Sitting of 13 November 1918

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
London United Tramways Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Clyde Valley Electrical Power Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

SCOTTISH WAR SAVINGS COMMITTEE.
Copy presented of the Second Annual Report of the Committee, 1st July, 1918 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION (WALES).
Copy presented of Order, dated 6th November, 1918, made by the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, entitled the County Borough of Swansea (Insurance Committee) Order, 1918 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
Copy presented of Report on the working of Small Holdings acquired under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

NITRATE OF SODA (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 22, 1918).
Copy presented of Memorandum of Agreement between the Chilean Government and the Nitrate of Soda Executive for the Sale and Purchase of Nitrate of Soda. (Signed also in Spanish by the
2646
Chilean Minister in London, 3rd October, 1918 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

SESSIONAL RETURNS.
The following Sessional Returns were ordered, on the Motion of the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Donald Maclean):
SESSIONAL RETURNS.
  ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDER NO. 10.
  Return of Motions for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10, showing the date of such Motion, the name of the Member proposing, the definite matter of urgent public importance, and the result of any Division taken thereon during Session 1918 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 181, of Session 1917–18).
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Return showing, with reference to Session 1918, (1) the total number of days on which the House sat; and (2) the days on which Business of Supply was considered (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 182, of Session 1917–18).

  PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  Return of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into the House of Commons and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in Session 1918, classed according to the following subjects: Railways; Tramways; Tramroads; Subways; Canals and Navigations; Roads and Bridges; Water; Waterworks; Gas; Gag and Water; Lighting and Improvement; Local Legislation; Corporations, etc. (not relating to Local Legislation or to Lighting and Improvement Schemes); Ports, Piers, Harbours, and Docks; Churches, Chapels, and Burying Grounds; Markets and Fairs; Gaols and other County Buildings; In-closure and Drainage; Estate; Patent; Divorce; and Miscellaneous:
  Of all the Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in Session 1918 have been reported on by Committees on Opposed Private Bills or by Committees nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each

  2647
  Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member has served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been proved; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been not proved; and, in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Orders ought or ought not to be confirmed:
  Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which, in Session 1918, have been referred by the Committee of Selection, or by the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills, to the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, together with the names of the Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended:
  And, of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which have been referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the Committee (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 0.4798, of Session 1917–18).

  PUBLIC BILLS.
  Return of the number of Public Bills, distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during Session 1918; showing the number which received the Royal Assent; the number which were passed by this House, but not by the House of Lords; the number passed by the House of Lords, but not by this House; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills as did not receive the Royal Assent were dropped or postponed and rejected in either House of Parliament (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.254, of Session 1917–18).
  PUBLIC PETITIONS.
  Return of the number of Public Petitions presented and printed in Session 1918; with the total number of signatures in that Session (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper. No. 0.331, of Session 1917–18).

  SELECT COMMITTEES.
  Return of the number of Select Committees appointed in Session 1918 and the Court of Referees; the subjects of inquiry;
  2648
  the names of the Members appointed to serve on each, and of the Chairman of each; the number of days each Committee met, and the number of days each Member attended; the total expense of the attendance of witnesses at each Select Committee, and the name of the Member who moved for such Select Committee; also the total number of Members who served on Select Committees (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.309, of Session 1917–18).

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
  Return of the days on which the House sat in Session, 1918, stating for each day the date of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the Sittings of the House and the average time; and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after eleven p.m.; and the number of entries in each day's Votes and Proceedings.
  STANDING COMMITTEES.
  Return for the Session of 1918, of (1) the total number and the names of all Members (including and distinguishing Chairmen) who have been appointed to serve on one or more of the four Standing Committees appointed under Standing Order No. 47, showing, with regard to each of such Members, the number of Sittings at which he was present and the number of Divisions in which he took part; and (2) the number of Bills considered by all and by each of the Standing Committees, the number of days on which each Committee sat, and the names of all Bills considered by a Standing Committee, distinguishing where a Bill was a Government Bill or was brought from the House of Lords, and showing, in the case of each Bill, the particular Standing Committee by whom it was considered, the number of days, on which it was considered by the Committee, and the number of Members present on each of those days (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.123, of Session 1917–18).

