles, Instructions have already been issued by the Commissioner of Police. All restrictions on the ringing of bells and the striking of clocks are at an end.
  Colonel THORNE: Will my right hon. Friend have that reply printed in the papers?
  Mr. BRACE: It will be in the papers.
  Mr. BOYLE (by Private Notice)asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that the New Lighting Restrictions Order in Ireland is strongly objected to by traders in country towns, not on the ground of the number of hours allowed for lighting, but on the arrangement of those hours, whether he is aware that in Ballina, county Mayo, under the old arrangements less light was consumed than under the new Order, though the new arrangement will totally dislocate its business; and whether he will suggest to the responsible authority, that whilst the number of hours allowed for lighting should be fixed, the daily distribution of those hours should be fixed in each town to suit local convenience?
  Mr. SHORTT: I only received notice of this question by post this morning. Representations in the sense indicated in the question have been received, and are under consideration. An Amending Order is in course of preparation and will be published shortly.

  POLICE PENSIONS.
  Mr. NUGENTasked the Home Secretary if, in view of the hardship inflicted on pensioned sergeants and constables of England and Wales, by having a portion of their pensions deducted under the provisions of paragraph 2, Section 13,
  2504
  of the Police Act, 1890, he will remedy this grievance by returning all moneys deducted under this Section?
  Mr. BRACE: I understand that this matter will be discussed on an Amendment to the Police Pensions Bill now before Parliament.

  ENEMY ALIENS (GRASSINGTON).
  Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Home Secretary (1) whether he is aware that on the evening of Sunday, the 20th of October, some of the enemy aliens at Grassington were drinking in a public-house in the village in which was displayed an extract from a speech by the Food Controller urging economy in the consumption of alcohol as a patriotic duty; and whether, in view of the exasperation caused by the sight of enemies consuming without restraint an article of diet from which British working men are exhorted to abstain, he will give instructions that enemy aliens in internment camps or working settlements shall be prohibited from obtaining or consuming alcoholic liquors; (2) if he is aware of the continued dissatisfaction that prevails in the neighbourhood of Grassington on account of the lack of control over the enemy aliens interned there; if he is aware that there is no one, except a single caretaker, to enforce the rule confining the aliens to their quarters after 9 p.m., and that this rule is systematically broken, the aliens being frequently found at a distance from the huts at late hours of the night; if he is aware that the wife of a Grassington resident was recently accosted, insulted, and frightened by one of the aliens, and that the women and girls of the neighbourhood are afraid to go about unprotected; and whether he will take steps to provide adequate supervision over the aliens at Grassington and, in particular, to have them confined to their huts after sunset under sufficient guard to enforce observance of the regulation?
  Mr. BRACE: I will answer these questions together. I have made inquiry of the police, and they do not confirm the statements in my hon. Friend's questions. They report that the men referred to are generally well-behaved, that no complaints have been received this year, and that they have no reason to think that there is dissatisfaction or alarm in the neighbourhood. The men are engaged in work of importance for the country.
  Mr. McNEILL: When the evidence of the police conflicts with the evidence of residents in the neighbourhood, is the policeman to have the last word in every case?
  Mr. BRACE: We must place a great deal of reliance on the police.
  Mr. McNEILL: Can I send my right hon. Friend evidence taken from other sources?
  Mr. BRACE: If you please.

  PRISON ADMINISTRATION.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the Home Secretary whether he has recently received proposals for a Commission of Inquiry into the prison system and its reform; and, if so, whether he is prepared to make any statement on the subject?
  Mr. BRACE: The Home Secretary promised some time ago to receive a deputation on the subject of prison administration, and would have done so before now but for the pressure of other and more urgent matters. I hope that arrangements for a deputation will shortly be made.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the Home Secretary if he will say for how long prisoners serving terms up to two years' imprisonment are kept under the silence rule?
  Mr. BRACE: I presume the hon. Member refers to prisoners who are allowed the privilege of conversation during exercise under Rule 243A. This privilege is given after they have served one year.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the question on the Paper, which refers to prisoners generally, and state how long they are kept in silence?
  Mr. BRACE: One year.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will say what was the date when any change was introduced into the prison system as regards the silence rule imposed upon prisoners?
  Mr. BRACE: I presume the hon. Member refers to Rule 243A, which enables certain mitigations of the conditions of imprisonment to be given to certain classes of prisoners. This rule was made in 1911.

  WOUNDED SOLDIERS.

    EMPLOYMENT (SOUTH WALES).
    Mr. STANTONasked the Pensions Minister if he will make an appeal to all employers of labour in South Wales and elsewhere to employ as many of our wounded soldiers and sailors as possible at their collieries and works; and will he without delay advise that employers of labour should meet in the different areas to discuss and consider the most suitable form of employment for these men at current trade union rates?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am glad to be able to inform the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend is now preparing, in concert with the Minister of Labour, a general appeal to employers in all trades and industries to assist the Government in securing suitable employment for discharged disabled men. Local conferences of representatives of the various trades will certainly be suggested.

  HOUSING SCHEMES (SCOTLAND).
  Mr. D. MILLARasked the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the necessity for providing housing accommodation in Scotland immediately after the War, any steps are being taken to secure and allocate the necessary materials and labour?
  The MINISTER of RECONSTRUCTION (Dr. Addison): I have been asked by my right hon. Friend to answer this question. I hope to deal with the subject raised in the course of the statement which I am to make to the House later to-day.
  Mr. MILLAR: Will the right hon. Gentleman give some indication of the estimates which have been made as to the requirements for Scotland?
  Dr. ADDISON: I have said that I will deal fully with the point.
  Mr. MILLARasked the number of building schemes which have been prepared up to the present time by the local authorities in Scotland and approved by the Scottish Local Government Board, and the number of houses which it is proposed to build under these schemes after the War?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I am informed that while no

  2507
  schemes in their final stage have yet been submitted for approval to the Local Government Board for Scotland, several local authorities have schemes now in course of preparation for the provision of about 9,000 houses. I am further informed that the local authorities in question regard these houses merely as a first instalment of the number they intend to provide, and that many other local authorities have the preparation of housing schemes actively under consideration. The Board, by means of correspondence, memoranda, and interviews, are urging local authorities to use all expedition in the preparation of schemes.
  Mr. MILLARasked the Secretary for Scotland (1) what steps are being taken to secure building sites in Scotland for post-war housing schemes at a reasonable figure; and whether he is prepared to adopt the recommendations of the Scottish Royal Housing Commission as to the acquisition of land for building purposes, including the proposal that the valuations under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, shall be adopted as the basis of value; and
  (2) whether, in view of the necessity of acquiring building sites in connection with the post-war housing schemes in districts where minerals are being worked, he is prepared to accept the findings of the Royal Housing Commission as to the prohibition of restrictions in few charters relieving the superior from claims for damage caused by subsidence of the surface due to mineral workings; and whether he is prepared to introduce legislation on the subject.
  Mr. MUNRO: The Local Government Board for Scotland, in circulars issued by them, have impressed upon local authorities the urgency of taking immediate steps to secure suitable sites. Various local authorities have represented to the Board that they are experiencing difficulties in securing sites at reasonable cost; and certain authorities have referred specially to the question of feu charters relieving from damage for subsidence. The question of compulsory acquisition and valuation of land for public purposes is at present being considered by a Committee appointed by the Minister of Reconstruction, and the other matter is receiving the attention of a Sub-Committee of the same Committee. When the Committee has
  2508
  reported, I hope to be in a position to reply to the question as to legislation raised by my hon. and learned Friend.
  Mr. MILLAR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Royal Commission on Housing in Scotland reported that question of the acquisition of land was fundamental, and is he in a position to state that no delay whatever will continue in regard to the Report which is to be issued? Do I understand him to say that the Report will be issued immediately?
  Mr. MUNRO: I agree that the question is fundamental, and it is in consideration of that that the Committee was appointed whose Report, I understand, is in course of preparation.
  Mr. MILLAR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Report will be issued? Will it be issued before Dissolution?
  Mr. MUNRO: The Committee was appointed by the Minister of Reconstruction. I am sure there will be no delay.

  RECRUITING (SUSPENSION).
  Sir D. MACLEAN (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the official announcement in the Press to-day that recruiting has been suspended, and also that appeals before tribunals are suspended, he will give, by wire or otherwise, categorical instructions to the tribunals throughout the country and National Service representatives that their activities for the time being, at any rate, are to be suspended?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: A telegram was sent yesterday to each region, with instructions to repeat to each tribunal the decision to suspend action.
  Mr. BRUNNER: May I ask whether the Volunteer condition attached to certain conditions of exemption will be adhered to, seeing that in many cases it is a great tie upon busy men who have to fulfil the Volunteer condition?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think there is a great deal of force in the point raised, but I have not looked into it, and I should like to have notice before giving a definite opinion.
  Mr. WATT: How does the right hon. Gentleman's answer apply to men who have been called up to-day or on other days of the week?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think they are all being suspended.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT.

    PRESS RESTRICTIONS.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister whether all restrictions on freedom of the Press and of speech, imposed under the Defence of the Realm Acts, except if necessary as regards military and naval movements, will now be removed?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think it is too soon on the day following the conclusion of an armistice to make any statement, but I can assure my right hon. Friend that the Government are giving the closest consideration to this question.

  HOUSE AND STREET CLEANSERS (BELFAST).
  Mr. DILLON (by Private Notice)asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the strike of the Belfast municipal employés—house and street cleansers; whether the cause of the dispute is an alleged attempt by the improvement committee of the corporation to change the conditions of labour previously carried out by the street sweepers and those engaged as bin removers and house cleansers without an agreement with the men's unions; whether the strike started on 2nd October, since which date not a street has been swept, or the rubbish removed from a single house for over five weeks; and whether as a result of this condition of things the health of the city is very seriously threatened; whether the influenza epidemic is spreading, and typoid fever has also broken out; whether the men offered on the 22nd October to resume work immediately if the corporation would agree to arbitration, but the corporation refused to do so; whether the corporation on 2nd November put proposals before the men which were rejected, the men renewing their demand for immediate arbitration; and whether he will take steps, in the interests of the public health, to induce the corporation to agree to immediate arbitration?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Shortt): I only received notice of this question by post this morning. My
  2510
  attention had not previously been drawn to this matter, but I am now making inquiries, and will acquaint my hon. Friend of the result as soon as possible.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not part of the policy of the Government that there should be no coercion of Ulster?
  Mr. BYRNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that details of this dispute have already appeared in the Press?
  Mr. SHORTT: Yes; but I do not know what the explanation is.

  CONSTABULARY AND POLICE (IRELAND) BILL.
  Mr. BRADY: I desire to ask your ruling on a point of Order arising on the Orders of the Day. Whether you are aware that the Constabulary and Police (Ireland) Bill, which is fourteenth Order on the Paper for to-day, was introduced without a Money Resolution relating thereto having been passed, and whether in these circumstances it is not necessary to discharge the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill and to introduce a new Bill founded in a proper manner on a Money Resolution?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I believe that the facts are as the hon. Member states. The matter had not been called to my attention until he handed in his question, and during the short time in which I have had an opportunity of investigating the matter I find that what he states is correct, and that the Bill ought to have been founded on a Resolution.
  Mr. BRADY: In these circumstances, would you allow me to ask the Chief Secretary, assuming that he intends to move to discharge the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill, when he hopes to introduce the Bill in a regular fashion? I ask the question as hon. Members on these benches are greatly interested in the matter, and are naturally anxious to know when it will come on for Second Reading.
  Colonel SANDERS (Treasurer of the Household): I regret the mistake, but if the hon. Member will look on the Paper he will find that No. 6 is the Money Resolution which it is necessary to pass in order to introduce this Bill. It is hoped to take No. 6 on the Paper and to discharge No. 14.
  Mr. DILLON: Must you not discharge No. 14 before you take No. 6?
  Mr. BRADY: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to-day to move the discharge of the Bill which is now admitted to be irregular?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have made inquiry about this, and I am informed that the Money Resolution can be introduced before the Bill has been formally discharged.
  Mr. BRADY: I am not traversing that. What I want to know is when the new Bill will be introduced, to which I presume this Money Resolution refers.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That Bill cannot be introduced until the House has agreed to the Report of the Money Resolution.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. McKENNA: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what Orders he proposes to take to-day, and what will be the business for the rest of the week?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As regards the business for the rest of the week, we are anxious to sit as if to-day took the place of yesterday and to go straight on.
  Mr. McKENNA: Will there be a sitting on Saturday?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: We shall not sit on Saturday. We sit on Friday. We lose a day this week. We hope to-day to get the Orders down to No. 6. I think that none of them are controversial, and I hope that they will not take a long time.
  Colonel ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the Military and Naval War Pensions Bill will be taken?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: We may find time to take it to-morrow after the Report stage of the Vote of Credit, but, if not, I hope on the following day.
  Ordered, "That Government business be not interrupted this night under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any hour although opposed."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

  NEW WRIT (REIGATE DIVISION).
  Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Question (4th November),
  "That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County of Surrey (South-Eastern or Reigate Division) in the room of Colonel Richard Hamilton Rawson, deceased."
  General CROFT: As we have not yet had an announcement by the Government as to the date of the Adjournment, I ask leave to adjourn this Motion for another week.
  Question, "That the Debate be further adjourned," put, and agreed to.
  Debate to be resumed upon Tuesday next.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT, 1918–19.

    STATEMENT BY MR. BONAR LAW.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I beg to move,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £700,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, beyond the ordinary Grants of Parliament, towards defraying the Expenses which may be incurred during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1919, for General Navy, Army, and Air Services in so far as specific provision is not made there for by Parliament; for the conduct of Naval and Military Operations; for all measures which may be taken for the Security of the Country; for assisting the Food Supply, and promoting the Continuance of Trade, Industry, Business, and Communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against risk, the financing of the purchase and resale of foodstuffs and materials, or otherwise; for Relief of Distress; and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war."
    4.0 P.M.
    The last Vote of Credit was moved by me on the 1st of August, and it was for a sum of £700,000,000. On that occasion I explained to the House, and I think it met with their approval, that we proposed to take only one additional Vote before the end of the financial year. At that time I stated that the Vote would be for £750,000,000—that would exactly complete the Budget Estimate. The Vote which I am now going to ask the House to agree to is for £700,000,000, and, I may explain, that the figure was arrived at on the assumption that the War would go on, and has not been affected by the news given yesterday. The Committee will naturally expect that some change should be made for this reason, and I should myself have liked to present a smaller amount, if only as an indication of our view as to what the change means. I have, however, had the subject examined by the Treasury, and my officials tell me that the data oh which they could judge as to the extent of the saving on account of this change are so incomplete that we could not feel certain that if we reduced the amount it would suffice to last until the end of the year. I may say, however, that, personally, I

    2569
    have no doubt whatever that a lower amount will be spent. Of course, the Committee understands that the total amount of the Vote of Credit makes no difference to the amount of money expended. Let me explain in a few words why it is we cannot make sure that the expenditure is going to be less. In the first place, we cannot count upon any very large decrease during the time in the pay of the personnel who are now engaged. In the second place, it is obvious that if this is the end of the War, as we all think, some of the expenses of demobilisation will come for payment under this Vote. Another item which makes the extent of the decrease uncertain is in regard to the Navy. Of course, we shall at once, as soon as it seems safe to do so—and we are beginning now—diminish the expenditure of material of war. But every item of energy which is available in connection with instruments of war will at once be turned on the production of merchant ships; and I have some reason to believe, and I certainly hope, that this will go forward with so much energy that, so far from there being a decrease, there may possibly be an actual increase in the amount spent under the heading of the Navy. There is another item which also makes the future uncertain. The conditions are going to be changed with regard to food. It may be—I am not making any declaration of policy—it may be that an effort will have to be made by us and the Allies to bring food supplies to Europe; and, if so, it is quite possible that greater expenditure under this head will be necessitated; though, of course, that will not be expenditure which will be a permanent debt on the country. As I have said, I myself believe that the expenditure will be reduced. At the same time, if the Committee agrees with me in thinking it would be a mistake to have two Votes of Credit and two Consolidated Fund Bills between the time the House meets and the end of March, I think it would be a pity to run any risk of requiring Supplementary Estimates through not asking a sufficiently large sum to-day.
    On the occasion of the last Vote of Credit the figures were analysed up to the 14th of July. May I say to the Committee how thankful I am that I had not to read off those figures yesterday; it would have been impossible for anyone to take any interest in them or for the House. It is difficult enough to-day, but
    2570
    I am sure the House will have patience with me. On that occasion the figures were analysed for the one hundred and four days up to the 14th July. Since then they have been analysed to the 19th of October—that is, for a period of ninety-eight days. Taking this later period, the result shows that the Budget Estimate of daily expenditure, on the assumption that it is spread over the whole year, would be £6,986,000. The actual expenditure was £6,398,000, or a saving of £588,000 a day against a saving in the earlier period of only £24,000 per day. I am sorry to say that that does not indicate that the expenditure in the second period was more favourable from our point of view than in the first; on the contrary, it is the other way, because in the first period the reduction in the dead-weight expenditure was at the rate of £331,000 per day; whereas during this second period there is an increase of dead-weight expenditure of £47,000 per day. The Committee will quite understand that the period is so short that it is not sufficient to give a fair indication of what the tendency of the expenditure is. I am sure, therefore, it will be much more interesting to have the analysis of the figures from the beginning of the year to the 19th of October, a period of two hundred and two days.
    The proportion of the Budget Estimate for that period was £1,411,000,000. The actual issues were about £1,351,000,000, or a saving of £60,000,000 sterling. Looking at the daily figures, the Estimate was £6,986,000 and the issues £6,688,000, of a saving of £298,000 a day. Let me give a further analysis of this statement. As regards the fighting forces, the total saving was only £37,000 per day, or a total of £7,500,000. The reduction on loans to the Dominions and Allies was £55,500,000, or at the rate of £276,000 per day. With regard to Miscellaneous, on the other hand, there was an excess of £3,000,000, or £15,000 per day. Let me expand the analysis of this expenditure as concerns the fighting forces. There was an actual increase in the expenditure on the Army of £39,500,000. That was made up to the extent of about £23,000,000 by the fact that the actual strength of the Army during the year up till now has been very much larger than was taken into account at the time the Budget Estimate was formed. There is also another additional charge for the Army,

    2571
    one which I am sure will give satisfaction to the Committee, and it is the increase in the separation allowances and pensions.
    Returning to the Navy, there is a saving of £13,500,000, and I am sorry to say this is almost entirely due to our expectations in the matter of shipping not having been realised. As regards munitions, there has been a diminution in the Estimate of something like £30,000,000. There is no special explanation of this, except that the programme, I think, was too ambitious. It has been found impossible to realise it, and perhaps some members of the Committee may recollect that at the time I introduced the Budget I ventured myself to make a prophecy that, although hitherto every Estimate had been exceeded, in this case it would not happen, for the simple reason that all possible power of production in the country had almost reached its limit and that any further demand of this kind could not be realised. That, I think, is the explanation of that falling off. The Committee is accustomed in all these Votes of Credit—where, unfortunately, I have made the same speech each time with an alteration in figures—to an analysis of the dead-weight expenditure and the expenditure which we regard as recoverable. Looking at it from this point of view, for the 202 days the deadweight estimated expenditure was £1,090,000,000 and the actual expenditure £1,081,000,000, or a saving of £9,000,000. The recoverable expenditure was estimated at £321,000,000, and the actual amount was £270,000,000, or a saving of £51,000,000.
    My right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer on the occasion of the last Vote of Credit asked me to give him roughly the heads of this recoverable expenditure. I have had them made out on this occasion and the £270,000,000 is accounted for in this way. The amount of loans to the Dominions and Allies represents a debt of £157,500,000. Then there are payments due from the Dominions in respect of Army expenditure. That does not mean a loan, or anything to do with loans. It means that the expenditure on the Dominion Armies in Europe is paid in the first instance by us and the money comes back as the accounts are adjusted. These amounts will come back in that way. Another item which has now become a big item of recoverable expenditure is on ships. The amount is £43,000,000. The last item to make up the total is Miscellaneous, chiefly for food—the amount is
    2572
    £48,000,000. I should like in this connection to point out to the Committee that in this period there has been a very small increase—very small indeed—compared with every other occasion on which Votes of Credit have been moved in the amount of expenditure on miscellaneous items. That means, of course, that the sales are going on and the money spent in the early part of the year is coming back as the food is sold and distributed to the population. I have mentioned that there has been a falling off in the amount of the loans. I think it will be interesting, especially at the stage which we have reached, if I again give the Committee the full amount of these loans to the Dominions and the Allies. On the 31st March last year—I am taking the debt, and not the money actually spent—
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Which year?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: At the end of the last financial year, i.e., 31st March, 1918. I thank my right hon. Friend for drawing my attention to this. The amount of our loans to Allies was £1,332,000,000. There has been an increase of £133,000,000 in the current year, making the total debt of the Allies on the 19th October £1,465,000,000. As regards the Dominions, the amount on the 31st March was £194,000,000. It has been increased by £24,500,000, making the total owing by the Dominions at 19th October, £218,500,000. I mentioned to the Committee on the last occasion how the loans to the Allies were distributed. I will give them now the figures as they stood on the 19th October. The amount advanced to Russia remains the same—£568,000,000. The amount advanced to France has become £425,000,000; to Italy £345,000,000, and to the smaller States in the Alliance £127,000,000. I should have liked very much, if it had been possible, to deal with our general financial position at the end of the financial year on the lines of my Budget speech, but more fully than was then possible. I am sorry to say, however, it is not possible to get figures as to our assets and other balances of that kind more up-to-date than they were in the Budget statement. But I may point out to the Committee, as far as I can, how the position stands. According to the Budget Estimate the total debt for which we would be responsible at the end of the current financial year, after allowing for the obligations due

    2573
    from our Dominions and Allies, and reckoning the latter category at one half of their full amount, was £6,856,000,000. If, as we believe, the War is practically now ended then, of the money which will be spent out of the Vote of Credit which we are now asking, part will be spent on demobilisation which, had the War been going on to the end of the year, would have been war expenditure of a later year. We can now look, therefore, upon that as the limit of the debt for which we are responsible. I pointed out at that time that we had many assets which materially reduced the total burden. I have made what inquiries I could as to the present position, and I am satisfied that the value of those assets, especially those which are actually in France, is far greater than the conservative estimate which I gave to the House in moving the Budget—far greater. I shall not venture to give any figures; but the House may rest assured that, as to the general financial position so far as the debt is concerned at the end of this financial year, it will be appreciably less than the Estimate which I gave in connection with the Budget.
    How will we be able to face that burden? As regards the whole debt, I do not think we need have any great anxiety; but the debt incurred abroad, as I am sure the Committee will realise, is the item which will more severely affect us in our financial position after the War. I would like to call the attention of the Committee to this fact, that that burden upon us of this external debt is largely due to the assistance we have given to our Allies. If we had merely financed ourselves we would be practically free from that burden. I think we can reasonably assume that at the end of the War the burden from this cause will not at the outside reach £1,000,000,000, which is a burden which, I think, this country can bear. As regards the general position, I have myself always held the view that the state which this country would be in, from the financial point of view, after the War, would, to a considerable extent, depend on our credit, which in its turn would depend on the nature of the peace which we had secured. That now is settled; and I have no doubt whatever that there will be plenty of work to be got—plenty of work, not only to repair the countries which are damaged and ravaged, but in those new quarters of the world largely given over to the production of food and raw material, the rise in
    2574
    prices during the War must have added enormously to the accumulated wealth there; and I have little doubt that there will be plenty of work, and that there will be plenty of credit to enable that work to be carried out. The real problem is one which depends on other issues. I believe I am right in saying that the total production of this country, in spite of the millions of men who have been removed from it, is greater than it was before the War. When all this additional labour supply comes back the production ought to be enormously greater. I think the work will be there, and the credit will be there. I do really believe the future prosperity and well-being of the people of this country depends upon the extent to which capital and labour can work together more harmoniously than they did in the past, having as their main object the increased production in this country. There is only one other remark which I would make in regard to finance. I have spoken of another Vote of Credit for the coming financial year before the 31st March. Of course, there has not been time for the Treasury to consider how the financial arrangements are going to be altered when the War ends. I think it is evident—and I will be surprised if my right hon. Friend (Mr. McKenna) does not agree with me—that it would be quite impossible to get back at once to our old methods. I do not think that would be possible; but I wish to say to the Committee, as Chancellor of the Exchequer—and I am sure whoever was Chancellor of the Exchequer would have said the same thing—that it is of the utmost importance, from the point of view of saving money and real Treasury control, that we should get back to the peace arrangements at the earliest possible moment; and, so far as I am concerned, I shall endeavour to do that.
    That is all that I propose to say on the financial aspects of this question. But I feel, on the day after the Armistice, on the occasion of a Vote of Credit, which generally allows of discussion of everything connected with the War, that I can hardly sit down without saying a few words about the fact that the War is over. What I say will be commonplaces; but, at all events, they will be sincere commonplaces, because they will be what I feel. The first thing I want to say is in regard to the peace conditions as they affect our Allies. It would be idle to say what particular thing won the victory,

    2575
    and I shall say something about our share of it in a minute; but it is in the main because of the closeness of the Alliance and because of the way in which more and more, year by year, and month by month, we worked together as one united force engaged in a common purpose. An Alliance, a Coalition, is difficult at all times; but it was far easier in war, under the pressure of a common danger, than it will be now that peace has come. It is as vital for the world, in my opinion, that the close unity which war has produced should prevail while we are repairing the ravages that war has caused. It is difficult to maintain that; we are all human. There are in connection with Governments with which we are in alliance committees on whom are men of all minds constantly dealing with specific subjects; and it is inevitable that members of those committees should look at them as a business man treats another business man with whom he is making a bargain. And the impression grows up on both sides that there is too much selfishness in those arrangements. That is inevitable, and the only way, in my opinion, to cure it is that when those points come up to the heads of the Government they should look upon them, not from the point of view of their selfish interests—and I do not mean our Government, but all Governments—but fairly and justly, as if the interests of one were the interests of all. I venture to say, expressing my own opinion, that that is the best way, even from the point of view of the different national interests. I cannot put my experience against that of so many great business men; but even in business, so far as my experience goes, you get on better by treating those with whom you do business fairly, and not by trying to get the last penny out of them; and I am quite sure that in these big issues the same principle applies. What we have got to do is to think of the big things. I have spoken of the Allies; I do not see much good that can come out of this War, it has been almost all evil up to now; but one thing I do hope from it is a better understanding with the Nations with whom we have been allied. I do not know whether the members of the Committee read the speech delivered the other day by M. Clemenceau. It was worth reading. In that great speech, though it was entirely unprepared, he said this, speaking of us: "As for the English, we love
    2576
    them well." We have seen what France has gone through, and we can say the same thing. As regards America, it is even bigger there, because I think before the War there were some misunderstandings; and I believe it will be a great thing—and it is something I, at least, look forward to—if as a result of this War the understanding between America and this country is better than it ever was before. It would be a great thing, not only for these two countries, but for this reason, that in the main our ideals are the same, and it would be a great thing for the future peace and civilisation of the world.
    I say that we think with admiration and with friendship of all our Allies. I am sure I am only expressing what every member of the Committee feels when I say that one of the things which we, the Government, and the people felt most was the suffering that fell upon Serbia and upon Belgium when we were not able to move a finger to help them. It was one of my joys, as I feel it was the joy of the whole people of this country, that in the end Serbia was able to play perhaps the biggest part in the overthrow of Bulgaria, which was the first stage in the end of the War. The same thing is true of Belgium. Under their heroic King who has done so much—as is true of our own Sovereign, and who, like our own Sovereign, rested his claim to influence, not upon some Divine right, but upon his relations with the people whom he governed—under their heroic King the people of Belgium have justified themselves and more. I am not going to speak of them all; but since I have mentioned some names, perhaps it might seem strange if I missed any. The same is true of Italy, and of Italy I will only say this. I have heard speeches made in this House which suggested that Italy was only grasping at territory, and had nothing but Imperialistic aims. Let the House and the country remember this, that when the War broke out Italy was part of the alliance of our enemies; and I, at least, believe the movement which forced her into war on our side was an ideal movement, and a desire to take part in the War for freedom and justice throughout the world.
    I have spoken of our Allies. I have said that it is our business to keep good relations with them. Perhaps what I am now going to say may savour too much of national feeling, but I feel it, and I am

    2577
    going to say it. I think the part which the British Empire has taken in this War is a part greater than has ever been taken by this country in the past, and, in my belief, greater than has ever been played by any country in the world. That is my view. Look at our Dominions and at India. When the War broke out I thought that one of the best proofs of the justice of our cause was that the people of that great country, tyrannised over by us, as some people tell us, came forward on our side, and it was not only an honour to them, but it was a joy to the British people to realise the almost decisive part which Indian troops took in the overthrow of the Turkish Empire. As to our Dominions, what can we say? They were not fighting for the Mother Country; they were fighting for the Empire which is theirs as much as it is ours, but they threw themselves at once into the struggle in which we were engaged. They have sent their troops, and what troops they are! Who of us does not remember the long and melancholy story of our first attempt at the Dardanelles? History repeats itself. We began, as so often before, badly, but we did not end badly. We won through at the end. It was there that the Australian and New Zealand soldiers first showed their quality. That first expedition was a failure, but in my belief, so long as the British Empire lasts, it will not be a failure, but will be looked upon as one of the landmarks in our history, because of the brave men who fought and died there. As to the Canadians and South Africans, it is the same.
    But do not let us forget the Mother Country. She is old in history, but, in my belief, she was never more vigorous or younger than she has been throughout this War. And I look at it all round. Take first what we have done. I have been speaking of finance. That was no small achievement. As the House now knows, we have done as a nation—as a Government—what no prudent business man would have dared to do. We went on incurring obligations in America for supplies, without which we could not have won this War—supplies for ourselves and Allies—when, literally, there were only weeks in front of us when we could see any method of paying our way. We did that, and we were right, because, after all, we thought so much of the future that we could not afford to think of the present, for we knew that, unless these supplies came,
    2578
    the Alliance would break down, and the War would be lost. And what would then be the value of the whole of our gold and of our securities? Look at what the Navy has done. It has been silent in its work, but it has not merely played a great part in the War; it has played the decisive part in the War. Without our Navy, the War would have been over long ago, and we should not have won it. Even at the end this sudden downfall of that military Colossus, whose feet of clay had been hidden, was not caused entirely—I doubt if it was caused mainly—by the military position. It was caused by the result of the blockade, which has sapped the whole foundations of Germany, both military and civil alike. Well, that is what our Navy has done.
    Now, think of the people as a whole. Think what they have done. Really we are—if one can say that of a nation of which one is a member—we really are a great people. Just let me tell you why I say it. When the War broke out we had practically no Army. We raised, by purely voluntary means, an Army on a gigantic scale—on a scale which had never been touched by any other country in the world, and which, I believe, could not have been raised by voluntary means in any other country. And let me recall this to your minds. In the early days, what was it that made men stream to the Colours? It was not the glamour of victory. It was when the news came of the rush from Mons and the retreat.
    Let me speak of something else. At home we have had four years of it. There have been threatenings of labour troubles. There have been troubles of all kinds, but how well we have come through it! And remember this, that trouble always came when things were going well. It never came when things were going badly. I remember well the time of 21st March. When we are recalling all these things, is it not a miracle that hardly more than six months ago the German people—I think their military heads knew better—were really looking forward to impose on us the terms which we are imposing on Germany to-day? [HON. MEMBERS: "Much worse!"] They cannot be worse in the completeness of the defeat, and that is the main thing. I am sure, of course, that every member of the Committee has this feeling. I met many people who looked upon the loss of our Army and the capture of the Channel ports as something which might be ahead

    2579
    of us in the immediate future, but I never met a man who, even looking forward to that possibility, did not say, "Very well, we will draw in our borders. We will fight on the sea. We will never allow them to win." That was the spirit.
    And, now, what can one say about the Army? Words fail one even to attempt to express what one feels. That first Regular Army, contemptible in numbers, as we were told, played a great part, and I am not sure, small as it was, it was not just the little that turned the scale and saved Calais in that first conflict. Better troops than these never existed. But look what happened since. Look at the great Army we raised. It had to go through its trials, and many mistakes, I have no doubt, were made. The leaders of it had to learn by bitter experience, but they learned their lesson. Apart from all that we did in finance, on sea, and in the air in the last two years, it is not disparaging to our Allies to say that, whereas France bore the brunt of it in the first two years, in the last two years no army in Europe has done so much as ours. Is it surprising that I, for the moment the mouthpiece of the British Government, am proud of our achievements? As I speak, the words used by Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg come back to my mind—
    "The world will little know, nor long remember, what we say here, but it will never forget what they did."
    That is it. We have won the victory, but we have won it at a great price. We must not forget that.
    Mr. McKENNA: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked for a Vote of £700,000,000, with which he is to provide the necessary funds until 31st March. I quite agree with my right hon. Friend that it would be undesirable to ask only for so much money as would carry us, say, until the beginning or middle of March, and then have another Vote of Credit in anticipation of the necessary Vote of Credit at the end of March; and I think, therefore, my right hon. Friend's policy is right in asking for a Vote now that would last him till the end of March. But I feel doutful whether he is not asking us now for more than he will need. He himself has told us that he expects to have a surplus. He places the House of Commons in a little difficulty. We are still now voting a Vote of Credit on the War principles, which, owing to the need
    2580
    for secrecy, and owing to the uncertainty of war itself, compel us to vote without having any details of the expenditure, or any great outlines of heads under which the money is to be expended. We are giving a Vote here, upon a pure War basis, of £700,000,000, the determination of which is covered by that list of heads which you, Mr. Whitley, have been so good as to read to us. In these circumstances, when we are voting a blind sum in this way, I think the greatest care ought to be exercised not to ask us for more than is really essential. We shall not have an opportunity for four months of reconsidering the scale of national expenditure, and in those circumstances I think my right hon. Friend would have been better advised, if I may say so, if he had given us stronger grounds for anticipating so heavy a Vote as that which is asked for. May I remind him and the Committee that at this moment he has at least £300,000,000 still unexpended from the last Vote of Credit—I should say, upwards of £300,000,000? Of course, my right hon. Friend did not refer to the fact of an Election. We all, however, understand that he could only be justified in asking the House for a further £700,000,000 on the top of the existing £300,000,000 if he required the whole £1,000,000,000 to cover the period of a General Election. And he ought not, I would submit, to ask the House for these huge sums—£1,000,000,000 in all—unless he intended, or knew, that that money would be required to cover the period of the Election itself, the reassembling of the House, the election of Mr. Speaker, and all the necessary steps before Parliament is in a position to pass another Vote of Credit. Therefore, I think we may assume that in asking the House to-day for £700,000,000, with this £300,000,000 already in hand, he has only done so because he is anticipating an immediate Election, otherwise there would be no necessity to have this Vote of Credit for at least a month; that he is anticipating an immediate Election, and that the money is required—and rightly required—to carry us over to the end of the present financial year.
    Why are we entitled to examine with some care the proposed expenditure? My right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions is the only member of the Government who has outlined any immediate policy as regards Government expenditure.