  CLOSURE OF DEBATE (STANDING ORDER No. 26).
  Copy ordered of "Return respecting application of Standing Order No. 26 (Closure of Debate) during Sessions 1914–16, 1916, 1917–18, and 1918 (1) in the House and in Committee of the Whole House, under the following heads:

  (a) Closure.

  Date when Closure moved, and by whom.

  Question before House or Committee when moved.

  Whether in House or Committee.

  Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by Speaker or Chairman.

  Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion.

  Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against.

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 427, of Session 1914).—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    LIQUOR LICENCES (BOMBAY).
    Sir HERBERT ROBERTSasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the auctioning of licences for the sale of intoxicants has been re-introduced in Bombay; whether the effect of this has been to increase the Excise revenue and the consumption of liquor; whether he is aware that the Excise Committee of 1905 recommended the abandonment of the auction system; and whether, in view of this recommendation and of the opposition of Indian opinion to this method of licensing, inquiry will be made into the operation of the system with a view to its discontinuance and the adoption of alternative measures of restriction?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The fixed fee system was introduced experimentally in Bombay in 1907–08 and throughout the Presidency in
    2650
    1911. In a Press note of 13th December, 1917, the Bombay Government stated the reasons which had led them to revert to the auction system. They had found that the fixed fee system had not reduced consumption, that it had failed to secure a better and more honest class of licensees, and that it had led to illicit profits and corruption. I shall be happy to let my hon. Friend have a copy of the note, should he so desire.

    MESOPOTAMIA EXPEDITIONARY FORCE, 6TH (POONA) DIVISION.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether he will consider the question of a grant of a special decoration in recognition of the heroic achievements of the 6th (Poona) Division of the Indian Army in Mesopotamia from the time of the occupation of Busrah in November, 1914, up to the time of the battle of Ctesiphon and the subsequent siege of Kut-el-Amarah?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I share my hon. and gallant Friend's appreciation of the admirable work of the 6th (Poona)

    2651
    Division in Mesopotamia. But, as he is no doubt aware, the grant of a special decoration to a division or regiment would not be in accordance with the present practice of the British Army, and the moment is hardly convenient for raising a discussion about such an innovation, nor am I the right person to initiate it.

    OFFICERS' WIVES (ALLOWANCES).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether the allowance of Rs. 200 per mensem, granted by the Government of India to the wives of officers of the British Army stranded in India during the absence of their husbands, is also granted to the wives of British officers of the Indian Army who are similarly stranded in India during the absence of their husbands on service or owing to having been invalided home in consequence of injury, dysentery, or other disease contracted on service; and, if not, why not?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The answer is in the negative. The allowance in question was given to meet the case of officers of the British Army who, when ordered on service out of India, reverted from the Indian to the British rate of pay. An officer of the Indian Army in similar circumstances retains his Indian rate of pay.
    Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the very great hardships suffered by these wives of British officers of the Indian Army, detained in India?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am considering the matter now, but my hon. and gallant Friend will see that there is no analogy between the two cases, although there is a considerable hardship.
    Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that hardship?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am considering it.

  GENERAL ELECTION.

    NAVAL CANDIDATES.
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether officers, petty officers, and men of the Royal Navy who are candidates for Parliament at the coming General Election will be granted the same leave as has been promised to officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the Army during the Election?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Officers or men invited to stand as Parliamentary candidates must obtain the permission of the Admiralty to do so through the usual Service channel. The granting of such permission must depend upon the exigencies of the Service.
    In cases in which such permission has been granted to an officer or man, he will be granted leave of absence to appear before the duly accredited committee or association of the recognised party, or any other body of persons proposing to adopt him. The leave would commence eight days before the issue of the Writs. Should the candidate be adopted, this eight days will be extended so as to cover the additional nine days of the Election, plus a period of seven to ten days, representing the period which must elapse between the opening and declaration of the poll.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: Why should an officer have to ask permission of the Admiralty to stand for Parliament?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Because the exigencies of the Service compel the Board of Admiralty to have the matter in their discretion. My right hon. Friend has been a member of the Board, and he will consider the case of an officer in charge of a battleship, the engineer in charge of machinery of a great ship, submarine or destroyer coxswain, or the higher gunnery or torpedo ratings. All these men are indispensable. The fighting efficiency of the Fleet is the only ground on which the Admiralty withhold permission.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Has the Admiralty, as a matter of fact, already received requests for permission to accept an invitation, and have any been refused?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: There has been a request, but I cannot say if there has been a refusal, because these rules have only just been completed. But a decision will be taken, and if my hon. Friend would like to see the whole Admiralty Order, I shall be glad to let him see it.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will officers and men of the Navy who have been already adopted require now afresh to apply for special permission from the Board of Admiralty to present themselves?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes; unless it has been already granted.