    2581
    In a speech last week he told us what would be the policy of his Department in the immediate future. He summarised it himself—I quote his own language—that his policy was that of "carrying on at a reduced speed." I would ask my right hon. Friend very seriously if in the present circumstances that policy is a wise policy. When we consider that all the munitions factories are consuming indispensable raw material—steel, copper, and chemicals of all kinds—and that the factories themselves are carried on only by the consumption of coal for which the general public are starving, is it wise to go on even at reduced speed making munitions which hereafter you will have to scrap? Consider, as an example, only the case of shells. Under the able management of my right hon. Friend, the Munitions Department is so well organised to-day that the shells when they are completed at the factory can be at once put into the train, taken over to France, and be shot from the guns. What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do when he carries on at reduced speed? Is he still going to send the shells over to France? If not, he will have to build new storage houses in this country to store the shells which within a few weeks he will have to scrap! I know my right hon. Friend's difficulty. It is the difficulty of labour. He would say, "Do you propose to discharge into the streets thousands and scores of thousands of men and girls who have been working so well in these factories?" I do not see my right hon. Friend's difficulty in that matter. Certainly I would not discharge them, but when you go on employing them they receive full wages, and they not only receive full wages, but burn coal and use up raw material. Give them a holiday. They have worked well; they have worked hard; they are very tired. Give them a fortnight's holiday on full pay, while my right hon. Friend considers what he will do. That would be infinitely cheaper. You would not then be burdening the railways to carry the coal. You would not be using your coal. You would be able to supply your gas factories, electric power stations and other factories, and you would be able to supply the public who to-day, and through the whole of this winter, are likely to suffer from the want of fuel.
    An HON. MEMBER: Give them a month's holiday!
    Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend suggests that the munition workers should be given a month's holiday. I begin with a fortnight. A fortnight at the expense of the State, not at the expense of the employer. The State would not be a loser, because the State would have to pay on the contract when the employer was told to carry on at reduced speed. The State has to pay for these contracts—that is to say, it has to pay the wages as well as for the raw material, which is material wasted.
    There is another aspect of the question. How can the right hon. Gentleman tell the contractors to carry on at a reduced speed? That is a misunderstanding of the contracts. First of all, he has no power to tell the contractors to carry on at reduced speed. A contractor makes his contract on a certain basis of output at a certain speed, and if he is told to reduce that speed and that output whilst his overhead charges are going on his output is diminished and consequently he manufactures at a loss. It would be far better if my right hon. Friend were to face the situation as it stands and to stop at once all unnecessary manufacture by the workpeople and employ the raw material and the coal where they are most needed. I was glad to hear what the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us, that it was proposed to take the men at once from naval warships and put them on civil work—on to merchant shipbuilding. That can be done. That might be done between the night and morning. As I understand, it is not in the least necessary to finish any of the naval warships at the present moment. The men and the materials may be transferred to the merchant side of shipbuilding, where you will get an immediate return for the expenditure of capital and the labour. There is one aspect of the question which my right hon. Friend did not, I think, refer to to-day. He is asking for this huge sum. He must remember that the greater part of it will have to be obtained by borrowing. His revenue during the next four and a half months will be a large revenue—about, I believe, £100,000,000 per month. But he has got £1,000,000,000 to last him for that four and a half months, of which he will not get more than £150,000,000 from revenue, whilst £550,000,000 will be borrowed. When my right hon. Friend has asked for the money in the past the public have responded most generously and most willingly. In no respect has the general

    2583
    patriotism of the country better shown itself than in the willingness to supply all the needs of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I believe that willingness will continue. But the circumstances have changed.
    Every business man in the country cannot fail to be considering how he is going to use his own money in his own business. He is looking forward to all sorts of new peace expenditure. The manufacturer has got to re-establish his plant. An immense amount of repairs have to be undertaken which have been left completely in arrears. Every branch of business requires new stock, and for all these purposes the traders of this country will require their own money. Consequently my right hon. Friend can hardly expect to meet with the same response during the coming months that he has met with whilst we were in a state of war. The money is not there, or, at any rate, the money cannot serve two purposes at once. If it has to be used in the reconstruction of trade and industry it cannot be lent to the Government. That brings me to this point: the urgent need now of shutting down all unnecessary expenditure. That is absolutely vital. If we allow time to go over while Committees are sitting and the expenditure is running on—if, I say, we allow that to happen, we are postponing the real period of the reconstruction of the trade and industry of the country, and unless we reconstruct at once we shall fail in the competition with our foreign competitors. We cannot forget the fact that large masses of our foreign trade are at the present time lost to us. We have to recover that. We can only recover it by a rapid development of our manufacturing export power. If my right hon. Friend takes the money from the manufacturer, if he asks him to invest the money in War Bonds, he cannot use that necessary capital in his own trade. It is of overwhelming importance, therefore, that there should not be any carrying on at reduced speed in the construction of unnecessary articles, but that we should devote the whole of our capital expenditure and labour at once to the production of essential articles. If we do that, I do not fear that those labour troubles will follow which some people seem to have at the back of their mind.
    There will be work; plenty of work. There will be wages; high wages. Prices are high, and will probably remain high.
    2584
    Consequently profits will be high. In fact, there is no reason to anticipate other than that, under skilful and prompt action, the trade and industry of this country will not rapidly recover. But we must not—we cannot—be hindered by the continuance of Governmental activities now when we have at length secured peace. I would only like to say, in conclusion, with what pleasure I listened to the survey which my right hon. Friend gave as to the whole course of this War and the part taken in it by our Allies and by the British Empire. We all share with him the feeling of the deepest gratitude to the naval and military forces of the Empire who have fought with such tenacity, such courage, and such sacrifice. I believe that at the right moment we, as representing the people of this country, will be willing to make the necessary sacrifices on our part to sweeten the lives and the homes of the widows and dependants of those who have fallen in our service. I hope before the election comes we shall have a statement of policy from the Government with regard to pensions which will be satisfactory to the whole country. It would be a most deplorable thing if in the coming election it were made a matter of party controversy, one side bidding against the other as to who could promise the most to the widows and dependants of our brave soldiers and sailors. Therefore I would urge my right hon. Friend to give expression to the gratitude which we all feel by making public at the earliest moment a scale of pensions for the widows and dependants adequate to the great services which have been rendered to the country by those who have died for us.
    5.0 P.M.
    The MINISTER of RECONSTRUCTION (Dr. Addison): In the statement I propose to make to the House, I shall refer in passing to some of the criticisms which have just been offered by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. McKenna), and I may say that the Minister of Munitions will deal with the criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman in connection with demobilisation on Monday next. I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite has only touched upon a very small portion of the problem, and I do not think he would have indulged in such sweeping generalisations if he had more carefully surveyed all that is involved in the cessation of the War. During the War we have had

    2585
    our population to a very great extent changed. Their habits of life in the case of hundreds of thousands have changed, their occupations have been changed, their rates of wages are very much higher than before, and so is the price of the necessaries of life. We have, in fact, for the last four years, been living on our capital. Suddenly there is a cessation of hostilities, to be followed, we all confidently hope in the near future, by the signing of a peace treaty. From now onwards the people will return to their homes. They will have to change their war habits and get back to their old work, but I think that high prices will continue, and therefore we must have high wages if the cost of living is to be met. High wages mean that we must have great production, or otherwise it is impossible to pay them.
    But the problems of demobilisation and reconstruction do not end by any means here, nor do the responsibilities in which this country is involved. We know that many classes of property have been destroyed in other countries, and they themselves are impoverished, and it is more than likely that the complex organisation which the Allies have established will have to be continued. We may be called upon to do more, and with all these changes, coming as they must in a few months' time, we must contemplate the inevitable reaction of the cessation of war. This is a problem which I am sure needs the sanity and goodwill of every citizen amongst us, and it will not be dealt with by any simple or old formula It is my business, as United Kingdom Minister, to ascertain so far as I can what steps we can take beforehand to deal with the present emergency, what steps we should take now that an armistice has been declared, and what steps we should prepare to take afterwards. All these complex matters are very nearly related to one another, but there are two governing considerations which I take it are obvious to everyone. We must aim at the restoration of our trade and industry and employment as rapidly as possible. We must aim at promoting better methods of production, better conditions of life, and the making of full use of our own resources in order that we may be able to bear these burdens. We hear a great deal of talk about certain dangers, and these have been hinted at by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I would suggest to the House that apart from any danger which
    2586
    may arise out of unemployment it is my business as Minister of Reconstruction to bear in mind another matter—I mean the danger which may arise in times of peace from bureaucratic methods in the Departments of Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I thought some hon. Members opposite would applaud that sentiment. By recognising that danger I can assure hon. Members in advance that it is clear to all who have examined this question that we cannot promote the rapid restoration of industry by meticulous State interference.
    May I say a word as to the Ministry itself which has been charged with the responsibility of advising the Government how to deal with the existing situation. I have been sometimes criticised in the papers because we have appointed a number of committees to do this and that; but the House, I think, will see in the course of this review, how complex and numerous are the problems with which we had to deal. I have issued a White Paper, which will be in the Vote Office this evening, and the House will see there who the people are who have been helping me during the past twelve months. They will see that we have called to our aid some of the best brains in business and labour from every section of the community. [An HON. MEMBER: "All Englishmen?"] No, there are a lot of Scotchmen, Irishmen, and some Welshmen. I should like to mention a weekly meeting of the chairmen of the sections of my Advisory Council, to whom I am indebted for most valuable suggestions.
    To-day, I propose to refer to the arrangements we contemplate with regard to the transitional period, that is to say, the Armistice period. At the same time, I would remind the House that we could not neglect to deal with many matters which are of a more permanent character. Every citizen, I hope, has had his point of view changed on a good many important matters during the War. We have had our national weaknesses shown up as well as our national strength in a unique way, and one of the weaknesses which has been revealed is that we have not made the best use of the human material of our citizens, and, therefore, we have had to formulate and submit to the Government definite proposals with regard to such matters as health, housing, and working conditions. I do not propose to dealt with them now. We have discharged

    2587
    the same responsibility with regard to the provision of power supplies. In conjunction with the President of the Board of Trade, we have carried on a survey of the water-power resources of the United Kingdom, and in this connection I think it is well Parliament should remind itself that if we are going to make the best use of the resources of this country in water-power and other ways it behave us to consider our Parliamentary methods of dealing with these questions.
    A Bill relating to water-power was recently before the other House, and I say nothing as to the merits of that measure, but I call the attention of Parliament to this fact: It was a Bill proposing to utilise the water-power of a great district. There had been two projects carefully examined quite of a different nature, and a body of independent engineers had reported in favour of one particular scheme. The point is that, owing to various parochial and other considerations, the proposal was never given a Second Reading. For my part, I express no opinion, good, bad, or indifferent, as to the merits of the particular engineering problems involved, but I would point out that the result of our present methods of dealing with these great sources of power is that no use is made of them whatever, and I am quite sure that an alteration of our Parliamentary methods of dealing with these matters is essential for the full utilisation of our resources.
    We are making proposals with regard to the utilisation of our transport services, the co-ordination of canals, roads, and so forth, and last but not least with regard to the land. I do not propose to go into these questions to-day, because I want to confine myself to what we propose to do in the present emergency. But there is one emergency problem which has already been brought before the House and I would like to remind hon. Members of it again. We supplied a Select Committee of this House some time ago with a printed paper of twenty or thirty pages dealing with emergency legislation which somehow or another this House would have to deal with in connection with the termination of the War. This question has been referred to a Select Committee. A survey of that document convinces me that if we are to deal successfully with the winding-up problems of the War, we shall have to
    2588
    deal with our Parliamentary machinery for emergency legislation and improve it, because we could not deal with these problems by the ordinary rules of procedure.
    When we came to examine the problems for the transitional period we did not forget that, although we all feel practically certain that the War will not be resumed, it is an armistice, and that it is not necessarily the cessation of all hostilities. We feel confident, of course, that it will be, but in reviewing what we have to do at the present period the first thing to find out was what changes have taken place during the War in employment. You will find that there are practically three groups of industries concerned. There is a group of industries like, say, the woollen industry, which is employed for war purposes on what is more or less the ordinary work—that is to say, they are making khaki and various other kinds of cloth; some are making Army boots instead of civilian boots. But you get another group, and a very big one, closed down during the War. Manufactures have been reduced to almost a minimum; and it was my business a few months ago to get created what we call the Civil Industries Priority Committee to try to keep alive at least a sufficiency of certain important industries which would enable them to keep their staffs and framework together. Then you have the great mass of war industries proper which must terminate very shortly on the cessation of hostilities.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: May I ask, Has the Priority Committee reported yet, or is there a further Report? Because it is a matter of very serious importance.
    Dr. ADDISON: I am coming to that if the hon. Member will bear with me. I will deal with it in its place. I shall have to ask the indulgence of the House for some little time, because it is a very big subject. I asked the Ministry of Munitions some months ago to give me a Report of the state of employment in the metal and chemical trades, these being two test trades, and what they anticipate at the end of the War. And at this point may I say that the path of the Ministry of Reconstruction has been made a great deal easier than perhaps some people thought it would be by the help the Departments have given me? The House in passing the Bill setting me up did not clothe the Ministry with any executive powers, for which perhaps I have reason to be thankful,

    2589
    though sometimes one has reason to regret it, but I have had to have relations with every Department in the State. We have asked them to do things for us, some of them involving great labour. Our business, of course, was to devise plans and suggest schemes in consultation with them, but on them falls the executive work, and I should like to say in face of a great deal of somewhat shallow talk about the rivalries of Departments, that it has not come my way to any material extent in the last twelve months. We have received help everywhere, Well, the result of this inquiry was surprising to me. Even in the metal and chemical trades, which are overwhelmingly concerned in munitions, 70 per cent. of the men and 40 per cent. of the women are still engaged on work of a kind for which there will be a civilian demand after the War. That is much higher than would have been expected, and it makes our problems, of course, so much the easier. When you come to round figures, it amounts roughly to this, that there will be somewhere about 1,000,000 people who will require to change their occupations with the cessation of war manufacture, of which rather more than one-half will be men. Here may I refer to what appears to be a very commonly entertained misunderstanding? I am not sure the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. McKenna), from what he said, is altogether free from it. He seemed to think you could give the people a fortnight's holiday and then switch them back to the factories. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, that is what it sounded like.
    Mr. McKENNA: I understood my right hon. Friend had a Government unemployment scheme.
    Dr. ADDISON: I am coming to that.
    Mr. McKENNA: The right hon. Gentleman is coming to that. In the meantime he should not misunderstand me.
    Dr. ADDISON: I had the idea he would give them a fortnight's holiday.
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, because of the Government unemployment scheme.
    Dr. ADDISON: The point I was making was that to turn over a factory from war work to peace work is not a matter of days but of months, and may be a matter of a year or fifteen months. We shall not solve the problem of the employment of displaced munition workers by expecting to employ them in the same factory. In the
    2590
    main they will not be absorbed there. What we have to look to is to restore the big basic industries of the country which have been cut down and are capable of absorbing a good deal of this labour. I was told the other day by a very large employer that he proposed to turn over one of his many shops to another kind of manufacture, and he anticipated it would be fifteen months before he could begin work on the new kind of manufacture. I want to point this out and emphasise it, because there is, I think, a great deal of misunderstanding on the subject. That is not in the main the way the displaced munition workers will be employed, for the first few months anyhow.
    The House will ask, "What steps have you taken, or do you propose to take, to deal with the immediate difficulty of the cessation of employment on war work and the resettlement of civil workers and those of the Army and fighting forces?" Second, they will want to know what steps we have taken, or propose to take, to promote the rapid restoration of the trade and industry of the country and to promote it in the country by the encouragement of new industries or otherwise. I will deal with the first point first, the demobilisation of the civil war workers. Here let me say that, whatever may be done by the Ministry of Munitions, of which the Minister will give an account, to mitigate unemployment in connection with the cessation of munitions, there must come a time sooner or later—it depends on what is enacted now how soon or how late—when the work in the shops will cease in order that they may be turned over to other employment, whether it be fuses or shells or whatever it is. There must come a time when the people there employed, except those concerned in fitting machinery, must get out of the shops to give time for transformation. The extent to which people who are unemployed by the cessation of war contracts may be absorbed in other industries depends on the steps to which I will refer in a minute, but it is clear to us that we ought to contemplate that there must be an interval before, owing to shipping, tonnage, finance, determination of costs, and and other things, you have got industry restored to a more or less normal level.
    There must be an interval during which these processes will be taking place when we must contemplate unemployment owing to the cessation of war work. We shall have these 1,000,000 people moving; we

    2591
    shall have the demobilised forces to deal with, and the first question I had to advise upon was, What machinery are you going to use to deal with these 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 of people changing their occupations? We were confronted with the difficulty that you could not set up your machinery during the War, because you were not able, of course, whilst the issue of the War was not determined, to draw men back from the Army. We had to leave in the Army a number of people whose services are invaluable in the process of demobilisation, in the process of finding work and helping the Labour Exchanges and other organisations concerned. Therefore it is clear in the event of an armistice we must fall back upon the amalgamation of those war services which were already dealing with this class of problem. It was on that account that in the event of an armistice coming suddenly upon us I proposed we should amalgamate the Labour Departments of the Ministry of Munitions, the Labour Ministry, and Admiralty and others concerned to provide demobilisation machinery on the civil side, and it has been announced that the machinery has been set up under Sir Stephenson Kent. May I say, too, that the Committee on Army demobilisation which advised on this, pointed out it will be quite impossible to cope effectively with the problems raised by the people going back to their old districts from the munition works, or the Armies, unless you decentralise your organisation—unless you have in the different districts experienced people, employers and employed, to help you in the work. That is why it is my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, during the past few months, has set up 260 advisory committees to help in this demobilisation and resettlement work in the different parts of the country.
    The first thing we did when an armistice was practically certain was to arrange with the War Office for the withdrawal of what we call the demobilisers from the Army for service at home. These are the people who are to assist in the process of demobilisation, to restaff the Exchanges. I may say incidentally, although it has been referred to outside, that part of this scheme involves the issue of free railway passes to those war workers who have removed from home owing to war work.
    2592
    On the cessation of war work I think that public opinion, and particularly the Press, can help the Government very much. There are at the present time a very large number of people in war work who are not dependent on that work for their livelihood, and I think in the event of the cessation of the work, it is fair for us to ask them to stand aside for the time being in favour of those who are dependent on industry for their living, and employer and employed should assist in this in every part of the country.
    Well, it is clear that, do what we could to restore trade, we must provide for an interval of unemployment. I hope it will be very small, and personally I am disposed to think it will, but we must provide for that period. Then we came to consider—and I must pay a tribute of thanks to the Civil Demobilisation Committee, the very responsible body which did the work—we came to consider how you could deal with this transition through insurance against unemployment. We came to the conclusion that we could not do so in the event of an armistice coming somewhat suddenly upon us. In the first place, although the people in munitions work are insured against unemployment, all of those affected by the cessation of work are by no means insured. As everybody in the House knows, it is a big business. You go down the scale to raw materials affecting all manner of employments which are not themselves classified as munition work. We came to the conclusion that it was quite impossible to distinguish in any practical way munition workers from others who were necessarily thrown out of employment owing to the cessation of war contracts. Therefore, it was clear that no scheme based upon the insurance of munition workers would help us over the difficulty. The cessation of war work is a national affair. It is not the affair of any industry, or the accident of any particular trade. Therefore, it is the national responsibility, and it is not fair to saddle it upon any particular industry more than another. We have to remember that we have an insurance scheme based upon industry, and those industries which have been contributing most to the War requirements would be the most hit, whilst those industries which have not contributed anything would have no burden. That would be unfair. Finally, I felt the right course was to recommend a scheme based upon non-contributory

    2593
    insurance to deal with this emergency. At the same time we have under consideration a scheme for general insurance against unemployment, which, as I have said, it is the intention of the Government to press forward, but it was obviously inapplicable to this emergency. We therefore decided to make provision for unemployment during the coming months. This scheme is a non-contributory scheme and it makes no distinction between those who are employed, strictly speaking, upon munition work and others who become unemployed owing to the cessation of war contracts. The scheme for civil workers will be in operation for six months from a date appointed, during which the maximum period for which the donation will be paid to any individual will be thirteen weeks. I may say that there is a similar benefit for demobilised soldiers, but that extends over a year and covers twenty-six weeks' benefit. The rates for benefit for both ex-Service and civil workers are as follows:—Adults, 24s. per week for men and 20s. per week for women, with 6s. per week for the first dependant child under fifteen, and 3s. per week for each succeeding dependant child, so that a man with a wife and one child will get 30s. per week, and 3s. for each additional dependant child. The donation will not be payable for the first three days of any continuous period of unemployment. The out-of-work donation payable to partially disabled men in receipt of pensions will be additional to their pensions, and no deductions will be made on account of such pensions. The payment of contributions under the existing compulsory scheme of unemployment insurance will continue. As regards the receipt of benefit under this scheme, insured workpeople will not be allowed to draw simultaneously both the benefit under this scheme, and the free unemployment donation. In practice, payment under the contributory scheme will be suspended except in cases where the insured workman has exhausted his free donation. There are other payments which I will issue in a Paper.
    Mr. CROOKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what he means by saying there will be no benefit for the first three days?
    Dr. ADDISON: That is the position at present with regard to unemployment insurance. We continue the existing practice.
    Mr. HOLT Mr. HOLT made an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Dr. ADDISON: The same precautions and safeguards apply as under the present unemployment insurance scheme. I have not before me the precise technical qualifications, but what it comes to is that a man is not entitled to receive benefit if he refuses the offer of employment proper to his grade.
    Mr. CROOKS: Who decides that?
    Dr. ADDISON: It is decided exactly as it is decided now under the present unemployment scheme. There are precisely the same conditions with which the House is familiar. I would not like to give a reply now upon these technical points, but there are exactly the same conditions to safeguard the scheme against abuse. As hon. Members will be well aware, we had to examine the matter very carefully before we proposed anything, but we were bound to have higher unemployment benefits than the existing benefits, because of the increased cost of living.
    Mr. ROWNTREE: Are the amounts fixed with reference to the cost of living; and could the right hon. Gentleman tell us the kind of average wage that the men and women will be getting before unemployment?
    Dr. ADDISON: We were advised that, having regard to the existing cost of living, 30s. was a fair minimum.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is that for six months?
    Dr. ADDISON: Yes, for six months.
    Sir C. HENRY: Is it to be a flat rate?
    Dr. ADDISON: Yes, it is a flat rate.
    Colonel THORNE: What will happen in the case of a man and his wife, both of whom are now working and both of whom re thrown out of employment?
    Dr. ADDISON: They would both get the benefit, but they would not both be able to claim for the same dependants. When we came to consider whether any contribution should be made to juveniles, we felt that there we must attach some special condition, because during the course of the War large numbers of boys and girls who would otherwise have entered upon an apprenticeship, or perhaps have stayed a year longer at school, have gone into employment, and have been earning very

    2595
    good wages. In view of the fact that the Minister of Education, after consultation with the Treasury, has made provision for extending facilities for technical and similar instruction, we make it a condition in the case of juveniles that they attend some instruction which is approved by the Minister of Education Juveniles are to receive 12s. per week for boys and 10s. per week for girls. A juvenile is a person over fifteen and under eighteen. The instruction may be given in the employer's works, if a satisfactory scheme is arranged and receives the approval of the Board of Education. A number of employers have informed us that they would be glad to have classes at their works in order to keep their young hands together, and to keep them in training against the time when they get their machinery re-established. They would have to be approved courses, and, subject to that, I think it is a very desirable scheme.
    Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Will the educational schemes be under the direction of the local authorities?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am glad that my Noble Friend has reminded me about that matter. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education is discussing it with the local education authorities, and in order to get the thing working and so that we shall not be delayed by discussions with the local authorities, the Board proposes to meet the whole of the cost of the education provision for the first six months, and for the second six months the cost of the educational courses will be borne, half by the Treasury and half by the local authorities.
    Although it is not closely related to continued employment, I would like to tell the House something about Army demobilisation. I propose to issue a pamphlet, which is in popular form, but I hope hon. Members will not like it any the less for that. It is intended to be read by the general public. It will be posted to every Member this evening. The pamphlet sets out the whole scheme of Army demobilisation, and it is reduced at the end to the form of question and answer.
    Major HAMILTON: Does it deal with the Navy as well?
    Dr. ADDISON: Certainly. It deals with the Navy and the Army. This matter
    2596
    was gone into at great length by a Committee presided over by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India (Mr. Montagu), appointed by the previous Government, and we have adopted the principle that demobilisation must be governed by industrial requirements. It has been a most elaborate piece of work. We have had to have the Army classified into trade groups, of which there are forty-two, and the Department at the War Office that deals with this side of the question fills me with admiration. Arrangements have been made to mark down first, what we call the demobilisers. They are the people required to start the demobilising machinery. That has been done. The next group are what we call pivotal men, and here again I have issued a precise statement. You get in practically every works some men round whom the work revolves, and until they are there you cannot get the work started. Therefore, the Ministry of Labour have invited the different trades to specify their pivotal groups, and these are separately catalogued in the Army.
    Sir W. PEARCE: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether demobilisation is going to be managed by the Ministry of Reconstruction or by the War Office? It is a point of great interest.
    Dr. ADDISON: The Ministry of Reconstruction is not an Executive Department. The demobilisation, whilst the man is with the Colours, will be managed with the War Office, but the order or priority of demobilisation—the arrangement for picking out the pivotal men—is undertaken by the organisation at the Ministry of Labour under Sir Stephenson Kent. The civil side is under that organisation, and the Army deals with the military side of it. Those are the two organisations which work in common, and which deal with the whole arrangements.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman make that point quite clear? If a firm requires a particular man, to whom is the firm to apply in order to get him, and is there any machinery by which that man can be obtained at once?
    Dr. ADDISON: The firm makes an application to the Ministry of Labour. I believe that forms have been circulated and some sent into the Ministry already. Whether the firm will get the man at once or not is a matter that will depend upon his occupation. In

    2597
    discussing occupation we naturally must have regard to those occupations the re-establishment of which causes the biggest amount of employment. We naturally put them very high in the scale. Therefore the priority grading of employment is based upon considerations of that kind. It must depend partly upon the time of the year, because grading is different now from what it would be in harvest time. At any rate, these pivotal men represent a group, and they, of course, will come back early. But within each group we have regard to the length of service the men have done during the War, whether a man is married, and other considerations of that kind. Another large group of the Army which has been separately marked down, and which makes our problem very much easier, is that large group of men for whom there are jobs waiting for them when they come back. I am sure we all recognise that it is a national duty to secure these men the priority of re-employment when they return. I am glad to say, according to information I have received from the Minister of Labour, that more than 60 per cent. of the men in the Army are what are called "slip" men—that is to say, men who have jobs awaiting them.
    Sir C. HENRY: When the right hon. Gentleman talks of men in the Army, does he include the Home Forces or does he refer only to those abroad?
    Dr. ADDISON: I will deal with that. When a commanding officer receives an order to send back a certain number of men, he knows at once which men are the pivotal men and which men have a job awaiting them, and this eases our problem enormously with regard to employment at home. Those have been the governing considerations right through this very elaborate scheme. In reply to the question put by the hon. Baronet (Sir C. Henry), I may say that the Army is one whole force. The scheme deals with the whole of the Army, whether at home or abroad. The Committee considered very carefully the rate of demobilisation. That necessarily must depend upon all kinds of military considerations, some of which are obvious, and the maximum rate of demobilisation can clearly only be attained after some time, but the general scheme contemplates that the rate of demobilisation from the forces at home will be the same compared with the rate of demobilisation of the forces overseas. That,
    2598
    at first, might look as if it gave some advantage to the men at home, but, as a matter of fact, the men at home, in the vast majority of cases, have seen foreign service; they have been abroad, therefore you cannot distinguish in that way, and the scheme contemplates an equal demobilisation of the two groups. The machinery by which they are to be demobilised is set out in detail in the pamphlet which I am circulating to hon. Members, therefore I need not trouble the Committee with it now. I may say that a man is sent primarily to a place that is called his dispersal station, which is near his home. There he receives a protection certificate, a railway warrant home, a cash payment of his war gratuity and an out-of-work donation policy, which lasts in the case of the soldiers twelve months and covers twenty-six weeks of unemployment, with benefit at the rate I have mentioned. He will receive the war gratuity. The precise method of the payment of that will be announced shortly. I believe it is likely that it will be paid in four weekly instalments. The man will receive twenty-eight days' furlough when he reaches his dispersal station, and will then receive pay and ration allowance during that time, and the separation allowance will also continue during that period.
    Sir E. CARSON: Have you yet fixed the rate of gratuity?
    Dr. ADDISON: I believe they have fixed the rate of gratuities, but it varies so enormously, having regard to the class and times of service, that I would rather refrain from dealing with it.
    Sir E. CARSON: It has been decided?
    Dr. ADDISON: Yes; I understand from my right hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) that they have settled their scale, and that it will be published very shortly. There is another class of demobilised men, before I come to the officers, for whom we have to make special provision. A large number of men joined the Army who had not completed their apprenticeship. It will be, I am sure, a waste of brains and energy if these men, after three or four years' service, have to go back to civil life and find that they have lost their skill. They were practically unskilled workmen, and we must provide some incentive to their completing a short term of apprenticeship which will bring them up to a sufficient standard of skill.