  SENIOR NAVAL OFFICER'S STAFF, INVERNESS.
  Mr. HOLTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what is the number, respectively, of the male and female clerical staff of the senior naval officer at Inverness; and what is the nature of the premises in which this staff is housed?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I should be glad if my hon. Friend would repeat his question to-morrow. I am awaiting certain information by wire, which is essential to a reply.

  PASSPORTS FOR CANADA (WOMEN).
  Mr. DENMANasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether passports can now be granted to women desiring to go to Canada to be married?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The whole question of the restrictions on travelling by sea is at present under the immediate consideration of the Government Departments concerned.
  Mr. DENMAN: Meanwhile, if there are boats going with available space, will passengers be allowed to go in them?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say that offhand. I must consult the Shipping Controller.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    RE-EMPLOYED OFFICERS (PAY).
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that pensioned lieutenants and lieutenant-commanders, Royal Navy, promoted from the lower deck before the War and called up for the War are not receiving the pensions they have earned but are being given 25 per cent. of the full pay in addition in lieu thereof; and if he will see into this matter?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Under Orders in Council 8th March, 1895, 5th March, 1910, and 3rd February, 1915, retired and pensioned officers when re-employed in war or emergency, receive the pay and emoluments of their corresponding ranks on the active list, or, if greater, their retired pay, together with a bonus of 25 per cent. calculated on their full pay or retired pay as the case may be. The Rule
    2654
    is one which applies to all retired and pensioned naval officers re-employed during war, and not only to officers promoted from the lower deck.
    Sir B. FALLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two First Lords of the Admiralty have said these gentlemen are entitled to their pensions and have earned them and, as a matter of fact, these gentlemen are serving their country at the rate of 5s. 6d. a day?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot imagine any First Lord saying anything in violation of the Order. These gentlemen, promoted from the lower deck, are in absolutely the same position as other commissioned officers in this respect, and there is no discrimination.

    ENGINEER OVERSEERS (SERVANT'S ALLOWANCE).
    Major Sir B. FALLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he can give the reason why engineer officers appointed as overseers are not to be given servant's allowance, seeing that they comply with paragraph 1 of A. W. O. 607, they do not form part of the authorised complement of any recognised civil establishment, they are borne for fleet duties-living on shore without the service of a naval servant and are in receipt of the full pay of their rank, lodging, and provision allowances at the ordinary rates; and whether he is aware that, with the exception of engineer-overseers, all naval officers employed on shore billets, whether Royal Naval, Royal Naval Reserve, or Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, receive this allowance, and that this is also granted to a few engineer overseers employed on repair duties, and the engineer overseer and his assistant at Messrs. Whitehead's works, Weymouth, receive it as do all officers on the staff of the captain superintendent of leaders and destroyers building?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The reason for the differentiation in the case of engineer officers appointed as overseers is that these officers, equally with those who form part of the authorised complement of a civil establishment, live practically under civilian conditions. The allowance had, however, been granted in a few cases before this decision was reached. These are no doubt the cases referred to in the latter part of the question. So far as is known, there are only two cases in which engineer overseers have been granted the allowance.

  SECONDED OFFICERS (GRATUITY).
  Mr. STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether officers of the Imperial Army seconded for duty under the Colonial Office will receive a gratuity at the end of the War; and, if so, whether this will take into account the whole period of their service under both the Colonial Office and the War Office?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Hewins): The matter is receiving careful consideration, but I regret that I am unable to make a statement with regard to it at present.
  Colonel YATE: When will a statement be made?
  Mr. HEWINS: I advise the hon. and gallant Member to address his question to whoever may occupy my office in the next Parliament.