    2599
    Therefore we have worked out this scheme for a system of completion of apprenticeship for men who have been serving in the forces. Again, I will circulate the full details as it is a rather elaborate scheme.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Does that include officers too?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am coming to the officers. It is a rather elaborate scheme, but what it comes to is this—we discussed it with the employers and the workmen's representatives in great detail—the employer is to pay wages to the apprentice during the first twelve months representing not less than seven-twelfths of the current rate of wages, and the State makes them up to the man, so that he gets in the aggregate three-fourths of the wages to which he would have been entitled at that stage of his apprenticeship, and the next year it makes up to a bigger fraction still, namely, five-sixths. That is to say, what we really do, on the basis of the employer affording facilities for an intensive form of apprenticeship, is to make a contribution in order to bring up the wages practically to the standard of what they would have been at that stage of the workman's career. The details are elaborate, therefore I do not give the Committee anything but a bare statement.
    Now I come to the question of officers. We have dealt with great care with the question of officers, and the Committee, under Sir Reginald Brade, spent a great many months working on this problem. I am sure the Committee will recognise that in respect to a large number of young men of all branches of training who gave up their prospects, who have been in the Army and have become dislocated from their normal employment, we are under a very special responsibility. The Government has accepted the general principle that from the beginning of demobilisation and for a year afterwards permanent appointments in the Civil Service shall be reserved for ex-officers and ex-soldiers. As the rigid application of this rule, however, would exclude certain candidates with special qualification, it is intended that the rule should not apply (a) to the relatively small number of posts requiring special technical qualifications or involving special responsibility, and (b) that it should not apply to a limited
    2600
    number of cases in which men pronounced unfit on grounds of health for general service have been temporarily employed and are specially recommended by the heads of their Departments. With those exceptions, by that means we open the Civil Service to ex-officers and ex-soldiers for twelve months after the War.
    Colonel Sir J. HOPE: Is that the whole of the vacancies?
    Dr. ADDISON: Yes, with the exceptions I have mentioned, which do not amount to a very great number. The next thing is that a great number of officers and men in various callings have had their professional training interrupted during the War, and it would be equally, as in the case of the skilled mechanic and the apprentice, very unfortunate if we were not to recognise that we have special responsibility with regard to enabling these men to complete their professional or other training. Therefore it is recognised that the further training or education of young ex-officers in various callings, or men not officers, who have interrupted their training in those callings, is a matter in which we have special responsibility. The War Cabinet has agreed to the principles of a scheme whereby, where circumstances require, assistance with respect to fees and maintenance shall be given on the recommendation of the Training Committee to enable men in those classes to complete their training. The details of the scheme proposed will be announced very shortly.
    Sir W. ESSEX: Have they taken complete powers to abrogate any restricting law with regard to the age period existing at present?
    Dr. ADDISON: That is a difficult question. I hope we shall not have to take powers. I hope that every training college and authority in the country will rise to their responsibilities. I do not think it will be a matter of taking powers at all, but I could not answer the question without careful examination. There is another matter which has been carefully examined, namely, a number of persons came from overseas and brought their families, or had to bring their families, as the case may be, and we have recognised that we have a responsibility in regard to assisting in their repatriation.
    6.0 P.M.
    With regard particularly to a special class of case in which the one-man

    2601
    business figures very largely, we propose to make provision against that by continuing the Civil Liabilities Department after the termination of the War, so that assistance subsequent to demobilisation may be given in accordance with a scheme based upon the existing regulations of the Department. That covers assistance with regard to officers and men who are unable, by reason of their undertaking military service, to meet their financial obligations after demobilisation, and are thereby exposed to serious hardship; and the obligations in respect of which assistance may be granted are those arising in respect of rent, interest, and instalments payable in respect of loans, including mortgages, instalments payable under agreements for the purchase of business premises, a dwelling-house, furniture, and the like, rates and taxes, insurance premiums, and school fees. We will continue the existing scheme for assisting those cases. It will be within the discretion of the Department which deals with the civil liabilities to make a Grant, either in the form of a lump sum or by quarterly or other instalments; and if in any particular case the Department is of opinion that in lieu of assistance in respect of any of the specific obligations mentioned above it is desirable that assistance should be given for the purpose of enabling applicants to purchase stock-in-trade, or shop-fittings, a grant may be given for this purpose. These various classes of special facilities with regard to entrance into the Civil Service, facilities for continuing training and maintenance, with regard to repatriation questions, and with regard to hardships arising under the Civil Liabilities scheme, we propose to deal with in the way I have indicated.
    In connection with resettlement, we have to consider another question which has been present to the mind of everyone, and that is the considerable and very right demand that in appropriate cases where they are capable of making good use of these facilities the men shall have some right of access to the land. A scheme has been worked out and examined in great detail by a Cabinet Committee, the details of which will be announced shortly, which will provide facilities for ex-Service men of all branches of Service, for settlement either on small holdings, allotments, or gardens; and I think the House will agree, when we can give the details of the
    2602
    whole scheme, that it is simple, expeditious, and comprehensive, and I am sure the country will demand no less.
    We were confronted at quite an early stage by the physical difficulty of demobilisation. We have to contemplate the movements of hundreds of thousands of tons of stores, and masses of men coming from abroad, and at the same time we want to use our ports for the restoration of trade as quickly as possible. The right hon. Gentleman made a reference to the blocking up of storage capacity which will follow on a continuance of manufacturing. It was clear to me that the only effective way of dealing with the physical difficulty of demobilisation was to pool our storage capacity. A long time ago now the Departments concerned met, and we set to work to map out a scheme whereby the storage capacity belonging to the different Departments should be pooled. If you have a port with a large store belonging to the Admiralty, another to the War Office, and another to the Ministry of Munitions, if two of them were half full we could fill one store and leave the others empty for some other purpose if the goods were capable of being stored. This body worked for a long time under the chairmanship of Sir Charles Metcalfe, and it has now been made an executive to deal with this problem. The scheme they have worked out means the pooling of storage on certain lines of traffic, in order that certain other ports and lines of traffic may be freed as quickly as possible for commercial and trade purposes, so that we do not get a partial block on all kinds of lines of traffic; but you use a special group for demobilisation, and others will be set free for trade. Here, again, the whole question of the disposal of war stores is a problem which has occasioned very anxious thought. I am sure we shall all desire that we should not incur at the conclusion of the War any more scandals than we can avoid. I do not put it very high. I am inclined to think that with the best arrangements ingenuity can devise we shall still have some. Anyhow, let us try to have as few as possible. The first thing which was clear was that if you have all kinds of people dealing with stores without any relation to one another and without a common policy you are more likely to get blunders than you otherwise would. A body was set up, under the chairmanship of Lord Salisbury, which had to survey the different categories of stores. What was

    2603
    originally contemplated was that we should have a separate body of men as an executive to deal with disposal. But that does not seem altogether to be a workable arrangement apart from those who deal with the stores in their different stages. Anyhow, we have agreed that you must have one body of men responsible and not a dozen, that we must have a survey of the different categories of stores, and that before they decide on their policy in respect of a particular store your organisation must be such that you may take cognisance of the various classes of demand for the stores, and that you may take cognisance of how the disposal or alternative use of it will affect the industries of the country as well. To take the case of road-making material, the programme of the Road Board, which can be put into operation as and when required, will necessitate the utilisation of a vast mass of machinery which we have now in Franco for this purpose. Therefore this survey requires the Departments concerned—chiefly the Ministry of Munitions—to take cognisance of public requirements before they decide on a policy with respect to particular categories of stores. We shall get a common accounting system, and I hope, at all events, we shall minimise the risk of waste. We have received all kinds of estimates as to the value of stores which are surplus to the requirements of the War Departments, and if I were to take an average of the various estimates which I get, it would be round about £500,000,000. I hope we shall realise more.
    Colonel COLLINS: Who is responsible to this House for the decisions of this Board?
    Dr. ADDISON: It will be the Ministry of Munitions. It became clear, also, in surveying this question of stores that as it was intricately mixed up with all kinds of manufacturing processes, from the raw material to the completed article, if you are going to contemplate some common authority for dealing with this class of problem it is better to contemplate, not only in this connection, but in others, that you have a common authority to deal with our Government supplies generally. I believe a good many of the mistakes made during the War have been due to the fact that we have not had a common policy in obtaining Government
    2604
    supplies, and we have never had a body of men whose business it was to work out a common policy. We have never had a Minister responsible for supplies, and the result was that I found myself at the Ministry of Munitions without any guidance whatever when we had to purchase great masses of stores, and we had to invent as we went along all kinds of costing systems so as to give us some guide as to what we ought to pay, because it was quite obvious that the lowest tender was no guide whatever under the special circumstances. If you were going to have a careful and well-developed system of finance, it seemed to me that you must have one body of men responsible generally for Government supplies. Therefore, we have recommended to the Cabinet that they should accept the principle that we ought to have a Minister of Supply, and they have accepted that recommendation. It will have to be a gradual transition. It will be impossible to dislocate existing arrangements at this stage.
    Mr. J. HENDERSON: Another new Minister!
    Dr. ADDISON: No. He will take the place substantially of the Ministry of Munitions. That is what it comes to. I have dealt with the question of stores, of transport arrangements, and of supply. These are all related to demobilisation, and we have already got in hand the work in connection with all these various branches. Now I come to what I believe is, if possible, a more difficult side still than what we have been dealing with, and one, if possible, more vitally important to the nation, and that is the steps we have taken to secure the rapid restoration of trade. Everything depends on that in the end. Here I should like to make another tilt at my critics. I have had all kinds of critics with reference to the appointment of Committees, and I am about to issue a Paper which will show who the men are. I have found, on the most elementary survey, that the first problem we have to deal with in order to make sure of our ground is the raw material supply. That is the key of the restoration of our trade facilities. I therefore asked different groups of gentlemen, whose names are set out in the Paper which is circulated, to advise me on the different non-ferrous metals, ferrous metals, alloys, jute, hemp, flax, and all the rest of it. I should like to say

    2605
    how much I am indebted to the Committees which have worked so hard. We had to survey first, what are the likely requirements of the country. That has been done by these various bodies which have been brought together, and I am glad to say the position is better than I should have expected. But some time ago the Ministry of Munitions tried to ascertain for me, in February last, from the manufacturers what are their probable post-war demands for materials and equipment, and I am sorry to say the replies were disappointing, because, owing to the uncertainty of prices, and so forth, they really felt quite unable to give us any reliable guidance, so that we have to get it in other ways. These various bodies, including important Departments of the War Office, have afforded us assistance in examining this question of requirements. Here lot me say that you cannot look at it merely from the question of requirement, you must also look at it from the point of view of how to promote our own supplies. That is an essential part of the raw material problem—the stimulation of the production of raw materials. That goes hand in hand with the question of our supplies.
    Sir E. CARSON: Are you dealing with Colonial raw materials?
    Dr. ADDISON: Yes, all sources from any part of the world wherever supplies come from. These materials I am dealing with are all practically the raw materials we require in our trade. Some time ago I recommended to the Government that we ought to set up a body of men charged with responsibility for the promotion of the production of raw materials in our Dominions generally. That body has been at work a considerable time. It was established some months ago, and is known as the Imperial Mineral Resources Bureau. Here let me say to my hon. Friends from Ireland that the Department of the Ministry of Munitions which has been working at the development of our resources at home has made some very promising suggestions in regard to Ireland. I have passed them on to the Imperial Mineral Resources Bureau—except in one case, where we were already boring for coal. I should like the Irish Members to devote some of their attention to the possible development of the mineral resources of their own country, which, according to these suggestions, may be somewhat considerable.
    Mr. H. LAW: Can the right hon Gentleman tell us what those suggestions are?
    Dr. ADDISON: I will send the hon. Member a copy. I have placed in the Vote Office what I believe is a very excellent model sample scheme for stimulating the production of raw material. One of the first industries that we must depend upon for the production of employment is the building trade. It is perfectly clear that in regard to the building trade timber and brick are the key materials. Timber, in the main, we have to import, but Mr. Carmichael, Chairman of the Building Materials Supply Committee, has worked out for me a scheme for the stimulation of the production of materials for the building trades throughout the country. I would invite hon. Members to look at this scheme. I have already taken steps to put it into operation. It appears to me to be an exceedingly practicable and workable scheme. Every brickyard in the country has been mapped out, and particulars of every key man and of every brickyard in the country has already been sent in to the Ministry of Labour. The specification for every piece of machinery required for every brickyard in the country has already been set up.
    Sir E. CARSON: When the right hon. Gentleman uses the word "United Kingdom," does he mean Ireland also?
    Dr. ADDISON: It means Great Britain, and a separate organisation for Ireland. All this has been done with the utmost detail, and the whole thing is to be managed by the trade itself. It is not going to be managed by a Government Department. The Government Department, when they have appointed a chairman will, I am glad to say, be able to wash their hands of the whole business. The whole trade has been consulted, both employers, workmen and architects, and they are all involved in this scheme. We are, therefore, looking to the trade to work it. I believe we shall be right in inviting this industry to work the scheme, for a simple and sufficient reason that they know their own business much better than we do. When we talk of housing schemes we are wasting our breath until we have concentrated on this essential matter of the production of building material. The production of building material is the key of the whole work in the building trade. I am glad to say that we are now well ahead in our preparations in regard to that matter.

    2607
    Having drawn up the requirements of the State, it has been our duty to see what we could do to provide the necessary supplies beforehand. That has been dealt with for some time past on the authority of a Cabinet Committee, presided over by my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary. Although I am a little anxious about some of them, in the main the position is more satisfactory than I could have expected. The Shipping Controller has been in touch with our work, and all the special Departments have worked harmoniously together in connection with the promotion of this raw material armistice programme. Sir Kenneth Anderson, the adviser who works with us in this matter, showed me a programme the other day, and they have got shipping enough to meet this programme, and all the arrangements are made to divert the shipping as and when the time arrives. The Shipping Controller hopes to issue in the course of about ten days revised freight rates, ex war risks, which I understand are very necessary in order to give security. I heard my right hon. Friend (Sir E. Carson) say that I had taken no account of the trades that have been shut down. That is not so.
    Sir E. CARSON: What I did say was that I thought the calculation was very optimistic, having regard to the number of ships that had been lost, and that account must be taken of the different trades, not necessarily of this country, but of trades throughout the Empire, in coming to a real estimate. I dare say some account has been taken, but the scheme I saw seemed to be very optimistic.
    Dr. ADDISON: Of course, I am not an expert. The Shipping Controller, having regard to the tonnage after the War, thinks that he can meet it. I hope that will turn out to be the case. I am not thinking now of luxuries, but only of our own internal essentials. Our tonnage programme is drawn up purely on essentials—essential raw materials.
    The country will desire to know at the present juncture what stocks of raw material are available for peace production and what preparation has been made to supplement those stocks by importation during the difficult year that lies before us. I will deal first with metals, especially those which are most vital to our industrial welfare, namely, iron ore, pig iron, and steel.
    2608
    There has been a great increase in our capacity for the utilisation of home ore, and arrangements are being made by the Shipping Controller which will render it possible to import as large a quantity of foreign ore as was imported prior to the War. It is proposed to release iron and steel forthwith. The difficulties which may arise owing to the fact that through the exigencies of war the price of steel now stands at an artificial level have not been overlooked, and it is intended to continue Orders fixing for a period a maximum price for steel, though this may involve continuing some measure of Government assistance for that period.
    Mr. ROCH: Does that mean a subsidy? Will the steel subsidy continue?
    Dr. ADDISON: There are all kinds of arrangements which enter into the question of steel—coal, coke, shipping, etc.—and you cannot possibly dissociate them. With regard to other metals, I am glad to be able to assure the House that there is a sufficient supply available to render it possible to release some from control now, and nearly all the rest we hope to release within six months. I am convinced after a close survey of the position that we shall be able to meet the demands which reconstruction will make on our resources during that time, but while I am satisfied that there will be enough for all if it is equitably divided, there must be no selfish attempts on the part of individuals to secure more than their share, and for this purpose it may be necessary to take precautions against hoarding. Steps are being taken in the meantime to secure the release of much usable stock, and to grant further supplies of metals to those industries now limited to a fixed ration.
    Sir E. CARSON: Will the price be controlled?
    Brigadier-General HICKMAN: I also should like to know exactly what the right hon. Gentleman purports to tell us on this point. Am I to understand that the price of steel is still going to be controlled?
    Dr. ADDISON: You are to understand that for the next six months we contemplate that we shall have to fix a maximum price for steel. The reason we have to do that is that we find that nobody has any security in placing their orders or in placing contracts unless they know what is going to be the price of steel. We cannot dissociate all these artificial conditions straight away, therefore we are

    2609
    bound to fix a price for steel, at all events for the next six months, in order that men may have a basis of security for making their contracts.
    Mr. HOLT: In other words, every person who buys steel during the next six months is going to get a present from the Government?
    Dr. ADDISON: That does not follow at all. It does not follow in the least.
    Mr. S. SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a manufacturer always gets his steel in hand before he quotes for the manufactured article; therefore he knows exactly what the steel is going to be?
    Dr. ADDISON: That may be so in regard to the existing stocks, but the existing stocks of steel are for war purposes.
    Mr. S. SAMUEL: If I ask a manufacturer for a quotation for a ship or for spinning machinery he will, before he gives me a quotation, get a firm offer from the producer of steel for the quantity of steel required.
    Dr. ADDISON: That is the point. We found that people were not prepared to make firm offers, and my expert advisers told me—I am not an expert in these matters—that we shall have uncertainty for two or three months unless straight away we have a fixed maximum price for steel. That is the way you will give confidence. People will have a basis upon which to fix their contracts.
    General HICKMAN: Do I understand that the price of steel is going to be controlled for the next six months, and that that controlled price will be lower than the present price, so that possibly the people who get the steel may not be able to make it pay?
    Dr. ADDISON: I did not say what the price was going to be. I said the price would be fixed, but I am not prepared to go beyond that statement at this moment.
    Sir J. SIMON: The right hon. Gentleman says the price will be fixed. Are we to understand that new powers will be got to enable that to be done? Is not the present power for fixing the price dependent upon the Defence of the Realm Act, and is not the Defence of the Realm Act an Act which comes to an end as soon as the War comes to an end?
    Dr. ADDISON: The War has not come to an end yet. All I have to say is that this is a vital necessity of the nation, and I shall have no hesitation in asking Parliament to give me any necessary powers, but we have powers at present, as the War has not yet come to an end. This is necessary, as I am advised, in order to secure to people a sufficient sense of security on which to base their contracts, and we do not want them to hang fire in placing ciders during the next few months. I am not saying what the price is going to be. I am not competent to say at the present moment, but it is quite clear that you must have a maximum price. Steps are being taken in the meantime to secure the release of much usable stock and to grant further supplies of metals to those industries now limited to a fixed ration. Great discrimination would be required in the discharge of this duty, but the various controls will call into counsel representatives of the trades concerned. My great hope in all this is to imitate the example of the building materials group, and get the trades to do it for themselves as far as possible.
    If the Committee would bear with me, I would like to say a few words with regard to wool, cotton, jute, and leather—those goods controlled by, if I may say so, that remarkably efficient Department the War Office. The existing control organisations, these Departments of the War Office, have consulted with the trades concerned, and they have measures already devised for the easy transfer from war to peace conditions with regard to wool, jute, flax, hemp, and other industries. The main difficulty is the shortage of material, but the situation can only be relieved by a reduction in military orders. The reduction in military orders will not take place as quickly as it will in munitions, because while men are in the Army they will still want boots and clothes.
    The position as regards timber is one of the most difficult. Clearly it will be necessary to continue felling in this country for at least the next twelve months, and we have bought trees ahead for that purpose. That is essential if we are to safeguard our supplies of timber. I have dwelt at considerable length with the raw materials question, and hope that I have not wearied the Committee, which will recognise the vital importance of the matter. In the same way we have made arrangements through the Ministry of

    2611
    Munitions with regard to priority in arrears of necessary machinery. I will here say a word on the vital importance of the work of the Standing Council on Priority which has been established for some little time, because it is quite clear that in some industries the demand is going to be much greater than what we can supply, and, therefore, at all events with respect to some of them, some measure of priority organisation, we hope worked in the main by the trades themselves, will have to be instituted.
    I have given specific cases, which we have already dealt with, as to why we need a post-war priority organisation respecting the machinery in some trades. In France and Belgium there are whole districts devoted to textile manufacture where the machinery has been largely destroyed, and here at home, too, our textile machinery makers and our textile workers have had their machinery unrepaired and unrenewed during the course of the War. The demands on the production of textile machinery are, therefore, very great, as soon as we can get the raw material liberated and the machinery going again; but we naturally have specific and peculiar obligations with regard to our Allies in the devastated areas. The Governments concerned have already approached us on the subject, and we have to look after our home departments as well. We have set up in consultation with the trades concerned what I hope and believe will be a most satisfactory arrangement for meeting the requirements of all parties in their fair proportion, but it is clear that for some time to come in a case of this kind you will have to have some priority machinery, and the whole policy with regard to control is to use the trades themselves as much as possible. I am glad to say that most of the big trades have now become sufficiently organised, so that in due time I hope that they will undertake the responsibilities, if any are required to be exercised, in connection with priority. But still we have to remember in the coming year or two we may have a ration with regard to certain supplies, so that it is impossible to escape altogether the conclusion that some form of international allocation will be required, and while there is some form of international allocation, which would be a proper and noble work for a League of
    2612
    Nations, it will imply that there must be some measure of allocation machinery in the industries concerned.
    The Minister of Munitions, as already announced, will make a statement with regard to the work his Department is doing in providing facilities for that work, and even for assisting in the placing of orders, on Monday next, so that I need not refer to that portion of the scheme. One matter, however, to which it is my duty to refer is the question of the national factories. I have often been asked, "What are you going to do with this factory and that?" There are a great many factories, and when you come to examine them, as has been done with great care, you find that they fall into four principal classes. There is a large number of factories which are wholly State-owned—land, factory, and administration belong to the State. There is a number of factories which are partly State-owned and partly owned by firms. There is a large number of factories that are called national factories of which the firms themselves are really the owners. We have taken somebody's place and used it. There are no fewer than 115 of that class. Then there is a class of factory which is serviceable for the purpose of storage. There are twenty-five of them. We have examined these factories with great care, and there are certain factories which, it is clear, until the issue of the War is determined with much more certainty than it is now, it would be injudicious either to part with or substantially to alter. We have preserved a considerable number—at least twenty. Then there are factories on which there has been considerable expense on land already bought, but the purchase of land is necessary to make it a real live asset, and in these cases the Department has been instructed to purchase the necessary land Then there are factories which we have investigated in reference to all kinds of public requirements, and in their case the Ministry of Reconstruction, in consultation with the Treasury and myself, have been authorised to receive offers and suggestions as to the utilisation of these factories, and a large number I know are under consideration.
    I have detained the Committee too long, and therefore I will only say that it is part of our work to review opportunities for employment. We have reviewed this in terms of the projects of the housing and the building

    2613
    authorities, the Road Board, the authority in connection with land reclamation and other sources of employment. The labour demands have been formulated and can be put into operation if required. Also a number of gentlemen under the chairmanship of a Member of this House have investigated employment in the engineering trades, and I propose to issue in a short time a pamphlet setting out what their recommendations are. May I say that they are made entirely by men engaged in the industry, and they offer a number of most valuable suggestions for the provision of employment, many of which have already been adopted, especially with regard to the provision of employment for displaced women and unskilled workers? Then we have investigated, and taken up with the Standardisation Committee, the improvement of standardisation, particularly in railways. Also we have collected through the Department of Overseas Trade the demands, so far as we could get them, of India and the Dominions in reference to products of different kinds. They have been formulated, and we are inviting the assistance of the Ministry of Munitions and other Departments in bringing them before those who are concerned; and in connection with some particular railway material, the Ministry of Munitions is provisionally allocating certain orders in order to keep steel works going, because until the price of steel is fixed many of these authorities say that they cannot give a definite price for these rails. Therefore, in order to provide for the hiatus we have organised the industries with a view to carrying on the Orders for rolling rails and so on, the price to be fixed later.
    When investigating our oversea demands, nothing impressed me more than the manner in which we allowed the German to gain ground upon us before the War. If there is any part of his industrial life in which he was better organised than we were, it was in regard to getting hold of orders. His financial methods, his Consular services and his organisation of industries enabled him to get a long way ahead of us. I notice than an hon. Gentleman opposite shakes his head, but I may tell him that that is the bitter lesson I have learned during the investigation. There may be some brilliant exceptions, but, speaking generally, I believe it to be true. The German has had a financial organisation and a combination
    2614
    which have enabled him more readily to get hold of foreign trade than we have been able to do. I am convinced of this that a great opportunity lies before British traders, if they will only now exert themselves, and it is an opportunity which will be best grasped by organisation among themselves. There is plenty of room for it. But all our efforts will be in vain, and whatever we do in respect of demobilisation and resettlement, of the supply of workers, of the supply of material, the clearance of lines of transport, the organisation and disposal of stores, and the allocation of orders will all be in vain unless we have industrial peace in this country. I believe that, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said earlier in the day, the most important question before the country is the question of reconstruction.
    I have explored for a long time the various avenues approaching industrial peace. Many of them simply enter a blind alley. It is quite clear to me that you cannot get industrial peace by any Government prescription. You may get the Government saying, "We will lay down certain minimum conditions of employment," but that is not industrial peace. It is not on the method of production that we vitally depend in order to maintain ourselves in the future. It is suggested we should have a meeting of Labour leaders and employers to see if they can solve the problem among themselves, but I am convinced that it is no good trying to do it in that way. The interests of one trade are quite different from the interests of another, and you cannot settle them on one single plan. Therefore it is clear that what we have to do is to try to organise in the industry authoritative representatives who may be able to tackle and settle these things by themselves. We have set up a large number of industrial councils and interim committees, a list of which will appear in the Paper to be circulated. I think there are now about fifty industries or thereabouts so dealt with. We have been doing a lot of spade work of a very unattractive kind during the last twelve months. We have not set out to create these bodies simply that they may represent the trade—an object valuable in itself—but because the two parties on the bodies working together makes them the only people who know the conditions of the industry, and this will enable them to secure

    2615
    better methods of production coincidently with industrial peace. I believe it is only by the utilisation of these bodies that we shall secure that essential. Let me say that many of these bodies have undertaken all manner of responsibilities outside the industrial circle, and we find nothing but good come of them. Many difficulties have been settled by them already, and as they get into full working order I have no doubt they will settle many more. I have ended on this note, as to the vital necessity of industrial peace, because I am satisfied from the review which we have made of the position that will arise in the course of the next year or so, that if we have industrial peace we shall have a unique opportunity before us to make a better country, a country worthy of the men who have fought for us. To do that we must secure in our midst industrial peace, and if we can secure that, if we can secure agreement in our industries, we can all go forward with full confidence as to the future, not only in regard to prosperity, but also in regard to an improvement in the condition, habits of life, and general welfare of the people. When we have done that, I think we shall have done something of which we shall have every reason to be proud.
    Sir E. CARSON: I do not feel myself competent to deal at any length with the very important statement of my right hon. Friend, but I wish to congratulate him upon it, because I think it shows how important it is to bear in mind the very difficult problem which will arise immediately after the determination of the War. How far they will be successfully dealt with remains, of course, to be seen, but I think that this is a subject which everybody ought to approach in a way as helpful as possible to the right hon. Gentleman in the difficult task which he has before him. The right hon. Gentleman wound up upon a note with which we all agree, namely, that almost everything depends upon industrial peace. As a matter of fact, if, when we have signed peace with our enemies, we begin to have war at home, I shall despair of the immediate reconstruction of the country. If we are to have industrial peace, and I am bound to say that I think that this is what my right hon. Friend was aiming at, we must show to the people of the country, and especially those who are returning from the front, that we are going to deal with their
    2616
    cases in no niggardly fashion. Industrial peace will depend upon wages and on a high standard of living. Let us not forget that by reason of the War, since the War broke out, there has been an advance not merely in wages, but also in the standard of living, notwithstanding the War. My opinion is, and I think the sooner it is realised the better, that you will not be able to go back to a lower standard of living or a lower standard than people have set for themselves in the course of the War. Certainly you can never ask the men who are coming back from the front to take a lower standard of living or a lower wage than you gave those who stayed at home, while they were away fighting our battles at the front.
    As regards one question which my right hon. Friend dealt with, the demobilisation of the forces, that is a matter which I think it would be better to discuss when we have seen the pamphlet he is going to send round. He has put forward many schemes which show a great deal of thought, and a great deal of consideration, and really the only suggestion I am going to make on the spur of the moment as regards that is this: I think that in the carrying out of schemes of this kind what is very often absent is sympathetic administration. Men will come home and find themselves with their businesses—small or large, as it may be—utterly ruined, and having to make a fresh start. In my experience, one of the mischiefs that have occurred in the administration of pensions and separation allowances is the want of local sympathy—the failure to bring home to the people in their own districts what it is Parliament and country has provided for them, and the failure to attempt to solve the local difficulties which they themselves have felt in an absolutely sympathetic way. I will appeal to my right hon. Friend in setting up his machinery to take care, in the first place, that the provision of his scheme are brought to the knowledge and attention of the people, so that they may understand them without having to write here, there and everywhere asking the interference of Members of Parliament and others in order to try and get this or that done, and done as quickly and as sympathetically as possible, in the reorganisation of the particular business with which they are concerned.
    7.0 P.M.
    I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that in my experience more good has been done by keeping people satisfied and, may

    2617
    I say, comparatively happy as regards what seems to us small grievances but which to them are great grievances by having a sympathetic administration on the spot. I know, myself, that for a community like Belfast I get a number of people—and I am sure every hon. Member has the same experience—who write saying that they do not know whether they are getting their proper allowance for themselves or their children and whether they get the proper grants in respect of the husband or the son who may have been killed. Sometimes they write and, after a long time, get back a printed form—a most unsympathetic document. In Belfast it so happens they have a gentleman representing the Pensions Office—I do not know him personally—but from a great many communications that I have received I know he has looked upon these things with personal sympathy and he has interested himself and taken trouble to satisfy the people with whom he has to deal. I believe my right hon. Friend would do well to keep before himself in setting up his machinery the necessity of having a strong personal note of sympathy, especially with a man who comes back from the front and who has to retrieve his position in his particular business or his particular employment. That is all I want to say as regards demobilisation. With regard to the question of the setting up and resuscitation of trade, to which my right hon. Friend naturally devoted a great deal of his attention, may I say that I hope my right hon. Friend will confine the exertions of the Government to the least possible interference with individual trade? I think the outside public, in the way of manufacturers and merchants, are really in a state of nervous anxiety at the present moment as to how far this question of control can at the earliest moment be removed. I know that it cannot be removed altogether, and no one knows it better, for I sat on a Committee when I was in the Cabinet which discussed, for instance, this question of raw materials over and over again. I know perfectly well that you cannot have a rush for raw material which will not go round without having prices put up to such an extent as to make it probable that the consumer would be unable to pay for the material produced. But the mercantile and manufacturing community are dependent upon the Government relaxing more and more from day to day all question
    2618
    of control of their business, and whatever you may do on the question of control on general principles as to matters like raw material, steel, or other matters necessary for manufacture, do not, above all things, interfere with the individual management of a man's own business. I believe the greatest element of success in the carrying on of business in this country has been individual effort, and the policy of the Minister of Reconstruction ought to be to restore it to the fullest extent at the earliest possible moment. I get constant complaints of delays in Government Departments where there is this interference. I am not blaming anybody for this. I know perfectly well what the exigencies of war may be, but a gentleman came to me the other day, a man of knowledge and of ability, who knew what he was talking about, and told me that he tried to get a licence to transport an amount of stuff, for which he was able to get credit, into this country. He first saw a member of the War Cabinet, who told him he must go to the Departmental head. He saw him, and that gentleman sent for his chief assistant, and he was passed on, he told me, to eight or nine different people. Then, having got, as he thought, to the bottom of the matter, so that he might really have a chance of his licence, the man at the bottom began by sending him back by the same steps up to the top. And up to this he had not got his licence, and whether he ever will I am sure I do not know.
    That is the kind of thing which is aggravating to a business man, and that is the kind of thing which is going to militate against business. Where we are in the perilous condition that the country must find itself in, and where we are out not merely to make new trade, but to try and get back and recover our trade, and our trade is envied and is no doubt in competition with trade elsewhere where they have been able to make preparations while the War has been going on, everything will depend not on splendid paper schemes, which read so well and which sound so magnificent when propounded with the eloquence of my right hon. Friend, but the whole question will, believe me, depend upon administration. I do hope that in the carrying out of the administration you will give the go-by altogether to political recommendations of the people who are to carry it out and will try to get real business men May I ask you specially to do that as regards Ireland,

    2619
    because there is no country in the world where the business man is so much ousted from any business in Government Departments, and where the politician gets such full play. I could give, I will not say hundreds, but many instances of men being put into jobs to carry out important matters, where their only qualification was that they were extreme politicians, and I am not now talking of either one side or the other. There is one other matter I would like to ask my hon. Friend. I hope that the Government are not going them selves to act as merchants. We heard some observations that were a little disquieting about the Government taking orders and executing them in certain priorities, and about having got certain details from various traders and manufacturers, in order to see how much would be required. I understood my right hon. Friend to say so.
    Dr. ADDISON: I think my right hon. Friend is referring to inquiries as to overseas trade which related to transport materials, requirements such as affect particularly steel supplies, for example, the demand for steel rails.
    Sir E. CARSON: I am glad to have that assurance. I may say that a short time ago a circular was put into my hand—I do not know whether I have it still, but I think I could find it—which emanated from the Ministry of Munitions, and which was sent out to various firms in the South American Republics, and I dare say elsewhere, asking them to furnish to the Ministry what their demands were likely to be at the end of the War, in order that they might place their orders in accordance with such priorities as they were able to effect. I am bound to say that I got a communication afterwards, when I drew attention to the matter, from the Ministry, in which they said that they never intended to do any such thing as to place the orders. It was perfectly plain on the face of the circular. I am glad to have the assurance of my right hon. Friend that you are not going to interfere with the merchants any more than with the manufacturers. I think it would be, there again, a disastrous thing if the Government were to commence to operate upon their own in that direction any more than in the other direction of which I have spoken. I have made these few observations not in any wise as a carping criticism upon anything my right hon. Friend has said. I know well the
    2620
    amount of time and attention and anxiety that he has given, and not now but for many many months past, to this subject, looking forward to the great day which we now have, when peace would once more return. I can only say I wish him well in all his efforts, and I do not believe there is any Member of this House, wherever he may sit, who will not give him all the assistance that he can in building up once more the great trade of this country.
    Mr. HOLT: I should like to express my satisfaction—satisfaction which, I am sure, everybody has felt—at the very successful result of the War and on the cessation of the horrible bloodshed which has devastated Europe for the last four years. I am rather sorry that the discussion inaugurated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Mr. McKenna) on the question of public economy was not persisted in a little longer. I think that the time has come when the whole House ought to realise that the economy of the public finance is quite as much at the foundation of the prosperity of the country as any other single thing. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken, and the Minister of Reconstruction, emphasised very strongly the necessity for industrial peace, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that industrial peace would depend very largely on a high rate of wages and a high standard of living. I agree with him in thinking that those are no doubt, perhaps, the most important factors in obtaining industrial peace. But, on the other hand, after all, people can only get what there is, and if you are going to have a high standard of living, which is of course the same thing as a high standard of wages, or more or less, the same, then it means there has to be a very great deal of production. I would like to remind the Committee that the high standard of living which has taken place during the last two or three years, is very largely in consequence of living on borrowed money. It is quite easy for anybody to raise the standard of living as long as he can get credit and proceeds to overspend his income. We are now going to turn back to a stage in which we shall not only not spend our income, but shall have to spend less in order to make good the losses of the last four years. I venture to think that statesmen and persons in places of great responsibility who hold out the hope that we are going to see a higher standdard of living than that of the last two

    2621
    or three years, are incurring a very grave responsibility. I think you are quite as likely to get industrial unrest from holding out false and agreeable promises to the labouring classes. I would urge, if industrial peace is what is wanted, on persons in responsible positions, not to try and hold out promises which they have no real reason to believe can be fulfilled. I want to return to the subject which my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire was discussing, and as to which we got no official answer from the Minister of Reconstruction. Is it possible to ask the Minister of Reconstruction whether he can give any answer to the interrogation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouthshire? Is the production of munitions no longer wanted going to be stopped or not? It is very important we should have an answer to that. My right hon. Friend suggested that they should have a holiday on full pay rather than make munitions that are not wanted, and that is quite obviously the right thing to do. If we do not want a man to do certain work, it is far better to pay him to do nothing than to pay him to do the thing you do not want him to do. In any case, you have to pay him the wages, whereas if you pay him to make these munitions you do not want you are wasting raw materials as well as wages, Surely we can have some assurance that the manufacture of articles not required will be stopped forthwith, and that no such manufacture will go on simply for the sake of preventing the person who does this work from having a holiday. We really ought to have an assurance on that subject straightaway.
    There is one thing about the holiday which I did not quite like. I think you ought to be very careful not to give the impression to people at large that there is no very great harm in taking a holiday. I found, as soon as the Armistice began, there was a general holiday taken yesterday, and a great tendency to go on taking a holiday to-day. Everybody can see that if the people working about the docks are going to get it into their heads that there is no great harm in taking a holiday at present, there is the danger of putting the food supply in the immediate future in danger. We are nowhere near the day when people can knock off work. I do not think munition workers have any great claim upon the generosity of the public Exchequer. A good many of them were
    2622
    induced to enter upon this work with the idea of doing public service and making a sacrifice, and they will be glad to get away as soon as possible. They have been paid very good wages and ought to have saved against the time when work was going to stop. The position of the munition workers is totally different from that of the soldiers, and their claim for unemployment donation, or whatever you like to call it, is of a totally different character. They have had a very much better opportunity of making provision for themselves, and are, after all, only in the position of a civilian engineer who knows perfectly well that he is engaged for a definite job and that when that job comes to an end he gets no more pay until he gets other employment. I am very much afraid that if you show too much willingness to find large unemployment benefits for all these people you are going to find a great reluctance to take up other work. If you hold out the prospect of considerable pay out of the Public Exchequer so long as they do not work they will be much less disposed to find another job. We all know perfectly well that we want to get people back to work as soon as possible.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire also spoke about the question of shipbuilding, and I think an assurance was given that warship building would be practically discontinued and merchant shipbuilding would be pushed on full speed. I do hope the Government will not do in regard to warship building the same foolish thing that was done at one time with regard to other shipbuilding, and that is to stop the progress of work on the ships on the stocks, and thereby prevent shipyards from being used for the new work. Do let us get shipyards clear of everything that obstructs the commencement of new work. I do not understand why it is that so much thought, so to speak, is being given as to how people are to find jobs. I was under the impression that the country was full of jobs waiting for people. Whenever I go about I find there is always something which cannot be done because you cannot get the workers. You cannot load a steamer or discharge a steamer because there are no dock-workers. You cannot take away the goods because there are no carters. You cannot get things by the railways because there are no railwaymen, and roads are not mended properly because there are

    2623
    no road-workers. I distrust altogether the policy of holding out to everybody the general suggestion that nobody is going to get any job, and that the only thing the State has to think of is how to provide for people who cannot get work, when everybody knows that everyone can get a job to-morrow by asking for it. The right hon. Gentleman told us just now that there might be a great many jobs in which employment has been reduced to the very minimum. Surely, in the case of all those jobs, it would be easy to reabsorb labour. Before the War there was no large number of competent people who were perpetually unemployed. If after this War, with the loss of life and crippling of people, we cannot of our own accord absorb the whole of the labour available, I must say I am very much astonished.
    For years the Government have been living on borrowed money, and they do not seem to think it matters whether a thing pays or does not pay, but sooner or later the nation, like everybody else, will have to face the ordinary question: Does it pay? Have you, or have you not, got a balance? If you are going to undertake in almost every department of human activity jobs apparently for the purpose of finding somebody something to do, or supplying somebody with something he thinks he wants, and never considering whether this is a profitable job which is going to leave a surplus, you are going to drive the financial position from bad to worse, and I do not think you are going to get the same easy response from taxpayers as in the War, when people were willing to pay in order to win the War. The right hon. Gentleman talked about storage. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman will be storing a great many articles which would be much better destroyed. It is an easy thing, with the idea of economising and saving waste, to store articles in the hope that some time you will want them, but an enormous amount of storage might be incurred of things which might better be burnt. You will very easily block trade. I remember quite well what happened in the early days of the War, when, with the desire to get plenty of sugar in the country, the Government got enough sugar in effectively to block everything else, and very nearly brought us to a standstill by way of storage. Storage is very often nothing more or less than a polite word for
    2624
    obstruction. I think it a pity the Government talk so much about interfering with the question of raw material, and look for raw material in very unlikely places, for instance, in Ireland.
    Dr. ADDISON: How do you know?
    Mr. HOLT: I venture to say that if there had been any reasonable prospect of working these mines in Ireland satisfactorily and profitably somebody would have done so long ago. That is precisely the sort of thing the Government will do. They will, for political reasons, in order to please certain political sections, and to prevent agitation from certain quarters, look for minerals in places where they are not likely to be found, and waste public money which would be very much better employed in paying off the financial debt.
    Dr. ADDISON: I presume the hon. Gentleman refers to the operations for coal, but I can tell him they have been undertaken, so far as I am aware, entirely uninfluenced by political considerations, by a number of experts, most of whom, to my certain knowledge, are not Irishmen, nor, so far as I know, are they interested in Ireland. It is by no means a political question.
    Mr. HOLT: I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman could have got experts to undertake operations in Ireland or Kent, but what I want to see is people who put their own money in the mines, and then I shall be more satisfied as to it being a proper operation. I do not believe all this idea of controlling trade can very well go on. Trade, after all, has either got to be free or it is not to be free, and that is the whole history of what has gone on during this War. The Government starts a small element of control. It is immediately found that if you control article A you must control article B, and that takes you into C and D, and so on, and the whole of this Government control has been forced upon them by degrees, because the Government started controlling two or three articles. If, for instance, you are going to control freight, that immediately drives you into controlling the whole price of the article to be carried; otherwise you are simply putting a bonus into the pocket of the particular merchant who deals in that article. That has been the story right through. You have got to fix the price of

    2625
    the home article and everything else if you are going to deal with even one branch of trade.
    The right hon. Gentleman talked about priority. There are a lot of very unpleasant things in people's minds about the way priority has so far been worked. It will hardly have escaped the attention of the right hon. Gentleman that any system of priority is likely to open the door to corruption. The money advantage which can be given to A by priority and refused to B is very large indeed. I do not think any person can be unaware of the fact that there is a very large element of suspicion in the public mind that where A or B gets priority it is not on the actual merits of the transaction, but from other considerations, political influences, and such like, which have decided the giving of that priority. I am quite certain that if the Government undertakes to deal in this sort of thing you will not have the pure and honest government to which you have been accustomed in England for a very long period. I want to say a word about this question of steel to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded. I want to know what is really going to happen. I was very much alarmed by an answer to a question I put to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions the other day. It reads:
    "Mr. Holt asked the Prime Minister whether any Grant or subsidies are being given to any 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, 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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1918, col. 2297.]
    I confess when I came to look up the question of the hon. Member I was rather surprised It reads:
    "Mr. J. Mason asked the Minister of Munitions whether he has taken any, and if so, what, steps to compensate by an increase of the controlled price or otherwise the producers of steel for the increased cost of production consequent on the increased cost of labour and coal, and whether he will give an assurance that no subsidy has been paid or promised to such producers?
    2626
    The Financial Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions (Sir L. Worthington-Evans): Certain subsidies are given to steel makers to compensate for the increased cost of labour and coal. Rebates are also paid by steel makers to the Ministry in certain cases. These subsidies and rebates enable the price of steel to be stabilised, and thus prevent the necessity of frequently revising contracts involving the use of steel."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th May, 1918, col. 799, Vol. 106.]
    I venture to say that answer would never have indicated to anybody that the Exchequer were expected to pay £47,000,000 in subsidies. The plain implication of that answer is that the subsidies and rebates more or less balanced one another, and that the whole thing was a transaction for the sake of enabling the price of steel to remain at a fixed figure—approximately the cost of producing the steel. I am very much surprised an answer so misleading should have been given by any member of the Government.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): To which answer is the hon. Gentleman alluding—to my answer?
    Mr. HOLT: No, the answer to which he referred; and I was surprised he had the hardihood to refer me to it. What I think we are entitled to know is this: The hon. Member says that approximately 2 per cent. of this steel was steel to private consumers. If that is so, apparently private consumers received a bonus of something like £940,000 out of the public Exchequer. That is the calculation, so far as I can make it, on the figures given to me by the Government. Since the 31st July they must have received considerably more, and the gentlemen to whom priorities were given must have received by now, in the aggregate, a present of £1,250,000, or something of the sort, out of the Exchequer. That is one of the reasons, I think, why the Government should be careful about priority. It is not a very pleasant thing to think that £1,250,000 of public money should have passed to people who have got these priorities. The effect of closing down munitions and of re-establishing our ordinary trade will be that the steel will pass from Government to private consumers. Are those subsidies to go on, and are the private consumers of steel at controlled or maximum prices to continue to get these very large sums of money? I think we, representing the taxpayers, ought to know all about this business, and ought to have a definite assurance that, under no circumstances, is the money

    2627
    voted to-day going to be handed out to persons who get priority certificates for their steel. We really ought to have a definite assurance on the subject, and a pledge from the Government that no public money will be given to anybody through this steel subsidy, or any other similar subsidies.
    I want for one moment to refer to some of the matters which I should have thought the Government might have taken in hand at once with a view to the reduction of public expenditure. How about the whole staff of the Censorship? Surely we might have a stoppage forthwith of the censorship, the disbandment of their staff, and a reduction of the charge which falls upon the Exchequer by reason of the employment of that very large number of persons. There is another matter that I should like to know something about. I think we ought to be told what are the prospects of the release from the service of the Navy of the very large fleet of fishing vessels employed, not only for mine-sweeping, but for fleet attendance, and all sorts of other purposes. If we could get the fishing vessels released now, I think you would not only get substantially increased economy in the hire of these vessels, but you would get an increased supply of fish, and by putting a larger supply of fish immediately on the market, which might be done in a fortnight or three weeks, you would force down the price of all other animal food, and make a step forward in bringing down the cost of living. The removal of these craft from public service would give two advantages: first, it would save a charge on the Exchequer, and, secondly, reduce the cost of living. I think we ought also to have some assurance that the enormous consumption of petrol in connection with aviation service is going to be brought to an end. That surely might be stopped at once, and there, again, we should not only save paying for petrol out of public funds, but the general public would have the great advantage of being able to use petrol, and get about their business much more efficiently than they have been able to do in the past.
    All sorts of things are going on. Only the other day, during the negotiations, I am told that the antiaircraft searchlights were being played all over Liverpool, and I have no doubt the same thing has happened in other large towns. Surely that kind of expenditure might be stopped
    2628
    at once. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the Defence Force was only going to be disbanded pari passu with the troops abroad. Why are we keeping on this Home Defence Force? Why should they not be allowed to go home and get work? There are all sorts of expenditure which might be discontinued without waiting any longer. There is a question to which I sincerely hope the Government will see its way to give an immediate answer. What is the position of the German mercantile marine? I understand, from the conditions of the Armistice, that the German mercantile marine is liable to capture if it goes to sea, and therefore will remain in German ports. Without prejudicing the question of what is to be ultimately done with the German mercantile marine, surely it is of vital importance to the whole world that it should be got to work at once. We are seriously deficient in transport. Central Europe, we understand, is in danger of starving, and therefore of serious revolution. Surely the Government ought to lose no time in getting work out of these ships, without prejudicing in any way the question of whether Germany is to hand over these ships or not. Surely there must be some means of getting these ships to sea and using them to supply Germany, if necessary, instead of waiting months before they are put to any use. I do feel that it is a point to which some immediate attention ought to be given, and might go a very long way towards relieving many of the difficulties with which we are face to face both at home and abroad. I do hope that the Minister of Reconstruction, who has spent nearly two hours in explaining the magnificent scheme, just before the General Election, of making presents to everybody who is likely to have a vote, may be able—or that some Minister may be able—to find some time to tell us how a present has been made to the taxpayer by reducing expenditure.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: It is a matter of regret that on an occasion like this, when we have a most important Debate on Reconstruction, that no member of the Government who is responsible on this matter should be present. There are several Departments concerned. I know the Minister of Reconstruction has been in attendance for some hours, but the War Office, the Ministry of Munitions, and the Ministry of Labour, are all Departments which are very much concerned with this question. I really feel inclined to move the Adjournment

    2629
    of the Debate as a protest against what I think is a matter of discourtesy to this House.
    There are one or two short points with which I wish to deal: How to get the men back from the Army quickly. Sir Stephenson Kent, who has been appointed Controller-General of the civil side of demobilisation and resettlement, could not give us any information as to the time it would take before the men can be got back from the Army. This, though apparently thought a matter of small importance, is really of very considerable importance. I attended last Friday a large meeting of farmers. They were very anxious now to the end of the War was in sight, to obtain some means by which they could get their men back. They asked me to bring the matter to the attention of the House. There can be no reason to-day why agriculturists should not be returned at once. They are required for food production. If you cannot return all the agriculturists at once, surely we could have the married men. Certainly the men who have only recently been called up might have their orders to go back at once to their civil occupations. If this operation of getting the men back is going to take weeks, as most of these operations have taken in the past, there will be, I think, very great discontent, and also, as a necessary consequence, a very great loss to the country. I attended an important meeting of manufacturers this afternoon. The question was raised as to how they could get important men back, men, who, by the nature of their work, would be useful in preparing work which would give employment to others. They were most anxious to have some sort of simple method by which, now that the pressure of men for the Army has gone, they could obtain the men back without any long rigmarole of going through different Government Departments.
    These are two points. I do trust that the Minister of Reconstruction, in giving the whole subject thought, will give these his very prompt attention. He must be perfectly clear that priority in regard to the employment of men should be given to those men who have served in the Army rather than to those who have worked in munition works. There is just one other point to which I would refer, and that is the proposed control which the Minister of Reconstruction has indicated, he desires to exercise after the War. In a great many of these cases it will be found that
    2630
    that control is contained in the Clauses of Acts of Parliament, or in the Orders in Council for the purpose of promoting the manufacture of munitions of war. But the moment we cease manufacturing munitions of war, I would venture to urge upon the Government that the control should be stopped. If control for other purposes is required, that is to say, for the purpose of Reconstruction, then I think, the Government ought to come to the House and make a case for obtaining that power. But control which is obtained for one purpose ought not to be used for another purpose. There will be a great amount of discontent amongst manufacturers if the Government attempt to control them or regulate their proceedings or the management of their businesses for one moment more than is absolutely necessary. No one knows outside manufacturing circles how manufacturers have suffered by the control imposed upon them during the War, but they have submitted loyally without complaint, and now the necessity for this control, or rather the production of munitions is over, they naturally expect to be relieved of any further Government interference. The control which it is proposed to exercise in regard to priority certificates is a matter of rather grave concern. It was quite one matter to control priority for munitions of war, and if one firm was given a little priority it did not matter so much, but when it becomes the case of priority for ordinary commerce, then I think the door was opened for abuse and for all sorts of irregularities which we should by every means in our power seek to avoid. I do not want to carry this matter further.
    I think the Minister of Reconstruction has really done his best in regard to preparing a scheme of reconstruction, but the one point which he seems to have missed is in the attempt he has made to create a reserve of work. We have seen nothing of a reserve on which the munition workers can be turned. He has told us to-day that he is going to get employment for some of them in the Civil Service and on the land, and that something has been done in the building trade. Of course, that is all for the good, but I think this is a direction to which more attention should have been given, and we ought to be in a better position in regard to finding work on which to turn discharged munition workers. We seem to lack some clear, definite, and tangible scheme. Such a scheme has not

    2631
    been put before us, and I hope we shall bear something more than what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind and more than has been stated to-day. Nothing is more dangerous in times like the present than to have a large unemployed population which has been earning high wages hanging about without any definite employment.
    Sir JOSEPH WALTON: It brings home very forcibly to us the gigantic nature of this War when we remember that this is the twenty-fifth Vote of Credit for carrying it on. To-night we are asked to sanction the expenditure of a further huge sum of £700,000,000. Personally, I think that the House ought to hesitate to sanction sums of money in Votes of Credit that are not likely to be required in the period covered by the War, and I should have been pleased if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had limited his demand to a Vote of Credit for £500. We are approaching this Vote of Credit in a very different frame of mind to that in which we approached the previous one. We come full of hopefulness and rejoicing that a greater amount of world freedom has been gained by our brave Armies and our Navy than the world has ever known before; that we are taking as a world a great step forward, advancing immensely those principles of justice, and ultimately of civilisation and humanity, as the result of this most terrible War in which we have made unparalleled sacrifices of every sort and kind.
    I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer took a somewhat too optimistic view of the financial situation to-day. Including the Vote of Credit now under consideration, the House will have voted Votes of Credit during the War to the gigantic total of £8,742,000,000. It is simply stupendous, and we can hardly realise it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answer to a question the other day, said that on the 30th September our dead-weight debt amounted to £6,875,000,000, and he now tells us that we have lent to our Allies £1,465,000,000, and to our Colonies £218,500,000, or a total of £1,683,500,000. I presume those items are included in the £6,875,000,000. In view of this Vote of Credit for £700,000,000 to carry us to the 31st March, in seems absolutely certain that our dead-weight debt on the 31st March next will not be less than £7,500,000,000 We are told that there are great assets in France and at
    2632
    home amounting, possibly, to anything between £500,000,000 and £1,000,000,000, but notwithstanding that our financial position is a serious one.
    I rejoice that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been so successful in borrowing money in the shape of War Bonds. I think it is immensely to our satisfaction that no less a sum than £1,279,000,000 has been invested by the nation in War Bonds, and £256,000,000 in War Savings Certificates, making a total of £1,535,000,000 voluntarily put, through the patriotism of the nation, into these War Bonds and War Savings Certificates. But we still need a great deal more money. The greater part of the £700,000,000 now under consideration will have to be borrowed, and what is the prospect of being able to get further huge sums taken up by the nation in the shape of War Loans? We have over £1,000,000,000 of Treasury Bills, practically none of which can be renewed because peace has come, and innumerable people put their money during the War into Treasury Bills in order to get a little interest on it, but now that peace is in front of us more capital is needed to put our works in order, to change over from the production of war products to the products used in peaceful commercial civil life, the cost of replacing our lost shipping at the present enormous prices, and otherwise. There is a need for a much larger amount of money to be invested in stocks in our various works, because if we are to have a rapid economic recovery after the War we require the productive power of this country to be double anything that it was before the War, and that means greater stocks and an immensely increased amount of working capital to carry on these businesses.
    8.0 P.M.
    Our home demand will be enormously increased by restorations, repairs, and extensions of every sort and kind, and if we are to have true prosperity we must seek not only to recover our export trade that has been in abeyance very largely during the War, but to very greatly increase it, if we are to meet our enormous obligations at home and abroad. I read with interest an interview which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave the other day, in which he told us that we shall owe at the end of this year no less than £1,000,000,000 sterling to the United States of America. That came as a great surprise to me. I believe we have given security to the extent of £600,000,000, but I do not know whether that reduces the

    2633
    claim America has on us for the £400,000,000, or whether the £1,000,000,000 is in addition. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated it as 5 billions of dollars. It may be said our financial situation is not so bad, because in the £7,500,000,000 up to the end of March next we have secured £1,683,000,000 with our Allies and the Dominions. This means that we are not going to receive the money now, and the chances are that we do not receive much interest on it either for some time to come. The Chancellor of the Exchequer tells me that in his Estimate he takes one-half of these loans to our Allies and our Dominions as a safe estimate of what we may possibly ultimately get back. But what is the real financial situation with which we are confronted as far as our annual expenditure goes? I want to know how we are going to foot the bill. We are asked to-day to vote another Credit of £700,000,000. The interest alone on £7,500,000,000 is £375,000,000 a year. The redemption ought not to be put at less than £75,000,000. That is £450,000,000; the cost of pensions at £75,000,000, that is £525,000,000, apart from the normal and ordinary expenditure of the country. Now, that was approaching £200,000,000 before the War. We are going, thank God, to increase the expenditure on education, we are going to have increased expenditure for old age pensions, and no one begrudges that, and we are going to have increased expenditure for housing, urgently needed all over the country, and the State is to take some part in that.
    Could we, as a reasonable estimate, I ask, including that £200,000,000 pre-war expenditure, fix the normal expenditure at less than £250,000,000? There you get the gigantic total of £775,000,000. The Excess Profits Duty is to cease bringing in its yield, and where are we going to get the revenue? That is, assuming that there is no increase in the Army and Navy expenditure over pre-war years. I hope it will be less. I hope an international disarmament will be arranged, because, I think, as a safe estimate, we ought to face the fact that now, in all human probability we will not have an annual Budget of less than £800,000,000, at any rate, in the time of the oldest of us in this House, and that indeed is a huge burden to face. We are faced with this huge taxation, and yet, in looking through the terms of the Armistice I do
    2634
    not see any mention of indemnities. I do not see any mention of our intention to enforce the payment of indemnities upon our enemies. It is only two years ago that Germany, when they thought they were going to win the War, unhesitatingly told the world, or, at any rate, the German people, that they did not trouble their heads about the cost of the War, because they were going to get all that back in indemnities, and that they were going to claim an indemnity of £10,000,000,000 sterling from this country, which they said would place her under tribute to them for a generation to come. Now, in facing the future, rejoicing as we are in victory, we must recognise that it will require the greatest effort of co-operative productivity to bring us into smooth water in the matter of finance. I say that the necessity for the avoidance of waste in national expenditure was never so great as it is now, if we are going to have a rapid recovery and to meet all our financial obligations at home and abroad. With regard to the waste of money, I am glad to note that they have stopped calling up men for military training. That is one step in the right direction; but I should like to call the attention of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to a suggestion that I have to make. We are told by the Minister of Reconstruction that it will take three, six, nine, or twelve months to change over many of the works of the country from war work to peace work.
    But I tell my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury of one business of vital importance to this country where there is no necessity for a day to be lost with regard to the change over, and that is a trade he knows a great deal about—the coal trade. Four hundred thousand coal miners volunteered to fight for their country. I ask the Government to release and bring back to this country immediately 100,000 coal miners from our fighting forces in the field. By doing that they will secure that the people of the country shall live during the winter which is near upon us in well warmed homes and in greater happiness and contentment. In doing that they will provide sufficient coal for the works and manufactories, and it will make all the possible difference in the matter of our financial and economic recovery. Not only ought they to bring at once 100,000 men, coal miners, back, but they ought to follow that with no long delay by at least another 100,000. In that

    2635
    way they would take 200,000 men oft the Army strength and reduce the Army Vote substantially. There are several other matters. We are bringing home skilled artisans, the managers of one-man businesses and indispensable men in various business undertakings who have been taken away and whose return would do an enormous amount to assist in the rapid getting back to peace work of the works they were connected with. Now we have a countless army of employés in the different Government Departments. I hope that drastic steps will be speedily taken to enormously reduce the number of those employés. At the same time, I say they must be treated fairly and reasonably; they must not be turned off at a day's notice without means of employment. Now, with regard to national expenditure, we are told by the Committee on National Expenditure that Parliamentary control has been especially recently, wholly inadequate, and they recommend that a standing Committee be appointed on Estimates and accounts, replacing the Public Accounts Committee and the Estimates Committee. Now, I ask, Are the Government going to give prompt effect to that recommendation? Looking to next year, I am convinced that a great saving of public money would be effected and a great deal of waste might be prevented if that Committee were appointed at once and got to work. Especially as they are to be a Standing Committee on Estimates, it is essential that that Committee should get to work and be in existence long before the Budget, say, in April next, in order that we may have the benefit of their assistance. Our financial system in this country was always supposed to rest upon the doctrine that the interests of the taxpayer in limiting expenditure should not be left to Ministers at the head of the spending Departments, but should be under the special charge of another Minister, namely, the Chancellor of the Exchequer working in his own Department, the Treasury Is proper Treasury control going to be speedily resumed? Otherwise we shall never get value for our money. We have had a long and interesting speech from the Minister of Reconstruction, but I am inclined to Bay that the less Government interference we have the better. Every trade and industry that they have touched they have hampered and injured and made less effective. We are now told
    2636
    that the Minister of Munitions has appointed a Demobilisation Board and certain instructions have been issued. In just glancing through them I came to this most important instruction:
    "That systems of payment by results be temporarily suspended and that the customary notice of transfer from payment by results to time work be given."
    You have people working and being paid by results, and the Government actually propose to take them off payment by results and to put them back upon time-work. I should like to have an honest statement as to the reduced production when they are on time-work as compared with piece-work. It is an absolute waste of money. We are going to have allowances to unemployed, and they are to be provided by the State. It is perfectly right that the State should take care that the demobilised soldiers who cannot be taken back into their old employment, or given other good employment, do not suffer for lack of decent means of living and of comfort, but I am afraid that we shall have considerable discontent and disturbance in the country over this reconstruction business. I would ask whether munition workers will not object to leaving the piece-rate Eldorado for a subsistence rate at home. I am afraid we have probably considerable trouble in store over questions of that sort. Let me say that, I think, the hundreds of thousands of women employed in the munition works and elsewhere are entitled to very great consideration indeed. We must treat them not only fairly but generously. We have had a War Cabinet to conduct the War. We ought to have a Peace Cabinet to conduct and organise and arrange and supervise our return to peace conditions during the transition period between the present time and the time when State interference and control of our industries can be withdrawn and they can be left to individual initiative and the energy and knowledge of men who know the different businesses themselves. I should like to know what the Government have to say as to the question of a Peace Cabinet. The Minister of Reconstruction tells us that his Department is not executive. It can only investigate, consider, and report to the various Departments. We are told that the Minister of Munitions has appointed a Demobilisation Board, and that they have got certain duties. I suppose that other spending Departments of the State

    2637
    —possibly the Army, the Admiralty, and others—will also have Boards appointed, but if we are to get the best results, we need one central controlling body to supervise them all, such as a Peace Cabinet, including, of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the President of the Board of Trade, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of National Service, the Minister of Pensions, and the Minister of Education.
    Everybody knows it is a stupendous task that we have in front of us during this transition period. We have to guard against discontent arising through things not working smoothly. There are 3,000,000 soldiers to be demobilised and to be brought home and placed in work again. They deserve that all the forethought and all the most skilful organisation shall be brought to bear so that they may speedily either get back into their old employment or obtain suitable employment elsewhere. I am not discouraged with the outlook as a whole. The nation, during the more than four years that this great struggle has gone on, has shown qualities such as those that had the highest view of England did not dream that we possessed, and I hope we shall be able to avoid setting class against class and shall succeed in adjusting relations between capital and labour. It would be a great assistance in smoothing away the differences between capital and labour if we were to set up those district and national joint councils that were recommended in the Whitley Report. I hope that we shall continue during this time of final peace settlement and during the time of national reconstruction a national Coalition Government. We need a Government for those purposes composed of the best brains and the best men of all the political parties in the country. A return at the present time to party government would be nothing less than a national disaster. We need the good-will, the earnest work, and all the knowledge that the best men of all parties can throw into it; but, given that, even though we have suffered great financial sacrifices, we may expect to emerge purified, as it were, and strengthened, and to have in front of us a period of greater prosperity than this country has ever known.
    Mr. BYRNE: I wish to refer to a matter which may not appear to be worthy of very special consideration, but which, in my view, is of urgent importance. I allude to the deplorable condition of old
    2638
    age pensioners at the present moment. A few days ago I asked the Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he would not grant an increase in the old age pension. The answer he gave me was that he did not think it was necessary and that he had no precedent to go upon. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that since the last increase of 2s. 6d. was given to the old age pensioners, two increases have been made in the separation allowances. There was also an increase in the Army and Navy pensions. If he wishes for a precedent for increasing the old age pension, he could look to the Committee of Production, which has given two awards during the last twelve months definitely to meet the increased cost of living. We know that an old age pensioner with 7s. 6d. a week at present is far worse off than he was in pre-war years with 5s. a week.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir D. Maclean): The question of old age pensions does not arise on this Vote of Credit. There will be other opportunities for the hon. Member to raise that question in the course of the next two or three days.
    Mr. BYRNE: I bow to your ruling, Sir. Seeing the hon. Gentleman here, I thought it was an opportune time to raise the point. I will now turn to the question of the breaking up of munition factories. That has been discussed to-day in connection with England, but in Dublin and Ireland we have two or three munition factories, and I feel perfectly certain that they will be the first to suffer. When the Government starts cutting down industries they generally begin in Ireland. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to see that whatever treatment is applied to the munition workers in this country shall be applied also to munition workers in Ireland. The munition factories will be closing down quite shortly That will throw a large number of people on the labour market in Ireland. I see no possibility of any other work being started, at any rate in the near future, unless the Government make up their minds to fulfil some of the promises they have made in the past to our country. One of our housing experts issued a report quite recently, in which he stated that there were 27,000 families waiting to live in sanitary dwellings. When you are closing down munition factories you will have a good opportunity of giving these people other work. If you will speed up the building

    2639
    of houses in Dublin and Ireland you would be fulfilling a double duty—first, a duty to our people who are practically homeless, and, secondly, a duty to those who will be thrown on the labour market during the next few months. Large numbers of bricklayers and carpenters who have been engaged on work in Ireland are bound to be dismissed, and unless you do something for them under the Reconstruction scheme—and do that immediately—those men are bound to be left idle. His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a few weeks ago made a very nice speech to the Belfast Harbour Board. He promised that there would be great opportunities for an industrial revival, building and everything else, for Ireland. I am one of those Members on the Irish Benches who have no faith in the promises made by any representative of the Government. They never fulfil their promises; in fact, the Government is practically responsible for putting Ireland in its present condition. Another matter to which I would refer is the question of restoring shipping to Dublin. You took more than a fair share of the ships from Dublin to carry on the War. Now that the War is over, I hope the Government will see that some of Dublin's shipping is restored. At the present moment, owing to the unfair treatment of Dublin, a large share of Dublin's trade has been diverted to other ports, which means unemployment for our quay workers. Unless something is done immediately for the men and women who are likely to be dismissed from munition works, our unfortunate country will be in a deplorable state. I appeal to the Government to see if something cannot be done immediately either to improve employment or to start some industries for the purpose of employing our people.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    SCHEDULE.

    Number of Vote.

    Navy Services, 1916–17. Votes.

    Actual Receipts compared with Estimated Appropriations-in-Aid.

    Surpluses.

    Deficits.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    1

    Wages, etc., of Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines

    —

    16,874,302

    11

    7

    2 to 15

    Other Navy Votes

    14,968,323

    11

    0

    —

    £1,905,979 0 7

    CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1918–19.—INTERIM FORESTRY AUTHORITY.
    Resolved,
    "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."
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1916–17.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DONALD MACLEAN in the Chair.]
  I. Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st, day of March, 1917, and the statement appended thereto, as follows, viz.:

  (a) That the aggregate expenditure on Navy Services exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services by a sum of £207,954,228 16s.;

  (b) That the aggregate receipts in aid of Navy Services fell short of the aggregate sums appropriated in aid of those Services by a sum of £1,905,979 0s. 7d.;

  (c) That the total differences between the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services and the net expenditure are as follows, viz.:

  £

  s.

  d.

  Surpluses

  Nil.

  Deficits

  209,860,207

  16

  7

  Deficit (charged against the Vote of Credit)

  £209,860,207

  16

  7

  And whereas, as shown in the Schedule hereunto appended, the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application, of the excesses of the sums realised on account of appropriation-in-aid of Navy Votes 2 to 15 over the sums which may be applied under the Appropriation acts, 1916 and 1917, as appropriations-in-aid of those Votes, amounting in all to £14,968,323 11s. 0d., to make good part of the deficiency of appropriations-in-aid of Vote 1.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the application of such sums be sanctioned," put, and agreed to.
  II. Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1917, and the statement appended thereto, as follows, viz.:

  (a) That the aggregate expenditure on Army Services exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services by a sum of £589,846,948 9s. 8d.;

  (b) That the aggregate receipts in aid of Army Services exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated in aid of those Services by a sum of £2,065,391 6s. 8d.;

  (c) That the total differences between the Exchequer Grants for Army Services and the net expenditure are as follows, viz.:

  £

  s.

  d.

  Surpluses

  Nil.

  Deficits

  587,781,557

  3

  0

  Deficit (charged against the Vote of Credit)

  £587,781,557

  3

  0

  SCHEDULE.

  Number of Vote.

  Army Services, 1916–17. Votes.

  Actual Receipts compared with Estimated Appropriations-in-Aid.

  Surpluses.

  Deficits.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1

  Pay, etc. of the Army

  —

  17,570,250

  14

  5

  3

  Special Reserve

  —

  100

  0

  0

  15

  Civil Superannuation, Compensation, and Gratuities

  —

  69

  15

  9

  2 and 4

  Other Army Votes

  19,635,811

  16

  10

  —

  to 14

  Add Surplus Appropriations-in-Aid not appropriated by Parliament

  —

  10

  0

  0

  19,635,811

  16

  10

  17,570,430

  10

  2

  £2,065,381 6 8

  Resolutions to be reported to-morrow.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered, in Committee.
  [Sir DONALD MACLEAN in the Chair.]
  Resolved,
  That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1917, the sum of £10 to be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Baldwin.]
  Resolved,
  That, towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, the sum of £702,656,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Baldwin.]
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  And whereas by a Vote of Parliament during the present Session (House of Commons Paper, No. 112, of 1918), a further sum of £10 has been granted for the expenditure of the year 1916–17, and the appropriation of additional receipts in aid of such expenditure has been sanctioned to the amount of £2,065,381 6s. 8d.
  And whereas, as shown in the Schedule hereunto appended, the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application so far as necessary of the excesses of the sums realised on account of Appropriations-in-Aid of Army Votes 2 and 4 to 14 over the sums which may be applied under the Appropriation Acts, 1916 and 1917, as Appropriations-in-Aid of those Votes, towards making good the deficiency of £17,570,420 10s. 2d. in the sums realised on account of Appropriations-in-Aid of Votes 1, 3, and 15.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the application of such sums be sanctioned," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY [7TH NOVEMBER].

    CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1918–19.—MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.
    Resolution reported,
    "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 clay of March, 1919, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Information."
    Resolution agreed to.

  CONSTABULARY AND POLICE (IRELAND) [MONEY].
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir D. MACLEAN in the Chair.]
  Resolved,
  "That it is expedient to authorise further provision, out of moneys provided by Parliament, for the pay of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary

  2643
  and Dublin Metropolitan Police and for pensions, allowances, and gratuities to members of those forces, their widows, and children and for other purposes in connection therewith."
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  CONSTABULARY AND POLICE (IRELAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty minutes before Nine o'clock.

  PEACE TERMS (PRESIDENT WILSON'S CONDITIONS).
  PEACE TERMS (PRESIDENT WILSON'S CONDITIONS).
  GALLIPOLI DECORATION.
  GALLIPOLI DECORATION.
  SUPER-TAX.
  SUPER-TAX.
  WAGES OF MEN AND WOMEN (COMMITTEE).
  WAGES OF MEN AND WOMEN (COMMITTEE).
  AIR RAIDS (INSURANCE).
  AIR RAIDS (INSURANCE).
  CUSTOMS RESTRICTIONS.
  CUSTOMS RESTRICTIONS.
  GWYN GOLD MINE (MERIONETHSHIRE).
  GWYN GOLD MINE (MERIONETHSHIRE).
  CIVIL SERVANTS (REMUNERATION).
  CIVIL SERVANTS (REMUNERATION).
  NATIONAL WAR AIMS COMMITTEE (ADVERTISING AGENT).
  NATIONAL WAR AIMS COMMITTEE (ADVERTISING AGENT).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  FAT CATTLE.
  FAT CATTLE.
  MILK.
  MILK.
  COFFEE.
  COFFEE.
  BACON.
  BACON.
  TEA.
  TEA.
  SARDINES AND PILCHARDS.
  SARDINES AND PILCHARDS.
  BEEF.
  BEEF.
  SHEEP.
  SHEEP.
  GRASS-FED BULLOCKS.
  GRASS-FED BULLOCKS.
  MALT.
  MALT.
  FEEDING-STUFFS.
  FEEDING-STUFFS.
  HAY.
  HAY.
  LAND CULTIVATION.
  LAND CULTIVATION.
  GAME.
  GAME.
  DEER.
  DEER.
IRELAND.
  ARREST (SHAUN HAUGHEY).
  ARREST (SHAUN HAUGHEY).
  SCHOOL TEACHERS (REMUNERATION).
  SCHOOL TEACHERS (REMUNERATION).
  ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS, GLASNEVIN (EMPLOYES WAR BONUS).
  ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS, GLASNEVIN (EMPLOYES WAR BONUS).
  NATIONAL SCHOOLS (BILINGUAL PROGRAMME).
  NATIONAL SCHOOLS (BILINGUAL PROGRAMME).
  RETURN.
  RETURN.
  HOUSING.
  HOUSING.
  CHARITABLE BEQUESTS.
  CHARITABLE BEQUESTS.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  PRISON WARDERS.
  PRISON WARDERS.
  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  EVICTED TENANTS.
  EVICTED TENANTS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  LAND PURCHASE.
  LAND PURCHASE.
  INTERNED PRISONERS.
  INTERNED PRISONERS.
DEMOBILISATION.
  MOTOR-BOAT RESERVE.
  MOTOR-BOAT RESERVE.
  MEN OVER FORTY-ONE.
  MEN OVER FORTY-ONE.
  WAR WORKERS.
  WAR WORKERS.
  NAVAL OFFICERS (AMBULANCE SERVICE).
  NAVAL OFFICERS (AMBULANCE SERVICE).
  MANUFACTURERS (FINANCIAL AID).
  MANUFACTURERS (FINANCIAL AID).
  PETTY OFFICERS, PORTSMOUTH PORT DIVISION.
  PETTY OFFICERS, PORTSMOUTH PORT DIVISION.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS
MILITARY SERVICE.
  RELEASE APPLICATIONS.
  RELEASE APPLICATIONS.
  MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS.
  MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS.
  RECRUITING (SUSPENSION).
  RECRUITING (SUSPENSION).
  MINISTRY OF NATIONAL SERVICE (WAR BONUS).
  MINISTRY OF NATIONAL SERVICE (WAR BONUS).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR.
  POST OFFICE RIFLES (PRIVATE G. H. PARSONS).
  POST OFFICE RIFLES (PRIVATE G. H. PARSONS).
  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (TEMPORARY COMMISSIONS).
  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (TEMPORARY COMMISSIONS).
  BIDSTON HILL CAMP, BIRKENHEAD.
  BIDSTON HILL CAMP, BIRKENHEAD.
  BILLETED SOLDIERS (RESPONSIBILITY).
  BILLETED SOLDIERS (RESPONSIBILITY).
  MILITARY MASSEUSES.
  MILITARY MASSEUSES.
  GARRISON DUTY (INDIA).
  GARRISON DUTY (INDIA).
  MACHETES (WEST AFRICA).
  MACHETES (WEST AFRICA).
  PASSPORTS AND PERMITS.
  PASSPORTS AND PERMITS.
PRISONERS OF WAR.
  AUSTRIAN PRISONERS.
  AUSTRIAN PRISONERS.
  GERMAN PRISONERS (DIETARY SCALE).
  GERMAN PRISONERS (DIETARY SCALE).
  LLANGADOCK WATERWORKS (EMPLOYES).
  LLANGADOCK WATERWORKS (EMPLOYES).
GENERAL ELECTION.
  ELECTORAL REGISTERS.
  ELECTORAL REGISTERS.
  MILITARY CANDIDATES OR AGENTS ABROAD.
  MILITARY CANDIDATES OR AGENTS ABROAD.
  SOLDIERS' ADDRESSES.
  SOLDIERS' ADDRESSES.
  FUEL AND LIGHTING.
  FUEL AND LIGHTING.
  HOUSING BILL.
  HOUSING BILL.
  BIRTHS (REGISTRATION).
  BIRTHS (REGISTRATION).
  MERTHYR ELECTRIC TRACTION COMPANY.
  MERTHYR ELECTRIC TRACTION COMPANY.
  PRUDENTIAL ASSURANCE COMPANY.
  PRUDENTIAL ASSURANCE COMPANY.
  PREFERENTIAL RAILWAY RATES.
  PREFERENTIAL RAILWAY RATES.
  LIGHTING RESTRICTIONS.
  LIGHTING RESTRICTIONS.
  HORSES IN MINES (INSPECTORS).
  HORSES IN MINES (INSPECTORS).
MUNITIONS.
  NATIONAL FACTORIES, NOTTINGHAM AND CHILLWELL.
  NATIONAL FACTORIES, NOTTINGHAM AND CHILLWELL.
  MANUFACTURERS (FINANCIAL AID).
  MANUFACTURERS (FINANCIAL AID).
  JOINT INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS.
  JOINT INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS.
  LONDON POSTAL SERVICE (RETAINED OFFICERS).
  LONDON POSTAL SERVICE (RETAINED OFFICERS).
  GENERAL POST OFFICE, EDINBURGH (WOMEN WORKERS).
  GENERAL POST OFFICE, EDINBURGH (WOMEN WORKERS).
  POST OFFICE, LERWICK.
  POST OFFICE, LERWICK.
  EGYPTIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE (MAILS).
  EGYPTIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE (MAILS).
  IRISH MAIL SERVICE (SORTING STAFF).
  IRISH MAIL SERVICE (SORTING STAFF).
  PEACE TERMS, TURKEY.
  PEACE TERMS, TURKEY.
  DECEASED SAILORS AND SOLDIERS (BANK BALANCES).
  DECEASED SAILORS AND SOLDIERS (BANK BALANCES).
  SHERIFF-PRINCIPAL, DUMFRIESSHIRE.
  SHERIFF-PRINCIPAL, DUMFRIESSHIRE.
  PETERHEAD PRISON (ARTIFICIAL FEEDING).
  PETERHEAD PRISON (ARTIFICIAL FEEDING).
  SCHOOL TEACHERS, SCOTLAND (PENSIONS).
  SCHOOL TEACHERS, SCOTLAND (PENSIONS).
  PEAT DEPOSITS, SCOTLAND.
  PEAT DEPOSITS, SCOTLAND.
  HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT ("BIG BEN").
  HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT ("BIG BEN").
  WOUNDED SOLDIERS' HOSTEL, QUEEN'S GATE.
  WOUNDED SOLDIERS' HOSTEL, QUEEN'S GATE.
  Influenza Epidemic (Cinemas).
  Influenza Epidemic (Cinemas).

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to make the Motion standing in my name. It is the usual Motion at this period of the session.
Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. 72 and 82 be suspended for the remainder of the session.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I rise to move that Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended for the remainder of the session. It is hoped that the Prorogation of Parliament may take place during next week, and it is probably for the convenience of both Houses that it should be possible to expedite business during the closing days of the session.
The actual business before this House is not very extended. The four principal Bills are the Scottish Education Bill, the Tithe Bill, the Petroleum (Production) Bill, and the Teachers (Superannuation) Bill. As regards the Petroleum Bill, I think it unlikely that your Lordships will spend very much more time upon that subject. The Scottish Education Bill, which has already passed through its Committee stage, will no doubt demand further discussion and possibly amendment; but not very much time, I think, is likely to be occupied upon it. As regards the Tithe Bill, I am told that there may be a certain amount of discussion and possibly amendment, but that nothing very serious in the nature of change is expected. The measure which I presented to your Lordships yesterday, dealing with the superannuation of teachers, a complex and highly technical subject, very likely may require some amendment at your Lordships' hands. Under these conditions it would probably be a convenience if the Government are entitled, by the suspension of this Standing Order, to take more than one stage of a Bill during a single sitting. If these Bills are amended
1180
and have to return to the other House, it may be very difficult to conclude the business satisfactorily and without waste of time if only one stage can be taken at one evening.
Apart from the four Bills that I have mentioned, there are two Motions of importance of which notice has been given—one relating to the Food Ministry, and the other (standing in Lord Selborne's name) relating to the conferring of honours. Two other Bills will be considered also by your Lordships. One is the Divorce Bill, which is down for discussion this afternoon. I do not forecast the future of that Bill, but I imagine it to be unlikely that it will be passed during the present session. I do not know what the noble and learned Lord (Lord Buckmaster) expects, but I feel that the Bill is not likely to go much beyond its Second Reading during this session. The last Bill which I need mention to your Lordships is the Parliament (Qualification of Women) Bill, which is in the name of my noble friend Lord Islington, who will present the Bill for a Second Reading to your Lordships this afternoon. I submit that it will be probably a convenience to both Houses of Parliament, and certainly to your Lordships House, if leave be given to take more than one stage of a Bill on a particular day. I therefore beg leave to make the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended for the remainder of the session.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, the noble Earl has given us certain information as to what the Government desire to do with regard to the Bills and the Motions on the Paper, and I assume that he has done this with the view of bringing the session to a more rapid conclusion than might otherwise have been possible. I did not understand him to foreshadow any date by which he thought this House might terminate its sittings. Perhaps he will be able to give us some information upon that. The noble Earl referred to a number of Bills, and also to two Motions of importance, one of these latter standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Strachie, and the other in the name of Lord Selborne.
But there is a third Motion before the House, which is apparently of very little

1181
interest to the noble Earl. It is a Motion standing in my name, put down for November 27, relating to the supply of horses in this country. I do not know whether the noble Earl attaches importance to that subject or not, but it is certain that a vast number of people regard the satisfactory condition of the breeding of horses in this country as an asset of great national value. I do not think I need say anything more in proof of that statement than to point to the extraordinary victories which were gained by our Cavalry in the East under General Allenby, which have filled the whole world with admiration at their prowess. I hope I am not out of order in saying that when I have the opportunity of submitting this Motion I shall be able to show to the House, and I hope to the country, that the present condition of the breeding of light horses is something which it would be no exaggeration to call disastrous. This is a subject to which I have devoted a great deal of attention, and I assure the House that what I am saying is true, and that I can prove it to be true whenever I have the opportunity of doing so. I had no intention of speaking to-night, but when I heard the statement of the noble Earl I thought it right to ask for some further explanation, and also whether the noble Earl can give us any idea of the time for which he is preparing by the Motion he has just submitted to the House.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl one question? I am not anticipating that the Separation and Divorce Bill will get a Second Reading. But supposing it does; surely a Bill of that kind, which is not a Government Bill, ought not to have the opportunity of being pushed forward in its subsequent stages without the ordinary facilities for discussion. Therefore I would ask the noble Earl whether he intends to include a Bill of that kind when he moves the suspension of Standing Order No: XXXIX. If necessary, I shall move an Amendment that this Bill be not included. But I do not know whether the noble Earl would include a private Bill.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The only intention of this Motion is that it should be employed for means of indispensable Government business and for such other Bills as are introduced by unofficial Peers and may meet with the approval of the House. If, as I gather from my noble and
1182
learned friend, the Divorce Bill is somewhat contentious, I think Lord Buckmaster will forgive me for saying that in that case, should the Motion be carried, his Bill will not receive facilities under it.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I think the noble Earl has most accurately and rightly diagnosed the situation. If there is any general feeling that the matter should be proceeded with, to that general feeling the House would give way; but if, on the other hand, the House were against proceeding with the Bill, I should bow to its decision.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am obliged to my noble and learned friend. I hope that Lord Chaplin does not think that I do not recognise the importance of light horse breeding. Far from it. I fully appreciate, not only the importance, but the urgency of the subject. I did not, to tell the truth, refer to all the Motions on the Paper. There are other very important Motons—namely, one in the name of Lord Burnham relating to the Censorship, and another in the name of Lord Crewe, relating to the selection of justices. I am afraid I cannot give specific information as to the date of the Prorogation, beyond what I have stated—namely, that it is hoped during the course of next week that it may be possible to prorogue both Houses.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: May I suggest that it would be wiser for the House to put some limit of time. We do not know what the limit of the end of the session really means. It may mean next month, for all we know. Surely it would be wiser to say "for this day's sitting," and see whether to-morrow it is necessary to renew the Motion.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: If your Lordships desire that, I will do it. But I think it would be rather inconvenient for the House not to know until the Papers are received in the morning whether the Government are going to suspend the Standing Order or not. It makes it impossible for us to forecast the order of business for more than one day in advance. It is indefinite, and I think must be indefinite, and I do not believe there is any serious objection on the part of your Lordships, not knowing the exact date upon which Parliament will be prorogued. To the best

1183
of my knowledge it will be during the course of next week, and I submit that with Parliament probably going to be prorogued within the next five, six, or seven Parliamentary days, it is not asking too much to ask that the Standing Order be suspended for that period.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I can only speak again with the indulgence of the House. My point is that I do not like making a new precedent in a matter of this kind. I do not think there is a precedent for suspending the Standing Order for the remainder of the session when the date of the Prorogation is practically unknown.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I feel that it is important that we should not extend these precedents. I am not going to make the same speech again, but I think it is dangerous to extend precedents. These things are growing every day, and it seems that my noble friend Lord Balfour thinks that it is not the practice to move this particular Resolution as a general Resolution, except when the Prorogation is absolutely fixed. I do not think—my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong—that this Resolution has ever before been moved, except in respect of Government business; that other Bills should be pushed through without their proper consideration would certainly be a new departure. Both those matters are before my noble friend, and I should have thought that the easiest way would have been this. Let him move the Resolution for to-night only, and then we can be quite sure to-morrow what the exact precedents are. If he then likes to move a general Resolution, after consideration of the precedents, I think he will find that the House will co-operate with him in every way to get business through.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: If that is your Lordships' desire, I will limit my Motion to this day's sitting, on the understanding, which I assume from Lord Salisbury's statement, that if I am correct in thinking that this Motion has precedents in its favour, I shall be allowed to move it to-morrow and be assured of your Lordships' assent to it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: So far as I am concerned, yes.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Then I beg to make the Motion in the amended form.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended for this day's sitting.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SEPARATION AND DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, this Bill, for which I ask your Lordships' favourable consideration, is designed to give effect in one respect, and in a limited particular, to the recommendation of the Commission that sat to consider divorce and matrimonial causes. It will be necessary for me to refer frequently to the Report of that Commission in the course of the remarks that I shall make, but before inviting your attention to its provision and its recommendations it is, I think, desirable to state quite briefly what is at the present moment the position of our matrimonial law. If I were to invite your Lordships to any full and adequate consideration of that subject, it would be necessary to take you back through many centuries of our history. This law does not differ from any of our other laws. They always seem to me upon investigation to disclose the same characteristics as some geological stratum, in which you will find embedded among serviceable and massive pieces of rock the curious remains of extinct and strange monsters.
This law to-day is no exception. It is regulated by the Statute of 1857, but it may not be common knowledge to your Lordships that that Act really did no more than change an old, complicated, and cumbrous procedure, which was then the only means by which divorce could be obtained. In truth, before that Statute was passed divorce was not obtained by the order of any Court at all. The Ecclesiastical Courts were the only Courts that exercised jurisdiction in matrimonial matters, and the only exception to the remedy that they granted was what was known as divorce a mensa et thoro, which left the parties separated but still bound by the bond of matrimony. In order to get rid of the last link of the chain it was necessary to institute a Bill in Parliament, and it was only when the Bill had received the Royal Assent that the marriage was dissolved. The injustice and inequality of

1185
such procedure was, of course, obvious to all. It enabled rich people to get divorce; it left poor people and people of moderate means bound to endure the misery and suffering from which their better-to-do fellow-subjects were able to get release.
The Act of 1857 did not alter the causes or materially change the remedies. What it did was to concentrate in one Court the whole of the relief which had formerly been obtained by the means that I have described. It still left the Court empowered to grant a judicial separation, which is the legal equivalent to the divorce a mensa et thoro granted by the Ecclesiastical Courts, and it enabled the bond to be completely severed in cases where the woman had committed adultery, or where the man had been guilty of various special and peculiar and abominable offences or had been guilty of adultery, coupled with desertion for the period of two years.
But, in addition, it preserved the power, of ordering the restitution of conjugal rights. A more farcical order has never been administered by any of our Courts. It was an order to compel the spouse who was unwilling to live with his or her consort to resume marital relationship, and until, I think it was, 1884—at any rate until some date considerably later than 1857—this order, if disobeyed, was capable of being enforced by an order of attachment of the Court. That is now abolished, but the order for restitution still remains. The result is that, while a woman can only get divorce for adultery coupled with desertion, if she can obtain a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, and that decree is disobeyed, she is entitled at once, without proof of desertion or waiting for the two years, to go to the Court, and, on proof of adultery, to obtain a complete divorce.
As I said, I do not think the Courts have ever been called upon to exercise such a farcical jurisdiction since the days when they abolished the collusive suits for the purpose of barring entails. For what happens? What I am going to tell your Lordships is nothing but a fact within my own experience. A man and his wife wish to get divorced. The difficulty really is to know which is the party that is to take the proceedings, and who it is that is to bear the public odium of the guilt. Assume that it has been arranged that the man will accept that position. The woman then pro-
1186
ceeds to get a decree for restitution. She goes to a lawyer, who writes on her behalf an affectionate letter to her husband which satisfies all the necessary formalities, and he, upon its receipt, has merely to write back a blunt refusal saying he declines to go back to her, and they have taken all the necessary proceedings on which to found the jurisdiction for the decree for restitution.
As soon as the decree for restitution is obtained, what is left is to prove adultery. Now in some cases, where the man is anxious to marry another woman, he is not anxious to soil himself by the previous guilt of adultery; so this also is arranged by a man stopping at an hotel with another woman whose name is given as his wife. The evidence is obtained from the hotel books brought before the Court, which has no power whatever of questioning or checking its validity. The adultery is proved in the same way as the complaint with regard to restitution was, and the divorce is granted. These things are known and these things are practised, and it is not surprising that people who live in poorer circumstances, who have not at their disposal the means that enable them to invoke the jurisdiction of the Divorce Division of the High Court of Justice, should feel that they suffer a great hardship and a great injustice in being deprived of the opportunity, which is given to others, to end a married life which has already been shipwrecked in disaster and to see if it be not once more possible to start anew.
It must, I think, have been plain to your Lordships that it would be impossible for the law to have proceeded under the conditions which I have stated unless some corresponding measure of relief had been granted to the poor. In order to effect this—no doubt with the best intentions—an Act was passed in 1888, and ultimately extended in 1895, by which power to grant orders for maintenance and orders for separation were placed in the hands of the magistrates, who were empowered to grant these orders, speaking roughly, for causes of cruelty, desertion, and neglect to maintain. The extent to which this power was exercised has varied from year to year. It has amounted to as many as 7,000 in the year. I think it would be fair to say that on the whole it might be taken as about 5,000 cases in the year; and these people, separated by order of the

1187
magistrate, are left without any chance whatever of getting the bond of matrimony dissolved, although every obligation which that bond imposes has been flouted and denied by one or, it might be, even by both of the parties.
The result of this is not hard to discover. The result is that people who have been separated in these circumstances contract new alliances, but they are unable to get married. They go and live with other people; in some cases they have children. Many of them would gladly, if they could, have their union sanctified. They have no desire to live in a guilty and an immoral state. They want to be respectable, but the law forbids it unless either they can take the formal proceedings, in the case of the wife, of proving cruelty and adultery, or, in the case of the husband, of proving adultery, and invoking the assistance of the High Court to remedy their ills. It was in these circumstances that the late Lord Gorell, who was certainly one of the most illustrious and experienced Judges who have administered the jurisdiction of the Divorce Court, in 1909 moved in your Lordships' House a Resolution that County Courts should have jurisdiction in divorce cases in order that the poor may have ready access to Courts that were near their own doors.
The result of that Motion was a very full and a very instructive debate. On the whole many of the members of your Lordships' House who took part in it, while I think they felt the force of the case that Lord Gorell presented, were anxious that there should be a full inquiry into the whole subject before they made up their minds. Indeed, it was not unnatural, because, in spite of Lord Gorell's unrivalled experience, it was felt that a full investigation of the subject was demanded, and I believe also that some of your Lordships at least felt that the time had come when that investigation should be made, and when we should examine into the condition of our marriage laws and see whether they did satisfy the conditions of society, or whether in an attempt to keep them rigid and unchanged there was not grave danger that you were destroying the very thing that all of us are most anxious to preserve—the sanctity of married life, and the importance of men and women entering into the solemn obligation of marriage before they determine that their lives shall be spent together.
1188
Following upon that desire being expressed, Lord Gorell withdrew his Motion, and in the autumn of that year—1909—a Royal Commission on Divorce and Matrimonial Causes was set up, composed of some of the most representative and well-known names both in connection with that subject and with social matters. It was a Commission that, I think, originally had twelve or thirteen members, including, of course, Lord Gorell himself, the most rev. Primate the Archbishop of York, Lord Derby, Lady Frances Balfour, Sir William Anson, Mrs. Tennant, Mr. Brierly, the stipendiary magistrate of Manchester, Mr. Spender (the editor of the Westminster Gazette), and others. And this Commission set upon their labours and sat for three years, their Report being published in November of 1912. I think it would be impossible to find any Commission before which the evidence was more representative and in which greater care was taken to sift and test it, greater anxiety shown to arrive at a right conclusion. In the end, when the Report was presented, there was a difference of opinion. A majority of nine of the Commissioners made a Report containing very strong observations indeed about the effect of our present marriage laws, and recommending some very stringent and far-reaching remedies; and a minority of three, composed of the most rev. Primate, of Sir Lewis Dibden, and of the late Sir William Anson, gave a Minority Report, dissenting in most particulars, but not in all, from the Majority Report. That Report, among other things, recommended that divorce should be obtained if wilful desertion were proved for a period of three years. The measure to which I ask your Lordships to grant a Second Reading to-day extends that period to five years. They also recommended that local Courts should be set up to deal with the cases of poor people; and the Bill that I ask your Lordships to consider varies that in the manner that I will subsequently explain.
The Report of this Commission and the three volumes of evidence upon which it is based—a great part, I cannot say the whole, of which I have very carefully read—constitute the foundation for the measure which I am introducing this afternoon. I do not propose to ask your Lordships to go again into the evidence which was before that Commission, or even to consider in detail many of the cases of hardship which

1189
were placed before them. This Commission was set up for the very purpose of relieving your Lordships of such obligation. It was established in answer to your Lordships' desire for information in order than when its Report was made there might be trustworthy matter upon which you could base your conclusions, and which might lead your to action in the matter. But, my Lords, there are some things in this Report to which I think attention ought to be called. In the first place, I should like to read to your Lordships what the Commission say as to the way in which the present law pressed upon the poor. At page 37 they say this—
"After the long inquiry upon which we have engaged, and after close consideration of the mass of evidence which has been laid before us, we are of opinion that there is necessity for reform in this country, both in procedure and in the law, if the serious grievances which at present exist are to be removed and opportunities of obtaining justice are to be placed within the reach of the poor classes. So far from such reforms as we recommend tending to lower the standard of morality and regard for the sanctity of the marriage tie, we consider that reform is necessary in the interests of morality as well as in the interests of justice and in the general interests of society and the State."
I shall deal with these matters more fully when we examine the evidence.
I do not desire to burden your Lordships with reading more than is necessary of this Report, but the same spirit that is found in those sentences is echoed throughout the whole of the Report. I find, for instance, that at page 46 the Report says—
"Again we have come to the conclusion that beyond all doubt the present means of administering the law are such as to place it beyond the reach of the poor. One of the most striking features of the evidence of those familiar with the poorer classes is the almost unanimous opinion that they treat the law of divorce as a matter which is beyond their reach, to act as if it did not exist, with direct consequences which it is lamentable to hear."
It may be asked why, in those circumstances, this measure does not attempt to carry out all the recommendations that that Commission made. It has been very carefully limited, and by design. It seemed to me that the whole subject was far too vast to be dealt with in a simple measure like the one which I am introducing this afternoon, and that it would be right to test your Lordships' opinion by taking one of the plainest and, to my mind, one of the most obvious of all the grievances, asking your Lordships' attention to that alone, and see if it is not possible, in that respect at least, to carry into effect the re-
1190
commendation of this Report. Therefore, my Lords, the Bill that I have introduced is limited entirely to the question of separation.
And if I might ask your Lordships' attention to the Bill for a moment, you will find that by Clause 1 it provides that people who have been separated, either by wilful desertion or by any order of any Court, and have remained separated for a continuous period of not less than five years, may apply to the Court for a decree dissolving the marriage; and if the Court is satisfied that the application is bona fide, the decree is to follow. Clause 2 does away with the difference between the present law, which compels six months to elapse between the first decree and the final decree, and enables the decree to be made absolute when the time for appealing has passed by. The reason for that is this. At the present moment the period that elapses between what is called the decree nisi and the decree absolute is supposed to be a period in which the King's Proctor is able to satisfy himself whether or no there has been collusion between the parties to the suit. Again, it is impossible to imagine that any functionary gifted with the widest and the most extensive inquisitorial powers can by any possibility test all the relationships between two parties about whom he has probably never heard a word from the moment when the decree nisi is granted until the moment when the decree absolute takes effect.
When the Court is busy taking undefended causes they may try twenty in a day. Is it conceivable that the King's Proctor can examine into each one of those twenty cases day by day in order to say whether there has been collusion or not between the parties before the suit was brought? I believe that the noble Earl who used to fill the office of King's Proctor is at present in this House, and I doubt whether he would challenge my statement if I were to say that on the whole his office was productive of but little value, and that he was more frequently called upon to interfere when the parties had begun to quarrel after the first order had been made, and one was seeking to deprive the other of the benefit of the decree nisi that had been obtained. At any rate, this measure that I propose eliminates that jurisdiction from this class of case, and then provides for an appeal with which lour Lordships need not be concerned.

1191
Finally, it deals with the question with regard to the Courts where the jurisdiction is to be exercised in a new and different way. There is no doubt that the Royal Commission was seriously impressed with the hardships attaching to poor people under the present law, and I do not think that I am wrong in saying that even those who signed the Minority Report felt sympathetically to the hardships that many of the poor were compelled to undergo by reason of their being unable to provide the necessary funds that, even now as the law stands, would have given them the relief which their poverty and lack of means deprived them from seeking. There were cases mentioned—Lord Gorell himself mentioned one that came to him when he was sitting in Court, where he found that a woman had saved for twenty years in order that she might have the means to free herself of a bond which, if she had been a rich woman, she could have ended in twenty months. My proposal with regard to that is this. I do not interfere with the primary jurisdiction of the High Court of Justice, but this Bill provides that in any case an applicant is at liberty to go to the County Court Judge in the district, and apply for leave to institute proceedings in that County Court, and if the County Court Judge on reading the application is satisfied that the applicant has not the means to enable him to take proceedings in the High Court of Justice, he shall make an order granting permission to apply to that County Court, which shall thereupon exercise all the jurisdiction which the High Court possesses.
A great deal has been said from time to time against this exercise of jurisdiction by County Court Judges. I have read the evidence upon it, and have given it my very best consideration, and I fail to understand why it is that the County Court Judges should be considered so infirm of purpose or understanding as to be unable to exercise this jurisdiction. After all, so far as questions of fact are concerned, the questions of fact connected with all proceedings for divorce—both those under this Bill and those as they now stand—are really of the simplest character, and they are common to all causes. The law is really not obscure, and the only argument that I have found advanced against the exercise of this jurisdiction is the uneasy feeling lest divorce is made so easy and cheap and accessible that it may become common, and that you ought, there-
1192
fore, to interpose some form of restriction to prevent a relief, which the law grants and allows, being made available to people who desire to seek its protection. I submit that that is not an argument that can prevail. County Court Judges exercise to-day jurisdiction in many important commercial cases. They are men who, I think, are chosen—I was going to say increasingly—with care and anxiety to see that they perform their duties, which I believe every Lord Chancellor recognises as being not less important, and in some respects not less difficult, and more delicate than the jurisdiction that is exercised by the Judges sitting in the High Court of Justice. The County Court Judge, I submit, in a case of this kind, is a tribunal to whom society may well look for the protection that it is entitled to demand against the rash and improper jurisdiction in divorce.
May I say a word or two in favour of the main provisions of the Bill? Is it right to permit people, where there has been wilful desertion or where they have been separated by order of the Court, from seeking the dissolution of the marriage tie? The arguments against it appear to be based largely upon this—that desertion is capable of remedy, that separation may be healed, that it is possible that the parties might come together if they had time for reflection, and that it is undesirable to snap the whole bond and prevent that reconciliation from taking place. It seems to me that all these arguments apply with equal force to the act of adultery. In truth, I think that the act of adultery is the gravest breach of the marriage law that is known. It is, after all, only a breach of the main provisions of the marriage contract. But wilful desertion, of the kind of which evidence was furnished from time to time before the Commission, is not a breach of one of the provisions of the contract; it is the complete abandonment and cancellation of the whole bond. It refuses to honour a single one of its obligations. The party who deserts under these conditions intends, as far as he is concerned, that the marriage shall be set at nought, and he leaves the unfortunate partner—too often a woman—to struggle along as best she can to maintain the home and the family that he has deserted.
The cruelty of this was felt by the members signing the Minority Report, and I should like to say—if the most rev.

1193
Primate will permit me that, as this Bill shows, I find myself unable to agree with the Report that stood over his name: yet it was impossible to read it without recognising that the people who signed that Report were both conscious of the ills and the hardships of the present system, and were genuinely and sincerely anxious to treat them with as sympathetic a consideration as they thought their duty permitted. The consequence is that you will find that in the Minority Report there is an agreement with the provision that, on absence for seven years without any communication, the party deserted should be at liberty to apply for an order treating the deserting spouse as dead and that then re-marriage should be possible. Between that provision and the provisions of this Bill it is nothing but a matter of degree. I agree that it may be regarded as a great degree, but it is only a matter of degree. If instead of "seven" years "five" had been introduced as the period within which desertion should entitle the deserted party to assume death, the only difference then would be that in the case where the deserted person had heard of the spouse who had gone away they could not get relief, and in the case where they had not heard, they could.
As for collusion, collusion could be established just as readily under that as under the provisions of this Bill. Whatever law is drawn, whatever provisions are made, I do not believe it is ever possible, when you are dealing with matrimonial offences, to prevent collusion between the parties. If both parties are struggling to get free of the bond, they will devise some means, if they have the wealth, by which the bond can be loosened. The best evidence of that is the account which I gave to your Lordships just now of what does, in fact, happen under the present law. It might be suggested that this provision, as it tends to give a further opportunity for loosening the marriage tie, or rather untying it, will tend to disregard of marriage and to an increase of immorality. It is not, I think, unworthy of notice that the same argument was used against the Bill of 1857. There are people who undoubtedly think that any attempts to loosen the ties of marriage can only have deplorable results, and who have attributed to the Act of 1857 results which certainly did not flow from its clauses.
Upon this, I think that a quotation which is to be found in the Commissioners'
1194
Reports is worthy of repetition. It is an extract from the work of the late Mr. W. H. Lecky, and this is what he said—
"I do not believe that there is any real reason to think that the standard of domestic morals in England has been impaired by the strictly limited right of divorce which was granted by the Act of 1857."
And he concludes in these significant words—
"On the whole, it seems to me that the signs of increasing moral laxity in England are more apparent in other directions—in increased worldliness and hardness, and the craving for wealth and pleasure among the young; in the increased social influence of dishonestly acquired money; in the frequency, the cynicism, and the success of gross instances of political profligacy."
I find it difficult to see why, if that be true of the provisions found in the Act of 1857, it should not be equally true if this measure which I ask your Lordships to approve is passed to-day.
But we have something more than mere speculation to go upon in this matter. Reference is not infrequently made to the conditions of divorce in the United States of America. I think it is difficult to compare conditions here with conditions there, because, as all your Lordships know, marriage law there is a matter of State law and it changes from State to State. You may find States where both the law and its administration are lax; you will find others, as the State of New York, where it is very strict. It seems to me that we can find a nearer and a closer parallel at home. When you pass the invisible border that separates England from the northern part of Great Britain you pass into a country where wilful desertion for a period of four years has for 350 years been a good cause for divorce. Since the year 1571 in Scotland that has been the law. And I would ask if there is any member of your Lordships' House who would be prepared to say that the obligations of matrimony were more rashly undertaken in Scotland or less faithfully fulfilled than they are here—that married life and the sanctity of the marriage tie is in all respects less honoured and less observed in that country than in this.
And yet not only is divorce obtainable in Scotland for four years, compared with five in my Bill, but the expense is a triviality. I have heard (though of this I cannot speak with any confidence) that it can be obtained for so small a sum as a £5 note. I do think, if parallels are to be instituted, if comparisons are to be made,

1195
that the proper people to compare are the people who are close at our doors, the people who are as much part of ourselves as the two halves of the kingdom are part of one whole. And unless it can be found that some dangerous and prejudicial result has happened from the existence and operation of that law in Scotland for that period of time, I would ask your Lordships what is the reason why people should be denied here the opportunities that they possess there.
I know that there are many people who dislike the whole scheme and character of such legislation as this Bill proposes. I recognise the earnestness and the sincerity of their opposition, and I regard it as the more unfortunate because they are seeking, exactly as those who support this measure are seeking, to do the things that they really believe to be best for the purpose of enforcing a high standard of morality in this country—making marriage an honourable and a sacred institution, and preserving to the utmost of their power the holiness of family life. There are, I know, others who feel themselves unable even to consider such a measure, for reasons other than those of social expediency. They feel that to sanction any extension of the laws relating to divorce is to deny some high principle of faith which admits of no argument.
I recognise and I reverence all such views. But I would with the deepest respect ask those who hold them to consider whether it is not possible that in the past the Church has, by too rigid an adherence to formula and to textual tradition, driven into the wilderness of doubt and indifference numbers of troubled people who would gladly have found shelter beneath her shadow and comfort within her creeds. And I would ask those who oppose this measure to remember that unqualified opposition upon this question condemns to a life of lonely misery or of shame numbers of unhappy women, and denies to men—many of whom have stumbled on the very threshold of their marriage—the pleasure of a woman's society honestly enjoyed, and the pride in children lawfully begotten.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Buckmaster.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be read a Second time this day six months. I desire at the
1196
outset to pay my tribute to the sincerity of the noble and learned Lord, and I certainly shall not question that he moved the Bill from the highest motives, not only as regards what he called the sanctity of marriage but also as regards social and moral expediency. But my objection takes two forms. I am opposed to the noble and learned Lord on fundamental questions of principle which I shall explain to your Lordships a little later; and I also think that the inference of fact which he has drawn—namely, the inference that if you granted this extension of the divorce law you would improve the conditions of married life—is not only not justified, but that one might expect exactly the contrary result.
Before coming, however, to that question and to matters of principle, I should like to deal with the speech that the noble and learned Lord has made. If I may say so with great submission, I should quote the great mass of his speech in favour of the Motion that this Bill should not be read until this day six months. That is a strong thing to say, but I desire shortly to analyse the statements of the noble and learned lord in order to make that contention accurate. I understood Lord Buckmaster to say that he was here in support of the Majority Report of the Royal Commission. Now, there is a complete answer to that, and one which to my mind cannot be gainsaid. In the first place, although he thought that this was a proper attitude to take up, he does not purport by his Bill to deal with the reform as regards our marriage and divorce laws which the Majority Report suggested. I join very strong issue on that point. I use the noble and learned Lord's own expression. He said that the subject should not be dealt with as a whole. My answer to him is that if you are going to deal with a great principle of this kind, a matter of fundamental importance as regards the morality and social life of this country, you ought to deal with it as a whole. It is not a matter with which you ought to deal in selected portions, leaving open—as I will show in a moment—the great mass of objections to the existing law to which the noble and learned Lord himself referred in the course of his speech.
The two matters with which the noble and learned Lord purports to deal he deals with not only in a way inconsistent with

1197
the proposal of the Majority Report of the Royal Commission, but, under one head at any rate, in a way that, as I understand the Report of the majority of the Royal Commission, it condemns his proposal. Perhaps I may deal with that in the first instance. I myself am certainly one of those who would desire any proper measure of reform in order to give equality of opportunity and access for divorce purposes to the rich and to the poor. I think that any distinction between rich and poor in legal matters is to be avoided as in itself neither right nor just. But that is only half the proposition. The poor man is not only entitled to an easy access, but he is entitled to easy access to a Court of the same quality as that which is open to the rich man. And the late Lord Gorell, whose experience in this matter I agree was unequalled, laid the greatest stress on the point that it was not sufficient to give easy access to a Court unless the quality of the Court was properly comparable, whether the access was by the rich or by the poor.
The majority of the Royal Commission, so far from agreeing with the noble and learned Lord, considered carefully the proposition with regard to County Court Judges and rejected it; rejecting it on the very ground to which I am calling attention—namely, that this would give the poor man a Court of a less good quality than that which was open to his richer neighbour. I agree. I think that the quality of the Court, whether a man is rich or is poor, ought to be equal, and open to both. What was it that Lord Gorell suggested? I believe it was his own scheme. He did not suggest what we find in this Bill. He suggested that you should have the circuit areas, and that within those circuit areas you should have a Judge of the High Court; although he also said that you might select out of the various County Court Judges some of special experience who might take their turns in the place of His Majesty's Judges of Assize. Therefore I want first of all to make this remark—that, although the noble and learned Lord has come forward purporting to carry out the Majority Report of the Royal Commission on this crucial question, not only has he not followed it, but he has adopted a plan with regard to the Court which is inconsistent with the main principle of Lord Gorell. I protest as much as I can against the notion that a poor man is to
1198
be satisfied with a Court of less quality than that which is open to his richer neighbour.
I think I shall have to come back to this first point again, but to my mind the second point is an extremely important one. As the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, the Majority Report did not suggest five years, but three years. That is a matter of vital moment. I can understand why the noble and learned Lord suggests five years; he may think to get rid of a certain amount of friction, and to bring in the Scottish precedent. I am going to deal with the Scottish precedent when I come to that point of my argument. But what is the effect of a five years term? I am altogether against divorce being allowed for desertion. I will deal with that as a matter of principle by and by; but if you are going to allow it, the stress and strain either on the woman or on the man, as regards economics or as regards morality, is in the early stages of the desertion; and what the noble and learned Lord would say is this, You are to leave for five years the party—who, according to his view, is suffering from these various disabilities—in an atmosphere of what I may call a continuing immoral mist. My own point of view is that you ought not to have desertion at all. But I am justified in pointing out that if you have desertion, as in many codes on the Continent and elsewhere—desertion for a year—you run the risk of having no safeguards at all; whereas if on the other hand you have an extended time, such as the noble Lord suggests, you do an infinite amount of harm during the period of suspense, which in his case he suggests should be five years.
Let me deal a little further with the noble Lord's argument. I do not at all question the history which he gave us of divorce law in this country. I entirely agree with him—it was stated at the time—that the Act of 1857 did not introduce any new principle, but only introduced a more effective procedure. It has always been quoted, not in favour of extending the reasons for divorce, but as a ground for keeping them within their existing limits, because it has been pointed out that it is a mistake, though it has often been argued, to suppose that any such extension was made in the Act of 1857. What does the noble Lord say? He does not propose in his Bill the reform of existing procedure at all. I ask you to bear that in mind. Yet he says this,

1199
that the jurisdiction as at present exercised in cases of desertion is a farcical jurisdiction, leading, as he knew from his own experience, to nothing except collusion.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I said that of restitution of conjugal rights—a different thing altogether.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not think it matters for the purpose of my argument whether it was restitution of conjugal rights or not. What the noble Lord said was that you had a farcical jurisdiction which led to collusion, because at the present time after a period of desertion, if you did not comply with an order for restitution of conjugal rights, then the woman who proves adultery becomes entitled as of right to a decree of divorce. I will refer for a moment to a very learned Judge who appreciated what was going on. The point was this, that as regards the incident of desertion, which is the first incident on the road to divorce, the jurisdiction exercised was farcical and led to nothing but instances of collusion. That is exactly the objection, as I want to point out a little further on, which I am taking to the proposal in the Bill of the noble Lord. I believe there would be nothing but collusion as regards divorce proceedings if you adopt the ground of desertion as a reason for allowing divorce; and in order to show how exactly I agree with the noble Lord on this point I take a sentence from the evidence of Mr. Justice Bargrave Deane, who was for a considerable time, as your Lordships know, a Judge in the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division—
"So now if two people choose they can establish without any wrongdoing, and by the easiest collusion, a decree of desertion."
I quite agree. I do not believe there is the smallest difficulty if people like to collude, in obtaining a decree for desertion, which the noble Lord desires to make a foundation for a decree in divorce proceedings. More than that—although I do not wish to rely upon the particular words—Mr. Barnard, who was a lawyer of the greatest experience in divorce proceedings, said—
"I think if you have divorce by desertion, it is practically coming to divorce by consent."
I do not want to dwell upon the actual words, but as regards their deeper meaning I am convinced that he was right—namely, that if you allow a divorce for desertion only you can have a divorce by collusion of the parties, and there is no effective
1200
remedy or safeguard which can be possibly devised.
The Bill itself, if I may say so, shows what I say. The noble Lord pointed out that in the second clause of his Bill he eliminated the jurisdiction of the King's Proctor. Lord Desart, I dare say, may speak later on this subject. But why did the noble Lord eliminate that jurisdiction? He said, "I do so because he cannot effectively intervene." You may have collusion so easily arranged that no King's Proctor can have any power to bring this collusive action to the front in order that divorce may ultimately be refused. Therefore, we have upon the face of the Bill itself what, according to my view, in any circumstances is certain to ensue in cases of this kind. You have upon the Bill itself that a decree is to be made absolute in the first instance because, according to the view of the noble Lord, it is hopeless in cases of collusion, where desertion is alleged, for the King's Proctor to intervene.
One other matter as regards the noble Lord's speech. Again I must join issue very strongly with him. He said, if I understood him aright, that desertion was really a greater reason for divorce than adultery. He said adultery interfered with some of the purposes of married life, but that desertion upset the whole fabric of married life. I profoundly differ. I want to say a word or two by and by upon the Christian view of matters of this kind, but I should like to appeal to the conscience of mankind, to the conscience of the world, and to history, and I say that any appeal of that kind which you make will bring you back to this conclusion, that adultery has been treated as before all other matters a crime in married life. It stands on a platform by itself, quite apart from cruelty, desertion, drunkenness, inhumanity, or any other of the suggested reasons which from time to time have been brought forward in favour of divorce.
Then there is one other matter. The noble Lord referred to the presumption of death, and said that because in the Minority Report it was suggested that you might presume death after seven years, this was in itself some admission that the ground of desertion was allowable as a cause for divorce. The two matters are toto cœlo different. One is a question of presumption that the spouse is dead. Of course, if that presumption is properly

1201
founded in law, it is obvious that the marriage has come to an end; but to quote that as any justification for allowing divorce on the mere ground of wilful desertion is really, I think, a misunderstanding of the Report of the Minority. I see in his place his Grace the Archbishop who was so much interested in the Report of the Minority, but I am bound to say that, reading the Report several times with the greatest care, as I have, it never occurred to me that the period fixed as a presumption of death could ever be used as any argument for divorce by wilful desertion for a certain period of time.
Then the noble and learned Lord dealt with separation orders. This Bill makes no difference as regards separation orders. If he feels that separation orders are a cause of immorality, or a cause of difficulty as regards our marriage law, by all means let him bring forward any concrete proposal. I am one of those who think that the law as regards separation orders is very unfortunate at the present moment. But what is the good of quoting that in reference to a Bill which does not touch the separation order at all, a Bill which does not suggest any reform as regards the separation order, and a Bill that leaves the difficulty which the noble Lord feels in exactly the same position as it is at the present moment? As the noble Lord has referred to separation orders, I should like to make just one statement. First of all, I think the true reading of the evidence is that separation orders have not led to immorality or inconvenience as regards the relationship between persons who have been married, and I bear in mind—although I have not the reference here I think I am right—that a letter was written, if I recollect correctly, to 141 clerks to justices asking whether in their opinion the separation order had led to immorality or not. Of these, 104 answered in the negative. That is very strong evidence. I have heard from numerous magistrates who have had great experience in this question that in their opinion no immorality is conduced to by separation orders where the jurisdiction is properly exercised.
Perhaps I may quote an example. This morning I had a message sent me by a magistrate—I do not think I ought to say from which learned magistrate in London it comes—asking me whether, if this question of separation orders was raised, I would give the illustration of his Court,
1202
because he is a profound disbelieve in this doctrine of immorality consequent on separation orders. What were the statistics? These were statistics given for a period of a year. There were 414 applications; 381 of them were dealt with by the missionary of the Court, and the people went away satisfied and reconciled. This is a matter which is constantly misunderstood. The number of separation orders is quoted, and it is forgotten that in a great many of them there is no separation order in the true sense at all. The parties come and are reconciled, as is most proper, by the Court missionary, and nothing further is heard of the procedure.
His Grace will know how these matters are dealt with in evidence in the Report. In this case, which I give as a good illustration, 92 per cent. of the applicants were reconciled there and then. That is the effect of the separation order being only for a period of time, and not being permanent. I am bound to say that in my own opinion there is no analogy whatever between the decree of divorce and a separation order, and, as was pointed out, there are cases dealing with this matter with which lawyers will be familiar. It has been stated that there is often a confusion between a maintenance order and a separation order—a maintenance order to which a person is entitled, and a separation order which is a different forum of order altogether. I think it was pointed out in the Court of Appeal that a separation order ought not to be given where only a maintenance order is required, and the real moral and purport of the. evidence given before the Divorce Commission was to show that the whole effect of separation orders had been enormously exaggerated, and that the suggestion that they led to immorality because the two parties were kept apart, not permanently—they were generally reconciled afterwards—but kept apart for a time, was not sustained by the evidence given by those who had knowledge and cognisance of questions of this kind. I feel I ought almost to apologise to the noble and learned Lord for having spent so much time in criticising his statement.
I really think in regard to his arguments in favour of the Bill he has now brought before Your Lordships that, first of all, a great mass of what he said was not really relevant, and, secondly, that his criticisms of the marriage law, so far as they are justified, are not touched by this Bill at

1203
all. Before coming to one or two matters of principle, on which I differ from the noble Lord, I should like to cite the opinion of the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey. The noble and learned Lord, I think, is not present in your Lordships' House to-night, but I may quote what I know his views to be. He has had enormous experience, and he is not in favour of this Bill. He will vote against it if he is here. What he does feel, and what I feel very strongly—and I think there we agree with the noble Lord (Lord Buckmaster)—is that what you want to do to secure increased morality as regards these matters of divorce, is not to begin where the noble Lord does but to begin at a different stage. You want a reform the marriage law itself. You do not want to make provision for cases where the marriage law is broken, but to introduce a reform of the marriage law itself and to introduce proper precautions against hasty and ill-considered marriages.
Now let me say one or two words on the question of principle. I do not deny for a moment that the noble and learned Lord has the highest view of what is very properly called the sanctity of marriage, but what I do say is this, that those who are supporting the principle of desertion as a cause for divorce have fundamentally, in many respects a different idea of marriage from that which I, at any rate, should urge your Lordships is the right view. I think that they regard marriage primarily as a contract between the two parties, and when they are approaching the marriage law they are always considering whether those two parties have made a bad bargain or not, and if the parties have made a bad bargain they are always saying, "Oh, poor people!; cannot we release them?" The answer is this. If the principle of the indissolubility of marriage is right as a general principle—and I do not believe any one would quarrel with that—you must maintain that, as you maintain other principles, in spite of individual hardship in special cases. There is no principle of any moral value that does not imply hardships in particular and individual cases, and the worst, the most casuistical, argument is that because in particular cases you may have special hardship, that is a reason for an attack on the principle itself.
I should like to define the principle in an entirely different way, if I may. It is quite true that the contract is an element
1204
of marriage. You must have the consent of the parties. Marriage is distinct from any other contract, and is distinct in this way—it constitutes a new status as between the parties; it constitutes what I should like to call, if I do not in any way go against the views of the noble Lord, a new religious status between the parties. And what we have to consider is whether that religious status is to be preserved as far as possible as an indissoluble relationship between the parties in the interests of public and private morality. I think all history and all statistics give only one answer to that question. It is absolutely essential, if you are to have purity of married life, purity of home life, proper example to children, that you should maintain the indissolubility of the marriage status, on which the whole purity and morality of home life and the life of the children depend. You cannot have any compromise upon a matter of this kind. We have been told that we are to have a new life for our children and grandchildren as the result of our exertions in the great war. I say nothing upon that point, but I do say this, that the greatest gift that we of this generation can give to our children and grand-children is to maintain the purity and the religious status of our married life, to hand it down safeguarded and secure as it is at the present moment. It is useless to talk about the future unless we are prepared to take our part in sacrifice at the moment. Of course, an unhappy marriage means service and duty. It is right that in those cases there should be service and duty. Morality demands it; home life is based upon it.
Let me say one or two words as regards the historical outlook. I will not go into the Scottish precedent, except to say this—if it is a precedent at all—that in proportion to population, divorce there is about twice as common as it is in England. Probably that is a comparatively small matter. In America, where, we know, divorce is easy, you have seventy-three divorces per 100,000 of population, as against two divorces per 100,000 in this country. Is that an argument for increasing the facility for divorce? Of course, it is an argument to give rest and contentment to certain individuals; but if you ask me whether it is an argument in favour of this Bill, I say history has established one certain truth—that in proportion to facility for divorce, so do you get a restlessness, unhappiness, immorality as

1205
regards married life and the married state. You can connect the two almost completely if you deal carefully with these historical results in the different countries. We know what was said of the corruption, for instance, as regards married life in the early days of the Roman Empire. What did that mean? There never was a people of greater discipline and of greater power than the Roman people while they held, as they did in an extraordinary degree, the purity and sanctity of homelife. That was broken up, and what followed? The demoralisation of the whole Roman character, the whole Roman life. And as I follow these matters—I do not want to be too discursive or to be too positive—but as I follow principle in history it is not what the noble Lord has said, that you get relief by measures of this kind. You increase restlessness of the married, you make them less happy, you make them less content, and, without dealing with the evil, you do undermine what the noble Lord rightly calls the sanctity of the married status.
Perhaps your Lordships will allow me, in conclusion, to say one word from a different standpoint. The noble Lord, towards the end of his speech, referred in very kindly and generous language to Christian religions matters. If I may say so, and if he will not think me impertinent, I agree with all that he said. But he forgot one factor; he forgot that some of us who are Christians feel that we are bound to obey Christian teaching on this marriage question. And I want to make that position strong from the layman's point of view. I have the honour of being Chairman of the House of Laymen of the Province of Canterbury, and I know that I am expressing their view—because we have had discussions again and again—I am expressing their view that you cannot put on one side Christian teaching when you are dealing with this question of divorce and marriage. I see the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Ely present, and, if he will forgive me for saying so. I copied a passage out of the Majority Report connected with his name, because it exactly expresses my own views upon this topic. He says that he is of opinion that—
"while much remains uncertain as to the teaching of Christ as to divorce, there is one conclusion absolutely beyond doubt—namely, that there is no version of Christ's teaching, no interpretation of any version of Christ's teaching, which does not forbid divorce except on the one and only ground of adultery."
That, I believe, is the Christian teaching.
1206
At any rate, there are thousands and hundreds of thousands of Christian men in this country who not only believe that that is the Christian teaching, but protest with the utmost of their power against any proposal which in their opinion is inconsistent with the words of Christ Himself upon the question of marriage.
At the time of the Royal Commission, 61 per cent. of the married people of this country had been married in the Church of England. Every one of those, in the face of the congregation, promised to retain the marriage relationship "until death us shall part." Every one of them has proclaimed in public the indissolubility, except for the one cause of adultery, of the marriage contract. Will your Lordships, in these circumstances, proceed with the Bill which my noble friend has introduced? I have applied my criticism to it. I want to say one further word. Is this a subject which we can properly consider at a time like the present? Is it right that a Bill should be introduced which deals with only one corner of a very great and complex question? I protest as well as I can against proceeding with this Bill at the present time. If it is necessary to meet at any rate some of the difficulties to which the noble Lord has referred, if it is right to give greater opportunity as regards access to our Courts—and I agree with him in that—if there is reason for reform in some of these matters as regards our divorce law, the only way is to proceed with one Bill, including everything that is necessary to settle the whole question. Nothing can be worse than a series of Bills introduced as regards a portion only of this question; so that instead of us looking upon the law of marriage as settled and determined, it shall be uncertain and indeterminate owing to Bills of this character. My Lords, I move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.
Amendment moved—
Leave out the word "now" and insert at the end of the Motion the words "this day six months."—(Lord Parmoor.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I think that your Lordships will expect me to say a few words on this question because, as the noble Lord who introduced it has reminded you, I happened to be a member of the Royal Commission to which he referred and from whose Report.

1207
he so frequently quoted. I wish here to pay tribute to the immense learning and skill with which the late Lord Gorell, whose name I am sure will always be remembered with admiration in this House, conducted our proceedings, and if some of us were unable wholly to follow his guidance, we were always impressed by the weight of his learning and the fervour of his desire to promote the common good. I have done my best in support of his son—who has given his life for the country at this moving time—to press upon your Lordships the desirability of introducing legislation which would cover the matters upon which the majority and the minority of that Commission were agreed, but the Bill which the noble Lord has introduced is of a somewhat different and more drastic character.
Let me say at once that the Church of England seems to me most clearly, in the solemn rite in accordance with which, as you have been reminded, 60 per cent. of the marriages in this country have taken place, definitely to regard the marriage as a relationship and status which is terminable only by the death of one of the parties. In proclaiming that standard, and in imposing upon her sons and daughters that conception of married life, with its immense responsibilities, I believe firmly that the Church is following the mind and will of her Divine Founder and Lord, and that in His judgment marriage was intended to be, according to the Divine Will, an indissoluble union. But I quite recognise that not all subjects of the State are Christians. I am willing to recognise that it may not be always, under all circumstances of public opinion or moral condition, possible for the State to impose and to maintain by legislation the highest Christian standard. I think that I am able—and it is certainly what I would desire here to do—to argue this matter entirely from the point of view of its bearing upon the general welfare of the whole community. It is upon that plane, and not on religious allegiance, which remains in my own mind high and clear—on the plane of the highest welfare of the community—that I would desire to speak to your Lordships this evening.
From the public point of view, it is of course fundamental to the whole subject that we should steadily disregard the conception of marriage and the marriage tie as one that concerns the private relationships of individuals. These may be happy,
1208
these may be hard, but that is a matter for individuals themselves. It is the business of the State to refuse to regard the marriage contract as one concerning the happiness or hardship of individuals, but to regard it in its bearings as a matter which vitally concerns the whole Commonwealth, and the State therefore insists that marriage shall be public and safeguarded with every possible care, and that everything shall be done to remind persons who enter upon matrimony that they are undertaking a relationship not only, as I believe, of profound religious responsibility, but also of a direct concern to the Commonwealth as a whole.
I do not propose to go into the circumstances which lead to the Act of 1857, or to discuss here and now whether that Act has increased or decreased the marital constancy or the morality of the country. I think that there are many eminent lawyers who have administered the Act of 1857 who, if they were pressed, would undoubtedly say that in their judgment it was responsible for a very great lowering of the marriage standard, and dissolution of the convictions upon which marriage ought to rest. But at least that Act took the position that the permanence of the marriage tie, in the words of the First Royal Commission of 1853, was "a thing essential to the best interests of society, and ought as far as possible in every way to be secured," and made, as has been pointed out, rather a difference of procedure than of principle; it permitted adultery, and adultery alone, to be a cause which would enable married life to come to an end and permit the parties to enter into a new relationship.
Since then the State has steadily refused to add to the causes of divorce with permission to remarry, and I think that what the noble Lord has just said will commend itself to the judgment of your Lordships, that there is a deep and fundamental difference between that rupture of married life and either desertion or any of those other causes for whose sake, in many quarters, it is urged that there should be a further relaxation of the marriage law. Adultery means the deliberate and wilful transfer of the physical union of man and wife which has always been regarded as necessary to its consummation, and it is plain that the wilful and deliberate transfer of that symbol and seal of the unity which ought to exist in mind and soul to another

1209
person—that such an act of treachery to the whole meaning and significance of married life—stands, and I hope always will stand, by itself in the judgment and the conscience of mankind.
But the question that is now raised by the subject of the Bill of the noble Lord is whether the State is prepared to add to that quite unique cause other causes permitting divorce with permission to re-marry. The noble Lord, in a speech which, if I may say so, I found most interesting and moderate and persuasive in its tone and manner indicated, or rather pleaded, that his measure was one which only dealt with the cause of desertion and all that desertion means. The first criticism which I would offer upon his Bill is that, unless I misunderstand it, that claim is not substantiated by the Bill itself, because—subject to his correction—it seems to me that subsection (1) of Clause 1 indirectly, but quite definitely, does introduce other causes of divorce as entitling the parties to release. Your Lordships will notice that the words are—
"In any ease where married persons have been separated from each other by wilful desertion of either spouse, or by any order of any Court, and have remained separated for a continuous period of not less than five years, either party may apply to the Court for a decree dissolving the marriage."
But you are aware that by the Acts, one of which I think he quoted, of 1895 and 1902 the magistrates are permitted in the case of husbands to give separation orders for the causes of cruelty and habitual drunkenness as well as of neglect to maintain, and in the case of a wife for the cause of habitual drunkenness only. Therefore separation orders given by these Courts of summary jurisdiction are given not for wilful separation only but for cruelty and drunkenness; and therefore, according to the noble Lord's Bill, it would be open for any person who had obtained an order in a Court of summary jurisdiction on the ground of the habitual drunkenness or cruelty of the other party to remain separate from that party for five years and then to obtain a divorce—not, your Lordships will notice, on the ground of wilful desertion but on the ground of cruelty and drunkenness. In other words, the noble Lord's Bill not directly and openly but, if I may say so, by a side door, brings in not only wilful desertion but also drunkenness and cruelty as permissible causes of divorce in this country. I am rather surprised that the matter was intorduced in that side way, but I am not alto-
1210
gether surprised that it should be so, because I feel more and more strongly that there are hardly any reasons which can be urged in favour of including wilful desertion as a cause of divorce which cannot even more poperfully and impressively be urged on behalf of drunkenness or cruelty or other causes. And yet if your Lordships will take the trouble to read the immense amount of expert and careful evidence collected by the Royal Commission, on which I sat, with reard to drunkenness and cruelty, I think you will have reason to see that there was some justification for the noble Lord in not expressly and definitely putting these causes as well as that of wilful desertion before your Lordships in this Bill.
But may I also point out on this part of my criticism of the Bill that the effect would be that in this matter, if you happen to be poor, and therefore have recourse to a Court of summary jurisdiction, you could after waiting for five years get divorce for drunkenness or cruelty; but if you happen to be rich and do not frequent Courts of summary jurisdiction for orders of that kind it is a relief which you would be denied. I do not think that this makes for that equality between rich and poor which formed a part of the noble Lord's argument. On this, what I wish to do is to call your Lordships' attention to a point which was made in the noble Lord's speech, that the first clause indirectly, but not less really, brings in drunkenness and immorality followed by five years of living apart as furnishing a good ground for divorce.
The second criticism that I would make on this matter is, Have these orders of separation the weight that is necessary to support the claim that, if they were followed by five years of mutual absence, they would justify divorce and re-marriage? It is important to press this point. I think Lord Parmoor has already pointed out that the separation orders have as a rule, certainly up to within a few years ago, been granted when all that was wanted was some immediate protection or maintenance from a husband or wife who had seriously quarrelled and separated. As soon as it was pointed out that a maintenance order was one thing and a separation order a totally different thing, the number of separation orders at once went down from something like 7,000 in 1907 to less than 5,000 in 1910. It was borne out by

1211
evidence from all parts of the country that there is not only the greatest variety in the reasons which led magistrates to give separation orders, but the greatest possible difference in the care with which they were given. It was quoted to us, I remember, from one of the Police-courts that the number of separation orders had nearly doubled since a new magistrate assumed control, because he was pleased to take what he called a chivalrous view of marriage. And therefore—this is what I ask your Lordships to notice—the Majority Report, to which the noble Lord referred in terms of so much agreement and praise, does not venture to give that weight and importance to these Courts of summary jurisdiction and to their decrees which the noble Lord gives in his Bill. For the majority—not the minority—recommends that the power of these Courts to make orders which have the permanent effect of judicial separation should be abolished, and that the exercise of jurisdiction in the case of separation and maintenance orders which are only necessary for the immediate protection or support of the party should not be allowed to have the effect of permanent separation without application to the High Court. The noble Lord, in his Bill, is giving the effect of a full separation order, to be Followed automatically after an absence of five years by a divorce, to decrees obtained from the Courts in a manner so uncertain and so varied that the majority of the Royal Commission themselves have decided that that jurisdiction must be seriously curtailed, and that when permanent separation is desired the application should be taken to the High Court. In view of this I think that your Lordships should not give assent to the first subsection of the first clause of the Bill.
In the third place, I would like to call attention once again, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, has done, to the provisions of Clause 4, under which, on application that the party has no means to take the case to the High Court, he or she should be allowed to take it to the County Court, and that the County Court in such a case should have the full rights of the High Court. I desire to speak with the greatest possible respect, and indeed gratitude, of the public services which are rendered in every part of the county by the County Court Judges. Nobody who knows anything of the life of the people can
1212
doubt for a moment that they have a very great and a very beneficent part in ordering, in arranging, in harmonising the disputes of the people. But I would again remind your Lordships that the Majority Report—though led by Lord Gorell, who himself made the Motion in 1909 to which the noble Lord referred, and who approached the matter with every possible sympathy and respect for the County Court Judges—came to the conclusion that it was not possible to entrust responsibilities of so grave and important a character to the County Courts as such.
Your Lordships will remember that the Majority Report recommended that the County Court Judges as such should not be regarded as competent Judges, but that a certain number of them should be selected and receive a Commission to act as Judges of the High Court for the purpose of hearing these cases locally. The reasons were not in any sense the incompetence of the County Court Judges, but the fact that if you multiply Courts you inevitably multiply the different interpretations of law, the different principles upon which law is administered. If there is one subject more than another on which it is of vital importance that there should be one uniform principle, spirit, and interpretation of the law, it is the married life of the people; and if you were to multiply Courts all over, to entrust the cases to the County Court Judges everywhere, you would inevitably get such a variety of interpretations of the law as would very soon produce something like the chaos which the citizens of the United States of America at present so deeply lament. I will not refer to other disqualifications of the County Courts, such as that they are incapable of procuring evidence from abroad—a matter which will be of very great importance after the war is over; or that it is most important in a matter of this kind that there should be a competent Bar in attendance upon any Court which deals with the matter. But what I would urge upon your Lordships is to recognise that Clause 4 goes very far beyond even what the Majority Report recommended in entrusting powers of this kind to Courts so numerous and so varied as the County Courts of the country.
I think it was said by the noble and learned Lord that it was competent for any County Court Judge to deal with a matter of fact: but I hope it is not super-

1213
fluous to point out—this is on the point of the County Court Judge being amply able to discuss any question of fact—that in these matrimonial cases, as nobody knows better than the noble and learned Lord, you have to consider not only questions of fact which are capable of easy proof, but you have to deal with interpretations given by the Judge upon the meaning of the facts, and that very specially in regard to malice in desertion, or cruelty, or degrees of drunkenness.
I do not wish to speak too long about it, but may I point out that there is another criticism—which I think has already been made by Lord Parmoor on this part of the Bill—namely, that it is treating the poor man's marriage as if it were more a subject for an inferior Court than the marriage of a man of larger means. The consistent course, I submit, is to say either that all divorces should be taken by these local Courts, or to say that facilities shall be given in the matter of procedure and expense enabling all cases to be taken to the High Court. For myself, I have always felt that on the point of law and civic rights it was unfair to make any distinction in this matter between the rich and the poor, or, because you objected to divorce in principle, to make it impossible, by penalising him on grounds of expense, for a citizen, merely because he was too poor, to avail himself of the law to which his country entitles him to have recourse. In my judgment the proper course is, if that be so, to do everything you can to make it possible for the poor man to bring his case to the High Court—whether it be in London, or, by arrangement, in different parts of the country—where his marriage can receive precisely the same kind of careful treatment as the marriage of the most wealthy citizen. Therefore I urge that your Lordships should hesitate before giving assent, even on Second Reading, to Clause 4 of the noble and learned Lord's Bill.
I come now to the main purpose of the Bill, at any rate what I think the noble and learned Lord would desire to regard as the main purpose of his Bill—namely, the inclusion of wilful desertion as a permissible cause of divorce. From a word which fell from him at the beginning of his speech think that he, like many—certainly like the noble and learned Lord who I do not think is here, but who at one time sat upon the woolsack, Lord Loreburn—was immensely impressed by the number of
1214
these separation orders, and he seemed to show that, like others, he was disposed to think that the existence of this immense number of orders argued the existence of a great number of miserable, divided persons who were permanently alienated from one another, but who were yet prevented from starting a new life in a new home. I think the evidence before the Commission conclusively proved that that vision is a nightmare; that it is not based upon fact; that by far the largest number of separation orders that are taken out are in force for only a very short time, and that often the orders are never taken up at all. If I remember rightly, in the case of one of the cities in Yorkshire the evidence was that there were no less than 4,000 separation orders granted but never taken up. Certainly on the average 50 per cent. of these separation orders are never made effective, because the parties come together again. I think we should all feel that it was most desirable that these parties should come together again.
Those of us who know something of the circumstances of life out of which these differences arise, know that the differences are often due to some temporary outbreak of passion, to some temporary drunkenness, or to some other temporary circumstance, and that in passion or in fear one or other of the parties goes to the nearest Court and applies for an order of maintenance and of protection; and then, after the lapse of a short time, that wonderful force of custom, to which Robert Louis Stevenson refers in one of his most striking essays—the effect of two people regarding one another as really belonging to each other for better or for worse—comes over them, and they meet and say, "Let bygones be bygones, and let us start the old home again in the old way." There is not one of us who does not feel that that is desirable, and we are glad to know that in the case of such a preponderating number of separation orders this is what happens. But see the difference if the noble Lord's Bill became law. Then there would be the greatest possible inducement for these people to make this temporary breakdown of their married life permanent. They would feel, "Now we have drifted apart, and if we can only keep apart for five years we shall be able to marry again and set up another home." The noble Lord would remove the inducement to come together again which at

1215
present operates and which we feel to be so important for the homes of our people.
On the merits of this matter I say unfeignedly that I feel with all my heart the reality of the hardships with which the noble Lord is seeking to deal. Your Lordships will not suppose that any one who has had the opportunities which have been given to me could have failed to feel to the very depths of his being the hardship to which a deserted wife and sometimes a deserted husband is exposed. I have tried to see many of them through their anxious and difficult times. There is no one in this House who knows better how bitter the anguish sometimes must be. But we have here to remember that in trying to meet this case of real and exceptional hardship you may bring in, and enable them to avail themselves of your sentiment and of your pity, a large number of persons who are entitled to neither—persons who marry recklessly, and quarrel, and then deliberately seek some device by which they can set up a new home and a new marriage elsewhere. It is, I believe, impossible to pass a measure such as this which can be restricted to the hard cases. It must be extended to all, and by one means or another, or by mutual arrangement, they will avail themselves of the law, and I do not think it can be denied, nor has the noble Lord attempted to deny, that in this matter some kind of collusion is always possible.
We have been told about the case of Scotland, and I should like to deal with that for one moment. What I would ask you to notice is this, that in Scotland the separation must be not only wilful but malicious, and I understand the Court takes the greatest possible care in regard to proof that the desertion really is of that character; but what is more important is that whatever care is taken in the administration of the law in Scotland is due to one cause, and that is that every such application comes before the High Court itself. It would be a totally different thing in Scotland if you had the arrangement which this Bill proposes—namely, that this question of separation shall be dealt with by a score of local Courts throughout the country. Whatever measure of care in this matter has been exercised in Scotland is largely due to the fact that these cases come before the Judges of the High Court, and are treated there by the Bar of that Court.
1216
On the wider question I am not sure that I should so wholly agree with the noble Lord, that when you cross the border you come to people of the same character, disposition, and qualities as those who would be left upon the south side of the border. It is not for me to say on which side of the border the balance of advantage would lie. I claim that in point of character, outlook, tradition, and social environment there is a very great deal of difference between people in Scotland and people in England. But you cannot argue from one country to another, and I think it is impossible to set aside in a matter of this kind the experience, so overwhelming that I need not refer to it in this House—so overwhelming that it is engaging the serious thought of the great bulk of the citizens of America—that in this matter of separation some degree of mutual arrangement may in most cases be taken for granted.
We cannot allow ourselves to be swayed by our remembrance, it may be, of these hard cases so as to bring within a measure which seeks to give them relief, an opportunity for a large number of persons to break up their marriage and home, where the operating cause is not hardships but mutual desire. The noble Lord believes that five years will make a very great difference, but there is no finality in these years. The hardship, as the noble Lord points out, if we are to go by hardship, is often in the first year of the separation. In the Majority Report the suggestion is three years. In Scotland it is four years, and in some countries one year, and there was a prospect not long ago of a Bill coming before Parliament which said that this should apply whenever the parties proved that they were unable to live happily together. The truth is that you cannot isolate these cases of hardship. They must be treated in regard to the welfare of the whole community, and if you cannot isolate these hard cases you cannot isolate this Bill. You must take it in connection with the basis upon which it rests—that if hardship can be proved a remedy ought to be found, and you cannot isolate it from the tendencies of opinion and social custom which are becoming more and more prevalent in our midst.
There is not one of us who does not know perfectly well that one of the most serious results of the great social upheaval of the war is the number of exceedingly lax, casual, and careless marriages. I suppose

1217
there never was a time in which there has been a greater laxity, almost levity, in the matter of marriage. That is shown in one sinister way already by the enormous increase in the number of cases that have been brought before the Divorce Court. There is, partly in consequence of this and partly to justify this, a movement among us, of a volume and strength which I do not think we have known before, urging the greatest possible freedom of men and women in their marriage relations. I doubt whether most of us were aware how large were the numbers of educated and refined persons who are being at this present time carried far beyond that conception, that high dignified conception, which the noble Lord professed, and which he feels to be consistent with this Bill. That being so, it seems to me that it is a very serious step at this present time to pass or give a Second Reading to such a Bill as this.
There are tides of passion strengthened by tides of sentiment, sometimes worthy, sometimes unworthy, in their source, which are sweeping along and will press upon barriers that are erected on a purely arbitrary foundation and sweep them past, and there must be—and the State must be prepared for it—there must be a stand upon some ground of principle. So far the State has resolutely adhered to the principle that nothing except the unique case of adultery—whether it be right of wrong in that respect I have my own convictions, but I am not dealing with them—nothing beyond that should justify the rupture of the marriage state. It seems to me that at the present time it is the business of serious and thoughtful citizens rather to do everything that is possible to deepen and impress on the public mind and conscience the immense seriousness of the married relationship, and I ask whether this is likely to be done if it is intimated to many young men and women to whom five years mean very little that, if they will only wait during those five years, at the end they can recover from the consequences of their imprudent marriage.
I think this is a step we ought not to be willing to take. We all have a great hope—I trust it may be founded upon reality—that through this war we shall be brought to some better social order. If I ask the question quietly it is not because I do not feel the force of it most deeply, but is this a time in which we ought to make a beginning of that better order by loosening
1218
the foundations of the home and the marriage of the people upon which ultimately it must rest? For these reasons I hope that your Lordships will not give a Second Reading to this Bill.
THE EARL OF DESART: My Lords, I have no intention of detaining your Lordships at any length. The arguments regarding the wider and graver aspects of this proposed alteration, or of any alterarion, of the divorce law have been so fully stated by my noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor, and in the very impressive speech of the most rev. Prelate, that I think I should more usefully serve the purpose of the consideration of this Bill by limiting myself, as far as I can, to the practical effect of it, and how, in my judgment, it would be likely to work.
When you come to consider the alteration of our divorce law there are, I think, always two particular considerations that come to the surface. The first is that if you depart from what I may call the general principle that there can be no divorce in the absence of adultery—there are some other offences in the case of a man, to which I do not refer—you at once are embarked on a very large question as to which, or whether all, of the very cruel cases that occur in matrimonial life should be included as proper subjects to justify dissolution of the marriage tie. The other consideration to which I refer is whether divorce is a privilege or is a right. What I mean by that is whether, assuming one party to a marriage can produce and prove certain facts, that party is entitled to a divorce, or whether there is a further obligation, now imposed by our law, that the party must not be guilty of collusion or of concealment of material facts or of matrimonial offences; because it is quite obvious that according to the manner in which the subject is treated we are in direct relation with the character of the Tribunal by which it should be tried.
If a Court has only to consider whether A or B or C is proved and then the divorce goes as of course, you do not want the experience and the care that you require if a Court has to see not only that these offences are proved prima facie—that is all it would be—but that the petitioner has not concealed material facts, has not committed a matrimonial offence, and has not been guilty of collusion. One requires

1219
vigilance; the other only requires the technical knowledge of what has to be proved and established. Therefore, I think both these considerations arise. One arises on the question whether it is advisable to introduce a Bill of this kind, extending to a very limited degree the causes of divorce, as an isolated measure apart from the many other considerations which surround this enormously important question. The other affects the question, which the noble and learned Lord pressed so hard, as to jurisdiction.
I associate myself with the general observations made by the most rev. Prelate about jurisdiction. I do not want to use the word "superior," but I think it is important to have experienced Judges in this work. It is extremely important to have not only an experienced Bar, but an experienced Bar that has attained the complete confidence of the Court before which it practises. I know the work of the Divorce Court in London, and, generally speaking, the members of the Bar there consider themselves almost as officers of the Court and almost regard it as their duty if they represent the petitioner to see that, so far as they know, nothing shall be concealed from the Court which the Judge ought to know. I think also that the officers of the Court—officers accustomed to deal with these things, who know what happens and know the psychology—are of enormous importance, and, for that reason, I have never liked the idea of transferring the jurisdiction of divorce to the County Court.
When I gave evidence before the Royal Commission I made some suggestions in this direction. They were not finally those adopted by the Majority Report, but the general trend of them—and I still believe it would be the best—was that you should bring the Courts to the suitors and not the suitors to the Courts. The truth is that if you go on the question purely of expense the real expense is in connection with the witnesses. There is very little expense outside the witnesses and you get this extraordinary inequality—that whereas a man of moderate means who lives in or near London can get a divorce, the man who lives in Northumberland cannot. But that might have been met either by State assistance as to the expense of witnesses, or by, at certain periods, some of the Judges in the Divorce Court having local centres where they sat
1220
for a certain time. But if it were reasonable and practicable as a matter of course, I should still strongly urge that divorce should be tried by Judges of the High Court experienced in that work, and that riches or poverty should make no difference as to the Court of trial. I never could see that there should be any difference on that ground.
Now I should like, with reference to what I have said, to deal very shortly with the proposals in this Bill. There are two contentious ones. The point as to "wilful desertion" is obviously very controversial, because while desertion is, as I recognise, a complete abandonment of the marital duty, you are brought up against the fact that you have to, or ought to, prove that it is wilful. And I cannot for the life of me see how any Court hearing an undefended case for desertion with the ordinary evidence which would be given could decide this. There would be no one for the defence, there would be no cross-examination, there would be no means of the Court to test it, that I can see, at all, unless there were some officer such as the King's Proctor entitled to make inquiries. I do not say what the chances are of his finding things out, but at least there would be some chance, as I know there is. Also there would be, which I also know, the fact that the King's Proctor is a check on collusive or other proceedings. I have often myself said to experienced officials of the Divorce Court, "I really do not think I am any use." And they have said, "I am not sure you do much good, and you may do some harm, but the fact that you are there does a great deal of good." I think there should be somebody to whom the Court should be able to go in all cases to try to find out whether a case is bona fide, and whether there is concealment of material facts.
I am nor sure that in wilful desertion there are not stronger arguments against the retention of the King's Proctor than there are in relation to the way in which he now performs his duty. I will put the case of well-to-do people. For them, desertion is a very easy thing indeed to organise, and I do not see, without information, how it could be detected. Not by the Court. One party—suppose it is the husband—gives his wife enought to live upon for two, three, five years, whatever the period may be, and goes away and lives somewhere else. At the end of that

1221
period he comes back, and who can question what has been done? It is said that no harm has resulted in Scotland. I submit that all that it comes to is that the Court has not found out there is harm. I do not see how it can come to any more than that, because they have no means of inquiring, they have no means of testing it; and I do not myself see that there is evidence one way or the other. I am sure they do all they can. I know this very well. I often had the privilege of talking to the late Lord Gorell from time to time, and to his predecessor, Sir Francis Jeune, and I have watched them in Court. I know they took the most meticulous care to try and test every case as far as they could. They always said, "We know we do not find out, and it is a very unsatisfactory thing indeed." And the proof that they were misled on many occasions is that the King's Proctor intervened subsequently and succeeded in his intervention. Consequently in most cases, clearly, the Court had been misled. Further, I am personally absolutely satisfied that the cases in which the King's Proctor intervened form probably but a very small percentage of the cases in which he should have intervened had he been able to get the information. I can see no reason, really, for this being turned, by people so disposed who had the means to do it, into divorce by consent, for it comes to that, I am not suggesting this is a conclusive argument, because if the hardship is sufficiently great, or rather I should put it if the grounds in the public interest are sufficiently great, the fact that there might be cases in which the Court was deceived would not, I think, finally decide the matter against the adoption of the principle of the Bill. But I submit to my noble friend that it does form a reason for the retention of the King's Proctor, rather than for his abolition, as is contemplated by Clause 3 of the Bill.
Now I want to deal with what is really, perhaps, my main reason for voting, as if there is a division I shall vote, against the Second Reading of this Bill. I pointed out, in my opening observations, that once you left adultery as the only cause for divorce, you had to consider what offences or what circumstances should be a justification for divorce. My noble friend Lord Buckmaster has fixed upon desertion and desertion alone, on the ground that desertion more completely breaks up the matrimonial relation than does any other offence. If you come to that, I should
1222
like to consider the most difficult and most cruel, the hardest case of all—insanity. There is also a desertion by crime, conviction in long terms, penal servitude. There is also a loathsome and infectious disease. I am not sure that if you are dealing with desertion on that principle you should omit those; I think you should include them. But I am convinced that piecemeal legislation of this kind on this great question is inexpedient and is undesirable. I think if we are to deal with divorce we must deal with it in the light of the Report and the evidence which is before us, and not pick out one subject here or one subject there and put it into a separate compartment.
To show the practical inconvenience, I have not to go further than the fourth section of this Bill; every argument which the noble Lord urged in favour of the County Court jurisdiction applies to the Bill generally, and you would have the extraordinary result, in passing this Bill, that where divorce is for adultery you would not be able to go to the County Court, but where it was desertion you would. You would also have the other absurd result that where the divorce is for adultery there would be an interval of six months, but when there was desertion there would not. I think that on the ground of convenience and on every other ground this subject must be treated as a whole. It raises controversial questions of the gravest character, social and religious, and to pick out one question and deal with it in a little Bill of this kind—to take out this particular subject as an exception from what is, after all, at present a broad general rule, without dealing with other matters that appear to me just as important as desertion and involve just as great cruelty and as great a break-up of the marriage tie as desertion—is not expedient or desirable.
I also cannot help seconding the closing observations in the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor, At this moment, when all our thoughts are elsewhere, when much of our time is occupied with other business, it is almost impossible for us to do justice to a subject of this kind, or to consider at rather short notice what ought to be done. I feel, in the observations that I have made, that I have been handicapped by not having had time to think the matter out properly. I have not had the opportunity of referring—or referring in any other than a cursory manner—

1223
to the Report, or of considering the evidence that I myself gave. I wish to say that my mind is not in the least made up against the principle of divorce for desertion. I think that the matter requires very careful consideration; but the reason I do not feel able to support this Bill to-night is that I think, standing by itself, it is very inexpedient to amend the law in this way, and that I do not think this is the best time to give such consideration to the Bill as would justify us in sending it forward.
LORD GORELL: My Lords, I shall be as brief as I possibly can, but I feel constrained to take part in this debate. I do so with a sense of difficulty, because though I am fully in sympathy with a great deal of what the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading said, I do not feel able to support his proposals, and, if it be necessary, I shall vote for the noble Lord who has moved the Amendment. But to do so in silence would be to court misunderstanding.
My Lords, it is ten years and more ago since the then President of the Probate, Admiralty, and Divorce Division of the High Court first drew public attention to this question in a very carefully considered judgment on the inconsistencies and anomalies and injustices of our present law of divorce. Subsequently, on his elevation to your Lordships' House, he brought forward a motion as a result of which the Royal Commission was appointed—a great and representative Commission which achieved a rather remarkable measure of agreement. He was unable to gather the fruits of his labour, but the reforms which he had so deeply at heart were carried on by the secretary of the Commission, who was unwilling, where so large a measure of agreement had been reached, that that work should fail, and I think, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, that the noble Lord hardly laid sufficient emphasis on the amount of agreement that was reached between the majority and the minority of the Royal Commission.
To carry on the reforms insofar as agreement had been reached, the secretary of the Commission moved in this House on July 28, 1914, a Bill which, so far as any Bill on this subject could be said to be non-controversial, was non-controversial; at any rate, it sought to embody in the spirit of agreement the recommendations of both
1224
the majority and the minority of the Royal Commission. That Bill was received by your Lordships—I will not say without opposition, because no Bill on this subject has ever lacked that—but at any rate with sympathetic attention. The noble and learned Viscount Lord Haldane, then Lord Chancellor, described it as very moderate and substantially non-controversial. It was withdrawn at the suggestion of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and of the noble Earl, Lord Derby, who was a member of the Commission, upon the argument that it was then very late in the session, and with the distinct understanding, or at any rate with the distinct intention, that it should be reintroduced in the autumn. Six days later war was declared, and it was obvious that the time was not opportune for dealing with a measure of such importance. The intention on the part of the secretary was postponed, and has now been frustrated.
No one has or should have any opinion to which he himself is not ready to stand. Second-hand opinions, however derived, have little value. But at any rate one has a continuative interest in this matter, and though I should not like to-day necessarily to pledge myself to an advocacy of all the reforms which the late Chairman of the Commission, in his experience, advocated, I should at any rate like to say that supposing this Bill is not read a second time, and that no Government action takes place upon the agreement reached by the two halves of the Commission, one would hope at a more favourable time to revive those proposals for reform. But, as I think several of your Lordships have pointed out, the present is hardly a favourable time. The fighting has only just ceased, and the clouds of war are still very much in the sky. We are all overburdened with work. We have no time to give to this great subject, and I think that while so many great problems of Imperial destiny are upon us all, we cannot possible give consideration to a subject which affects every home in the country.
I should like to make it plain, therefore, that though I support the noble Lord who has moved the Amendment I do so with a different intention from that which I think is in his mind. In all the reforms which the late Chairman of the Divorce Commission advocated, he had reference to a state of things where the sancity of the marriage tie was a sanctity in name only,

1225
and where marriage had become a mockery and a shame; and therefore I differ in certain matters of principle, I think, from some of the noble Lords who have spoken to-day. There are many points with which one must express the fullest sympathy—namely, such questions as the recognition of the right of the poor to exactly the same law as the rich (the "equality of opportunity," as it has been called this evening). But I do not see in the proposals before your Lordships' House to-night any real attempt to reform the existing law of divorce. It is rather a sweep round all the difficulties—a sweep round of five years—and it is not reconstruction; it is rather destruction. I feel that it is necessary that we should, in so vital a matter, build upon a just basis which is lacking in our laws at the present time.
In view of the many speeches which have been delivered in destructive criticism of the present proposals, it is hardly necessary for me to go into them as I otherwise had intended to do, except to say that I feel that they go beyond the proposals both of the Majority and Minority Reports. There is, for instance, no discretion—it is not that the Court "may" grant a divorce, but it "shall" grant it. There is no question of the claimant coming to the Court with clean hands; therefore it may well be that during those five years many of the parties may live with their new mates and at the end of that time claim their divorce.
The question of the jurisdiction of the County Courts was, as I think some noble Lord said, considered by the Commission and rejected. Then it is not a decree nisi which is to be granted but an absolute decree, and as the noble Earl, Lord Desart, said, however difficult it may be to prevent collusion to-day, it will be manifestly much more difficult to prevent it under these proposals. I think it is not too much to say that these proposals do amount to divorce by consent in five years' time, and that is a proposition upon which one would not like to give any hasty decision. The noble Lord who moved the Bill said that it was a very simple Bill, and that it dealt only with separation. But it sweeps away all the difficulties—all the injustices are taken in one broad survey of five years. And I feel convinced that these proposals would not have had the support of the late Chairman of the Royal Commission.
But, at the same time, I am anxious that in the destructive criticism which has been
1226
levelled against these proposals to-day the real and vital need for reform of our law should not be overlooked. There is no remedy in these proposals for the evil of judicial separation, and, were the question really to arise on these proposals, should like to take issue with those noble Lords who have rather tried to eliminate that as an evil to-day. But it does not arise under these proposals, except that I feel that that evil is augmented. It will be invoked more than it is to-day, and it will be invoked to record and legalise disinclination. Then these proposals do nothing about what is the still graver evil to which Mr. Gladstone referred in very striking words in the debate in the House of Commons in 1857 as to the different standard of morality set up between men and women. Under these proposals the wife is still tied to a husband who is unwilling to separate himself from her and is not legally cruel, and yet is unfaithful. That is not a state of things which we can contemplate with equanimity when we come to revise the existing law.
I do not wish to go into details to-night in view of the speeches which have already been made, but I submit that these proposals go very far beyond any question of agreement, and yet leave certain of the vital problems untouched. I am convinced of the need of reform and that this is one of the questions which will have to be taken up and faced by the country as soon as peace is declared. We cannot leave the law in its present state, and we have in the two Reports, in so far as they are in agreement, a large basis of agreed reform. In this spirit and with that intention I shall, if it be necessary, support the noble Lord who moved the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD FINLAY): My Lords, I desire to state, in the fewest possible words, the grounds upon which I shall vote against the Second Reading of this Bill. The first objection to it is one which, in the nature of the subject with which this Bill deals, is one of considerable weight. It is dealing piecemeal with a bit of a very large subject. I think that, when a subject of this kind is dealt with, it ought not to be dealt with by piecemeal legislation. But I do not base my opposition to the Bill merely on that ground. Although no one could listen to the speech of my noble and learned friend in introducing the Bill without seeing that he introduced it with the very best inten-

1227
tions, I believe that the Bill is one that, if it became law, would do a very great deal of mischief.
Reference has been made to the Scottish law. This Bill proposes something very different from the Scottish law. The Scottish law, the merits of which I am not at present going to discuss, is that if there is what is called in Scotland "non-adherence" for four years, and if the person deserting continues in malicious obstinacy for four years, then there are to be certain rights. The first Statute was passed in 1574, and in that Statute it was provided that after the malicious obstinacy in the way of desertion had continued for four years there had to be an application to the Judge Ordinary for a decree of adherence; then there were to be proceedings before the Court of Session to compel obedience. If the obedience was not given, the spiritual authorities were to be called upon to admonish the person in default, privately and afterwards publicly, and then there was to be ex-communication, and after all that the decree of divorce could be got. In 1861 all these formalities were abolished, but the root of the matter still remains, that there must have been malicious obstinacy in the way of desertion for the space of four years. And I understand that the Scottish law is clear, that there must have been an honest desire on the part of either party to the contract to resume married life in its normal course. It will not do if there was no desire to come together again on the side of the party inclined for relief.
But under this Bill as drawn the door is opened very wide indeed. I entirely agree with what the most rev. Prelate the Archbishop of York, has said with regard to the construction of the words in subsection (1) of Clause 1 concerning married persons separated by any order of any Court who have remained separated for five years, that it is not necessary that this separation should have been by way of desertion. I do not think there can be any doubt that the most rev. Prelate's construction of those words was the correct one.
Then—whether it was intentional or not is, of course, another matter—but one can only deal with the clause as it stands. But in the second case I think that this section is so drafted as to make it very doubtful indeed whether the Bill followed, or was intended to follow, the Scottish example, because there was nothing to
1228
show that there must have been an honest desire on the part of the person seeking relief to resume cohabitation. The words are simply these—
"In any case where married persons have been separated from each other by wilful desertion of either spouse, or by any order of any Court, and have remained separated for a continuous period of not less than live years, either party may apply to the Court for a decree dissolving the marriage."
Either party. The party deserting may apply. And there is nothing to show that there must have been on the side of the party wronged by the desertion an honest desire to resume marital life. In these circumstances it seems to me that this Bill is really not based upon the law of Scotland at all.
The second observation I wish to make is with regard to the second clause, which does away altogether with the decree nisi. The object of the six months, of course, was to give time for inquiry to see whether there was anything wrong; but if I rightly understood my noble and learned friend he said that the King's Proctor was really of no use at all, and never found out anything. I agree with what the noble and learned Earl, who spoke with intimate knowledge of this matter, said—namely, that the presence of the King's Proctor is a considerable protection. Saying that he does not find out many things is as wise as what was said of the Customs examination at Dover which I remember seeing put forward in the public Press—how very few smuggled articles were discovered in the course of a year. That may be so; but very much smuggling is prevented. And the fact that you have a King's Proctor is a considerable protection against improper proceedings. That being so, surely it is deplorable that an enactment of this kind should be based on the ground that there must be collusion, that it is impossible to do anything to prevent it, and that the King's Proctor is useless.
The only other observation I wish to make is with regard to the jurisdiction of the County Courts. This is not the kind of work for which the County Courts were started; and I think that in a matter like the dissolution of marriage it is of very great importance to keep it in the hands of the High Court. It is undoubtedly the case that there is a good deal of congestion in the Divorce Court at present, but that is partly due to temporary causes. The

1229
separation which the war has entailed in many households has led in a great many cases to lamentable results, with an increase in the work of the Divorce Court. Those temporary causes will abate, and the Courts will resume their normal aspect. Even then, of course, the problem of the Divorce Court as regards an adequate supply of Judges, and as regards enabling poor suitors to take advantage of the law, is one of some difficulty. A great deal has been done in this direction. King's Bench Judges have been told off to assist the Divorce Court, with good effects on the bulk of the work. A great deal more may be done possibly in the way of helping the poor to take advantage of the facilities which the law gives for relief in proper cases, by remodelling the laws under which assistance is given to poor persons to sue in that Court; and it has been suggested that the business might be to some extent kept down by sending cases to trial before a Judge of the High Court at Assize. If anything is to be done in the way of bringing divorce actions it should be done in that way and not in the way suggested by Clause 4. For all these reasons, if this matter goes to a Division, I shall be constrained to give my vote against the Second Reading of this Bill, because I think the effect of it would be very bad.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I rise with some sense of difficulty owing to the circumstances in which this matter is at this moment before us. We are dealing with one of the very largest questions in the whole of our social and religious life, a question which cuts down to the depths of the principles upon which our social life has been upbuilt, and which practically concerns half the homes of this country indirectly. But how on the day after what has just been declared—the most momentous thing that has happened in the world's life, when everybody's thoughts are in other directions, in the absence of hundreds who might otherwise have been here had they felt in different circumstances—can we deal with this matter? It is absolutely impossible If the noble and learned Lord goes to a Division, of course we have no choice but to vote against him.
I am prepared to develop at length in other circumstances what I feel upon the subject as one which not only those who occupy the kind of position I hold, but many
1230
others, are bound to deal with on a very large scale as being something which concerns the whole well being of our community. But how can we adequately handle that to-night; and would it conduce to the dignity of your Lordships' House to have a Division which would parade it to the world that a matter of this kind had been decided in one way or another—as far as this is called a decision—by a handful of noble Lords? All credit to those who have found it possible to be here; but would it really be to the honour of this House that this matter should be decided in a House like this?
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not press this matter to a Division. The speeches to which we have listened have been most striking in themselves, and striking in the sources from which they came. The noble and learned Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill stands in the forefront in consideration and knowledge as an authority on all these matters. In addition to him we have had Lord Desert whose experience in a particular Department is unique, and whose words carry incomparable weight in many directions. We have had Lord Gorell who has told us that the late President—who was the man on whose recommendation this legislation was supposed to rest—would not have supported this Bill; and we have had the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack telling us what he thinks about it. I am speaking only of the legal side of the matter, and not touching upon the speech which my most rev. brother delivered an hour ago on the ecclesiastical side.
I could not to-night try to enter upon a discussion of the question on its merits. I should have liked to have dwelt on the question of the separation orders about which so much has been said, because I do not know whether your Lordships have noticed a most remarkable thing in the last few days upon that subject, which brings the matter absolutely up to date—namely, that in one of the leading police courts the magistrate, a man entitled to the highest possible respect in this connection, has taken pains, when an application for a separation order has been made, not to grant the order without first endeavouring to ascertain, by means of private intercourse with the parties through an accredited agent, whether an arrangement could not be made that the application should not be persevered with. That

1231
magistrate has told us that out of 414 applications lately made to him in 381 cases they never came before the Court at all. That seems to me to be almost conclusive on the question of the weight that some people attach to these separation orders. I do not want to amplify the question now, but I mention that particular point as one which occurs to me as of vital moment.
What has been said about the County Court jurisdiction in this matter is a subject which concerns the legal authorities in the House rather than the ecclesiastical as regards the weight that would be attached to a County Court judgment in this matter. But I am anxious to make two things clear. The first is that none of us, as far as I can judge, hesitate in the desire to see any difference removed which puts a poor man at a disadvantage as compared with a rich man. If necessary we must multiply the Judges or have peripatetic Judges. If a
Resolved in the negative, and Bill to be read 2a this day six months.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
rich man can do what a poor man is unable to do, that is wrong, and it ought to be set right. On the other hand, if it is a question of costs, that also must be dealt with. A poor man must not be sent to an inferior court. Those are the points which I am anxious to make clear, and having said that I offer a most unhesitating opposition to the Bill now proposed. I have only touched upon it to-night, and have not attempted to argue upon the principle of the measure, because I feel that it is impossible to do so at length, and it would not be conducive to the amenities of your Lordships' House that we should discuss at length a Bill which affects the traditions, usages and sanctities of more than a thousand years of English life.
On Question, whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 39.

CONTENTS

Crewe, M.

Aberconway, L.

Ranksborough, L.

Lincolnshire, M.

Armaghdale, L.

Rathereedan, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Buckmaster, L. [Teller.]

Roe, L.

Russell, E.

Cawley, L.

Rotherham, L.

Colebrooke, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Denman, L.

Sudeley, L.

Churchill, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Sydenham, L. [Teller.]

Cowdray, V.

Islington, L.

Weardale, L.

Haldane, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Wittenham, L.

St. Davids, V.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Wolverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Jersey, E.

Beresford of Metemmeh, L.

Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Lindsay, E.

Braye, L.

York, L. Abp.

Sandwich, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

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

Selborne, E.

Channing of Wellingborough, L.

Chaplin, V.

Clinton, L.

Argyll, D.

Knollys, V.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.) [Teller.]

Newcastle, D.

Dinevor, L.

Northumberland, D.

Bangor, L. Bp.

Glanely, L.

Ely, L. Bp.

Gorell, L.

Salisbury, M.

Norwich, L. Bp.

Harris, L.

Rochester, L. Bp.

Parmoor, L. [Teller.]

Beauchamp, E.

St. David's, L. Bp.

Phillimore, L.

Fortescue, E.

St. Levan, L.

Grey, E.

Annesley, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Halsbury, E.

Balfour, L.

Clause 15:
(14) If a young person over the age of sixteen or the parent of a young person under the age of sixteen represents in writing to the local education authority that he objects to any part of the instruction given in the continuation classes which the young person is required to

1233
attend, on the ground that it is contrary or offensive to his religious belief, the obligation under this Act to attend those classes for the purpose of such instruction shall not apply to him, and the local education authority shall, if practicable, arrange for him to receive other instruction in lieu thereof or attend other classes.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am requested by Lord Bryce to move the Amendment which stands in his name [to omit from subsection (14) of Clause 15 the words "or offensive"], though your Lordships will see one in my name in similar terms, but I understand that those who are promoting the Bill prefer the words suggested by Lord Bryce. In these circumstances I am prepared to move it instead of my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 25, leave out ("or offensive.").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 25, after ("belief") insert ("or likely to give offence to his religious feelings").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fifth Schedule:
6. The Department may by order at any time after the passing of this Act make such further adaptations in the provisions of any Act (including any local Act and any provisional order duly confirmed) as may seem to them necessary to make those provisions conform with the provisions of this Act, and any order so made shall operate as if enacted in this Act.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I do not move my Amendment to leave out paragraph 6 of the Fifth Schedule.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Your Lordships will recollect that this paragraph refers to Orders to be made for the purpose of bringing Acts of Parliament relating to particular schools into harmony with the provisions of the Education Act. Objection was taken on the ground that it was rather a large power. The noble Lord who had an Amendment down to leave out the paragraph has intimated that he does not propose to move it, but I am sensible that it might seem to be a large power and that some check might be
1234
desirable. Accordingly, I propose to move to leave out all words after the word, "Act" where it fourthly occurs, for the purpose of inserting the words, "Any Order so made by a Department shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith; and unless an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after the Order is laid before it, praying that the Order may be annulled, the Order shall have effect as if enacted in this Act." The object of this is to prevent any abuse of the power. In the Amendment which is on the Paper the words occur "unless and until an Address is presented." The words of the Amendment are taken from a similar provision in the Representation of the People Act. The words "and until" were put in there because it was dealing with a number of administrative Orders and it was desirable that the Order should have effect before the Address had been presented. But here we are dealing with the amendment of schemes in order to adapt them to the Education Act. In these circumstances I think the words "and until" are not apt here, and I move the Amendment leaving out the words "and until."
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 5, leave out from ("Act") to the end of line 6, and insert ("Any order so made by the Department shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith; and unless an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after the order is laid before it, praying that the order may be annulled, the order shall have effect as if enacted in this Act").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords having regard to the advanced period of the session and the great desirability of not incurring any risk of the Bill not passing into law, I ask your Lordships to allow the Third Reading to be taken this evening. My noble friends are interested in the Bill, and I hope there will be no objection to that course. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a., and passed, and returned to the Commons.

PARLIAMENT (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD ISLINGTON): My Lords, the Bill that I have the honour to submit to the consideration of your Lordships and to ask that you should read a second time this evening is a simple and short Bill consisting of one operative clause. Its brevity is no indication of its importance in the future constitutional machinery of Parliament. It grants a far-reaching extension of discretion on the part of the electors in deciding who is to represent them in the House of Commons. It proposes that women should have the same opportunity of securing seats in Parliament as is now afforded to men. Therefore, it removes one of the last sex barriers that now exist in our constitutional system and affirms that women are to have an equal right with men to the primary privilege of citizenship.
It is only a few months ago that your Lordships, by a large majority, affirmed the principle that women should have the privilege of voting for candidates for Parliament, and, by the enactment of the Representation of the People Bill, six million women are to-day on the Register. The proposal now to enable women to obtain admission to Parliament is the natural and inevitable consequence of that decision. If passed into law it finally terminates the old theory that women's interest in the common weal of the State is inferior to that of men. This Bill has come up from another place where it has been fully debated. It passed there through all its stages without amendment.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: In one day?
LORD ISLINGTON: Not in one day. It is not suggested that this Bill should pass through all its stages in one day in your Lordships' House either. It experienced little opposition. It was moved by Resolution by Mr. Herbert Samuel, and was then assumed by the Government as one of their own measures. At this late period of the evening, with the empty benches I see around me, I do not feel that it is necessary for me in moving the Second Reading to occupy your Lordships' time at any great length by repeating in detail arguments which are familiar both to your Lordships and those outside this House in
1236
regard to this question. However, I realise that the proposal is one admittedly of such a far-reaching importance in the possibilities of change, both as regards the character and personnel of future Parliaments, that your Lordships have every justification in giving it your full consideration before signifying your decision. None the less, I venture to hope that in forming your decision you will have in mind the fact that the House of Commons, who are especially affected in regard to it, have already accepted it, and that the rejection by your Lordships would be unfortunate at this juncture, and might give rise to a serious feeling of protest outside this House among those who feel earnestly on the question.
It may be contended by those who disapprove of the enfranchisement of women that it is premature immediately to grant this further privilege to them. I find, however, that those who were most prominent in opposition to the Bill for enfranchiseing women are to be found supporters of this Bill, their support being based on grounds, to my mind, both logical and intelligible—that the acceptance of enfranchisement must lead to the privilege of eligibility to sit in the House, the one step inevitably involving the other, both on grounds of precedent, policy, and consistency. If this Bill is not passed now, it will certainly form a prominent place in the demand by the constituencies at the coming Election, and it is pretty certain that the demand will be invariably acceded to by candidates when the question is placed before them. I would venture to say, therefore, that it is better that Parliament should decide this question now, and that it should not be allowed to be left, as it would otherwise be, in doubt at the General Election, and that Parliament, which is the proper place where it should be decided, should deal with it now rather than postpone it to the new Parliament, which will have so many heavy burdens of urgent work placed upon it. I venture to hope that this aspect of the question which I have briefly put before you will commend itself to your Lordships.
There are many who look with apprehension, and even aversion, to the inclusion of women in our constitutional system. I have not to look very far round from where I am standing now to find those who hold that view. I hope, however, that noble Lords will give their support to this measure, even though in some cases it may be a support strongly tinged with reluctance

1237
and in a spirit of resignation. It will be observed that this Bill does not lay down any conditions regarding the age of eligibility of women as candidates, whilst only those above the age of thirty are eligible to vote. At first sight, this may seem somewhat inconsistent, perhaps; therefore I may be allowed, very briefly, to anticipate this charge which may be made. Your Lordships will remember that the age of thirty, which was prescribed for enfranchisement of women, was made not because women of a younger age were considered less competent to exercise the vote, but rather because the inclusion of women between the ages of twenty-one and thirty might lead to women-voters being in a majority on the Register, and this was considered, too drastic a departure in the realms of constitutional experiment. Therefore the embargo on any woman below the age of thirty was placed in that measure.
In the case of eligibility to Parliament, this age condition is not necessary. The whole question of age, suitability, and competence can safely be left, and should be left, in the hands of the electorate to decide, who are perfectly capable of doing so. If a woman of twenty-five years of age, and even younger, possessed the necessary qualities in the minds of the electorate, there is apparently no reason for refusal of admission on ground of age. If we are to judge by the experience in other countries where this privilege already obtains, we may anticipate that if this Bill is passed it will not result in a large number of women candidates, still less in any appreciable number of women being returned to Parliament. A woman who stands for Parliament in one of our new constituencies, as recently reformed and enlarged, will have to undergo a very severe ordeal. She will have to satisfy a very critical electorate as to the competence of a woman to represent them, and I venture to say that certainly by no means the least critical of and the most indulgent to a woman candidate will be the women voters in the constituency; and I think it may be confidently anticipated that a very large number of the newly enfranchised women will record their votes against women, on the very principle that they are opposed to women representing them in Parliament. Therefore, my Lords, if a woman succeeds at the polls in one of our new broad-based popular constituencies, I venture to say that she will have to have shown exceptional qualities of energy, ability, and ex-
1238
perience to justify her selection as a capable Member of Parliament. She will have to have shown herself to be one, quite apart from sex, who is able to contribute her share to the deliberations and decisions of the nation.
There is one more point that I would like to advance in favour of this Bill before I conclude. The work of Parliament in the immediate future will be the most onerous and difficult, probably, in the history of our country. Settlement and reconstruction will present problems of the very gravest character. We may have to face times as difficult and as anxious as any during the last four years. I venture to say it is of the first importance that the Parliament that has to deal with the perplexing situation which will be before us should represent in the very fullest sense every interest and opinion in the country. And I venture to say, in this connection, that there are women who during the past four years have shown a competence and capability in responsible positions that certainly lead to the presumption that their presence and influence would be of value and service to the State.
The war has enabled many women to become familiar with various aspects of our public life in which they may have hitherto been unversed, and I venture to say that the mind and sympathy of a woman brought to bear on some of these questions which require urgent reform and redress will be very valuable, as enabling them to represent, often, an aspect of these questions which may not occur to men. It is not only on the floor of the House of Commons that a woman, if successful at the polls, will be of service in the future Parliament; neither will it be only on the public platforms of the country. Your Lordships will, I hope, agree that their influence and advice will be of the greatest value in those Committees which will have to be formed to work out the details of the vast number of questions that will arise in the years to come. Under the present system a woman may be placed upon a Departmental Committee, but until she becomes a member of Parliament she could not be a member of any of our Parliamentary Committees, Select Committees, or Joint Committees of both Houses. Such questions as the condition of woman labour, public health, infant welfare, education, housing, employment of women, and pensions for those who are

1239
bereaved as the result of the war, and those who have been maimed in the war, and kindred subjects, are conspicuously amongst those which women are competent to assist in and render great service to the State. Many of those subjects have been in abeyance under the emergencies of the war during the past four years, and many of them have accumulated until they have become very acute subjects. Some of them have been created as a result of the war, and they now await attention and action by Parliament as vital elements in the reconstruction of our social system. In conclusion I hope that your Lordships will support this measure, because it will enable the country to have in the future a Parliament based on the widest and most popular representation that can be devised, and that I believe is essential in the troubled days that lay before us. I venture, therefore, to ask your Lordships to approach the Bill in this spirit, and to endorse the decision of the House of Commons and give the Bill a Second Reading this evening.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Islington.)
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, I am the last person in this House to dispute for a single moment the statement made by the noble Lord, that there are doubtless many women in this country whose presence in the House of Commons would be an advantage. For what is it that the noble Lord has told us? That in the next House of Commons the work will be onerous, difficult and hard to a degree, and that it will require the ablest and most experienced of women to deal with it if it is to be dealt with in an adequate manner. When I heard those statements from the noble Lord I thought that they afforded the strongest possible ground for the severest criticism upon the members of the Government in the House of Commons who have laid before us such a Bill.
I did not have the advantage of seeing this Bill until I came into the House this afternoon. And what do I find from it? A woman shall not be disqualified by sex or marriage from being elected to, or sitting or voting as a member of, the Commons House of Parliament. I have ascertained from those whom I believe to be unquestioned authorities that a woman under this
1240
Bill is a woman of twenty-one years of age or over. The noble Lord agrees to that. Then, when he tells us that the most experienced women in the Kingdom are needed to fulfil the duties which will devolve upon Parliament, he reminds us almost at the same time that under the Reform Bill not one of these women of twenty-one years of age can have a vote, and yet they are entitled to sit in the House of Commons. Obviously this is an absurdity. How such an absurdity can ever have been allowed to come into a Bill sent to us in the last hours of the Parliament, at a time like this, is something that I cannot understand, and the Bill certainly requires a much better defence than has so far been offered to us.
This absurdity can be rememdied by an Amendment. You could, of course, amend this Bill ad libitum by giving votes to the women of twenty-one years of age who are to be entitled to sit in the Houses of Commons, but if you do that you are at once confronted by the fact, which the noble Lord himself appears to have had in his mind, that you will then be transferring the whole power of governing this kingdom from the men to the women of the country, because, as the noble Lord himself told us, they will be in a majority. Moreover, in view of the enormous losses among the heroes who have been fighting for us, that majority will be a very large one. Do you suppose that the women themselves, unless they disapprove of women sitting in the House of Commons, will permit the present state of things to continue when they have a vote? That is a question which might have suggested itself to noble Lords at the time of the Reform Bill, because the facts as to the numbers of women were well known then. There is another fact, which I ascertained from the high authority of gentlemen who had served upon the Speaker's Conference, that at least five millions out of the six millions of women would be directly or indirectly connected with organised labour. This Bill seems to me to be an instance of the folly of scrambling legislation through Parliament at a period when the session is coming to a close. It deals, as the noble Lord himself told us, with matters of the highest and indeed of supreme importance, but which appear to have been forgotten altogether by the Government when this Bill was being passed through the House of Commons.
LORD ISLINGTON: May I remind the noble Viscount that the House of Commons very fully debated it. There was a long debate on Second Reading, and a full debate in Committee.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I think, then, that there was less excuse, because they ought to have had all these facts before them if the debate was to be worth anything at all. The noble Lord would not then have been placed in the very unfortunate position which I think he occupies to-night. The position is made worse in this respect. If ever there was a question which ought to be submitted to the women themselves before it was made law it is this. Who is my authority for that? Why, the noble Lord himself, for he has just told us that probably very few women at all will be elected. And why? Because women do not think, as a rule, that they ought to be Members of Parliament. Then why on earth, if you believe that, did you not postpone this Bill till after the Election and submit the question of women coming into Parliament to the women themselves?
I suppose that this Amendment could be moved at a later stage of the Bill, but I believe we made a great and hurried mistake in introducing controversial legislation of this character at all in defiance of all the pledges and statements, made by man after man occupying leading positions in the Government at that time in the House of Commons, where I was myself, when it was declared that there should be no controversial legislation during the war. This is one of the evil consequcnes of departing from pledges of that kind. I shall propose no Amendment in Committee—I should not gain my object in that way; but what I shall do is to move, as I ask your Lordships to allow me to do now, that this Bill be read a second time on this day six months.
Amendment moved—
Leave out the word "now" and insert at the end of the Motion "this day six months."—(Viscount Chaplin.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I feel it necessary to dissociate myself from my noble friend. He presents a magnificent spectacle of one left high and dry upon the beach. The currents are flowing into the ocean, and it is perhaps as well that his bark is not in peril on that ocean. He
1242
reflects upon the Government for having weakly and inconsiderately given way to an impulse. The Government did nothing of the kind. They have been merely interpreting the vast manifestation of opinion which has taken place in every stratum of society, and which has been enormously stimulated by the war, which has revolutionised things. The war has had enormous effects outside these islands—greater far, fortunately for us, than within these islands; but within these islands it has brought about a great change of opinion, and one of those changes which we cannot neglect, and which a wise Conservatism will prevent us from neglecting, is the new recognition of the status of women. They have already got the franchise, and this Bill is merely a consequential Bill. We cannot inconsistently prevent them from taking a part in legislative work. To say that it matters that a woman cannot vote until she is thirty, and yet can be chosen for sitting in the House of Commons at the age at which Mr. Pitt was chosen, seems to me beside the point. I have the very strongest conviction that this Bill is irresistible, and I am glad that the Government have been the interpreters of public opinion in bringing it forward, and if my noble friend divides the House I shall support the Government.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I should like to define my position with regard to this Bill. I do not think it is quite reasonable to move without notice the rejection of the Bill. The course which I personally intended to pursue when the Question was put was to say "Not-content," because I wished to dissociate myself from any responsibility for a matter which I think a perfect outrage upon Parliamentary procedure. But if I were going to attempt to stop the Bill, I think it would have been reasonable to give notice for that purpose.
The noble Lord, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, said this was the natural and inevitable consequence of what we did earlier in the year. Then why was it not done then? I think the obvious answer is that, if it had been done then, it would have enormously strengthened the opposition to the enfranchisement of women, and that I believe to be the reason why it was not done then. A good deal is made about the Division and discussion in another place. Everybody knows that that

1243
was a decision arrived at by sheer funk. No one dared to vote against the women who was going to stand again, because he knew that, had he done so, he would have been a marked man. Everybody knows it from conversation with Members who took part in the Division.
But though I think it an outrage upon Parliamentary procedure, I do not think it would be reasonable for this House to reject the Bill on this Motion, because that cannot be undone without the Bill passing again through the other House of Parliament, and I will not take the responsibility for that. Therefore if the noble Lord persists in his Amendment I shall simply withdraw. I want to ask when the next stage of this Bill is to be taken. Because we are very near the end of the session. On that stage is it intended to do anything towards the franchisement of Peeresses? Is any Amendment to be moved on that matter? An Amendment was moved in another place, and I think was withdrawn on the ground that it was a matter for this House, and not for the other House of Parliament. As time is short, I think it is not an unfair question to ask the Government whether they intend to make themselves responsible for any change in the qualification for this House.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, we suggest that the Bill should be put down for Committee stage the day after tomorrow. The Government does not propose to make itself responsible for such an Amendment as the noble Lord refers to, but, of course, if any of your Lordships move it, the matter will have to be considered. I would venture to suggest to Lord Chaplin that he should adopt the course outlined by Lord Balfour, who, like myself, did not expect that any Motion to reject the Bill would be moved; and I especially point that out to him, in view of the fact that the hour is a little late and the House has ceased to be representative, and that other Peers imagined that no Division was likely—
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: Why?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: That was the general impression, I understand; and I would especially make that point clear, if I may, to the noble Lord because the great objection he took in his speech
1244
was one which in my opinion was emphatically a Committee point, and which is not prejudged in any way by the Second Reading; and he could, of course, raise the question of the age, to which he attached so much importance, at the later and, perhaps, more natural stage of the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sure that we all listen invariably with great interest and attention to anything that falls from the noble Viscount. While he was speaking I felt that he was to a great extent making a speech against the granting of votes to women. I need not say that on that subject I was in cordial agreement; I voted against giving the vote to women.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: May I explain? I was not doing that, and for the best possible reason that it is too late. They have got the vote.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think that would have prevented my noble friend from making a good many observatoins which would have been in order on the other Bill. However, I will say no more about that. My noble friend referred with some bitterness to the fact that women under thirty would be admitted to the House of Commons under this Bill. It is true that women under thirty do not at present have votes, but it is not necessary that any person sitting in the House of Commons should be qualified as a voter.
I desire to say a very few words to explain my reasons for thinking it undesirable that the House should reject this Bill. The question of the qualification of women to sit in the House of Commons is a different one from the question whether they should sit in this House—that is a very different question, and one which depends upon different considerations. The broad distinction between the two cases is that, in order to sit in the House of Commons, you must have been elected by a constituency, and no such test, of course, is imposed with regard to the right to sit in this House. In these circumstances it seems to me that it is difficult, when Parliament has given votes to women, for this House to reject a Bill coming from the House of Commons proposing to give the right to sit in the House of Commons to any woman who is returned there by a constituency. When the clause in the Representation of the

1245
People Bill enfranchising women was under discussion it was pointed out, I think, as an objection to it, that it would probably lead to a demand for the admission of women into Parliament. But that and all other objections were overborne, and it is now established that women have votes. I refer to that only for the purpose of saying that it makes it extremely difficult in my view for this House properly to refuse a measure of this kind coming up to it from the other House of Parliament.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I do not see that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: When we have adopted votes for women, is it wise for this House to give a contrary decision as to the right to sit in the House of Commons of a woman who may be returned? There was no Division upon the Bill in the House of Commons, but there was a Resolution which was discussed and voted upon before that House proceeded to deal with the Bill. The Resolution in favour of women sitting in the House of Commons was carried by 274 votes to twenty-five; that is, roughly, eleven to one; and not unnaturally no Divison was taken on the Bill after these figures.
The case of women sitting in the House of Commons really stands by itself; it does not govern the question whether it would be proper or wise to admit them to sit in this House. That question must be determined on its own merits. But I feel that it is very desirable that we should not have a quarrel with the House of Commons on a matter affecting the constitution of that House, a contest in which I am sure this House would ultimately be beaten. Regarding this as a matter standing by itself and apart from the question of the constitution of this Chamber, I propose to vote for this Bill if there should be a Division; but I appeal to my noble friend to consider whether it is desirable to challenge a Division at this period of the evening and in the circumstances to which attention has been called. As my noble friend is aware, if there are not thirty members present the result would be that the debate would go over to the next sitting of the House. In these circumstances I appeal to my noble friend not to press the Amendment.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, I am very sorry if I seem to oppose the views of
1246
men who have been couch longer members of this House than I have. On the other hand, I doubt if there is anybody present at this moment who has had a longer political experience than myself in the other House of Parliament; and I am bound to say that the effect of all that experience upon me is that I am not in the least moved by the figures of the Division taken in a panic in the House of Commons the other day, for the reasons which were stated very bluntly just now by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh. I very much doubt if the opinion of the House of Commons in the country at the present moment would have much more weight than I or my noble friend attach to their decision the other night.
I have to consider the question of what my duty is upon this occasion, and I must say, with the greatest respect to the Lord Chancellor and to all the other members of this House, that I feel I should be departing from my duty if I wavered. I have not done this without careful consideration. I could not give notice for the simple reason that I have been away on account of illness, and it was not until this afternoon that I had an opportunity of reading this Bill, when it appeared to me to be a Bill which in no circumstances ought to have passed the House of Commons in the shape in which it now is.
On Question, whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion, it appearing that thirty Lords were not present, the LORD CHANCELLOR declared the Question not decided: Further debate on the said Motion adjourned until to-morrow.

PETROLEUM (PRODUCTION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Elphinstone.)
VISCOUNT COWDRAY: My Lords, I greatly deplore at this hour to have to crave your indulgence to make one or two remarks relative to statements that have been made, affecting me or my firm, during the debates upon this Bill. The noble Duke (the Duke of Northumberland) who has taken an active part in the debates upon this Bill stated that—
"Certain landlords were under negotiation with Messrs. Pearson for boring for petroleum

1247
on their estates. These negotiations lasted a considerable time, and eventually fell through because Messrs. Pearson wished for an option of such an extended character that it practically amounted to a monopoly. These negotiations having fallen through, Messrs. Pearson entered into negotiations with the Government."
My Lords, that statement is made under a misapprehension. It is not correct. Our negotiations had not fallen through when the Government asked us to commence drilling at once, but were as a fact progressing. The insinuation, it appears to me, contained in the statement is that my firm having failed to make arrangements with the landowners went behind their backs and entered into negotiations with the Government. It rather accuses us of not "playing the game." It was the Government who came to us. Our negotiations had not been dropped. They were continuing at the time when we were asked by the Admiralty to begin to drill, and therefore the statements of the noble Duke are entirely beside the mark and entirely inaccurate.
The noble Earl, Lord Stair, made a statement which also affected my firm. The statement was to the effect that—
"Some months ago I (Lord Stair) was approached by Messrs. Pearson with a statement that they had been asked by the Government to investigate the oil possibilities of the country."
That is not correct at all. We never claimed that we were representing the Government. As a fact we were advising the Government as to the oil possibilities of the country. From the statement it would rather appear as if we had been approaching the landowners on the plea that we are doing so at the request or with the concurrence of the Government. That is entirely wrong. The noble Earl continued—
"I found they were offering my next door neighbour a royalty on a different scale from that which they were offering me."
That is true, my Lords, we were offering his neighbour a higher royalty than we were offering to him, but the negotiations with the neighbour that he referred to had been continuing for several months prior to the time when we began negotiations with the Earl of Stair. In the meantime this question of royalty had been discussed with various landowners, and it was they, to whom we had referred the matter, who had fixed the royalty as being fair and right that we were offering to the
1248
Earl of Stair. Then the noble Earl continued—
"And the very next day I saw in the paper articles or letters signed by Lord Cowdray pointing out the iniquity of anybody being allowed to have royalties at all."
I do not know that I need contradict a statement of that kind, but for the purpose of one's views being accurately reported I think I ought to do so. I have, whenever a question of royalty has been raised by the Government, always advocated the payment of a royalty, and it is totally inaccurate to say that any article or letter signed by me has pointed out the iniquity of anybody being allowed to have royalties at all.
The only other matter I have to refer to is to say that I shall most heartily support the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, when he asks the leave of the House to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the Agreement made with Messrs. Pearson in respect of the petroleum fields of the country. I recognise that such a Select Committee would be merely wasting its time in inquiring into an Agreement which, to those who will carefully read and study it, is self-explanatory without any further explanation or inquiry. It has to be borne in mind that the Petroleum Bill is a measure that I have asked for and insisted upon, as far as I was able. I was the one who knew the need of it and I therefore felt it my duty to impress upon the Government all I could the desire for some parental authority, as it were, over the oil industry.
But it is the Munitions Department that is responsible for the contract with us. It is not of my seeking. I was not anxious to offer my services to the country unless it was the desire, the strong desire, of the Ministry that I should do so. It must be remembered that the country will incur an expenditure of probably £1,000,000 in seeking for oil on my advice. Therefore I have very great responsibility in connection with the expenditure of this money, and I asked that if we were going to be morally responsible for this money we should have a free hand. It was essential that we should have the right to drill where information obtained in drilling the trial wells told us it was desirable we should drill.
The areas which we named to the Government represent about an average small county in extent. Each of the fifteen

1249
areas referred to amounts probably to about 50,000 acres on the average, and therefore the total acreage of the reserved areas would be 750,000 acres or three-quarters of the area of a county like Sussex. Naturally feeling the onerous nature of the advice we had given to the Government, and feeling that if oil were not produced we should be held more or less responsible for the non-success, we stipulated as conditions of undertaking the obligations which we have undertaken under the Agreement, firstly, that they should give us a sufficiency of money to carry out trials—that sufficiency of money being the £1,000,000—and, secondly,
1250
that we should have the right and the exclusive right to drill over the whole of the areas that were named to the Government as being the most likely areas within which oil would be found. I merely want to make the position of my firm quite clear as far as I can in a few words; and I leave with absolute confidence the contract as it is to speak for itself during the next twelve months within which probably it will be operative.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
House adjourned at five minutes before nine o'clock