  COAST WATCHERS, IRELAND.
  Colonel McCALMONTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that only 3 per cent. of the coast watchers in Ireland have ever served either in the forces of the Crown or in the Mercantile Marine during the present War, he will state how many of these men are of military age; whether he is aware that many ex-Service men are qualified and anxious for such work; and whether immediate steps will be taken to ensure that they are not kept out of employment by men who have never served although eligible?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The total number of civilian coast watchers employed in Ireland at the present time is 438, and out of this number 252 are of military age. My hon. and gallant Friend should observe, however, that out of this 252, 159 are between the ages of forty-one and fifty-two, having been engaged at the time when the maximum age for compulsory military service was forty-one. As regards the second part of the question, the total number of ex-Service men who have applied for engagement as civilian coast watchers in Ireland is twenty-eight, and of this number seventeen have been engaged. Wherever we can we would desire to give preference to ex-Service men, all other things being equal.
  Colonel McCALMONT: May we take it that when it comes to a question of permanent
  2656
  coast-watchers and coastguards, no fresh men will be taken on who have not served in the forces of the Crown?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say that, but preference will certainly be given, other things being equal, to ex-Service men.

  RUSSIA.

    MILITARY OFFICERS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, during the last six months, any Russian officers have been sent to Vladivostock at the expense of the British Government or the Allies; if so sent, whether they are under military orders to take part in any operations against the Soviet Government of Russia; and who are the Russian military authorities from whom Russian officers in this country receive orders?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The answer to the second part is in the negative: With regard to the third part of the question, Russian officers in this country receive orders from the Military Attaché at the Russian Embassy.
    Mr. KING: Can we have the name of that officer, and what is the Russian Embassy; is there one still in this country?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend must put that question to the Foreign Office.
    Mr. KING: What is the name of the officer?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I have no idea.

  INFLUENZA EPIDEMIC.

    BRITISH ARMY (ENGLAND AND FRANCE).
    Viscount WOLMERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) how many cases of influenza in the British Army in France and England were reported during the months of September and October, 1918; what hospital accommodation was there to cope with these cases; whether any fresh hospital accommodation was provided; if so, how many beds; (2) how many officers and men of the British Army died in England and

    2657
    France, respectively, from influenza or pneumonia during the months of September and October, 1918?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I regret that the figures for the United Kingdom for the month of October are not yet available. The figures for September are:

    Admissions.

    Deaths.

    Influenza—

    Officers

    110

    nil

    Other Ranks

    2,791

    18

    Pneumonia—

    Officers

    20

    nil

    Other Ranks

    361

    75

    I cannot give the figures in the detailed form desired in the case of France. In September there were 92 admissions to hospital on account of pneumonia and 24 deaths. The figures for October are: 2,702 admissions to hospital and 1,044 deaths due to pneumonia, and 24,894 admissions to hospital and 421 deaths due to influenza.
    As regards hospital accommodation, on 1st September there were 96,000 vacant beds in hospitals in the United Kingdom, and since that date an additional 8,000 beds have been provided.
    Viscount WOLMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking steps to have the mortality statistics of the Army compared with the civilian statistics?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot say whether we are doing that now, but I will see that it is done.
    Viscount WOLMERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has received complaints in regard to the overcrowding of hospitals; and whether steps have been taken in all those hospitals in which influenza or pneumonia cases are numerous to reduce the number of inmates?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No complaints have been received regarding overcrowding in hospitals. It is impossible in every case to reduce the number of inmates owing to the widespread and very extensive nature of the outbreak, and the fact that the hospitals are at present strained to the utmost by the arrival of wounded from overseas.
    Viscount WOLMERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many cubic feet of air space per patient is considered necessary by the military authorities for patients in military hospitals suffering from influenza and pneumonia?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: At present 600 cubic feet of air space has been provided as a minimum in every hospital, and with adequate ventilation and efficient warming there is no evidence that this is insufficient for ordinary cases. It is recognised that cases of influenza and pneumonia require additional air space, and this is given whenever practicable.
    Viscount WOLMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how much extra allowance is given for influenza and pneumonia cases?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot say offhand, but I shall be delighted to make inquiries and inform my hon. Friend.
    Colonel McCALMONT: Is it not the case that in many districts where there has been this epidemic the figures have been very much lower for the troops than for the civilian population?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: That is so.

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (SICK BENEFIT).
    Major EDWARD WOODasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, whether his attention has been called to the difficulty experienced by many persons in country districts owing to the shortage of medical officers during the present epidemic of influenza in securing the certificate of a medical officer necessary to obtain sick benefit under the National Insurance Act; and whether he can make provision by which money to which such persons are entitled may be more easily and expeditiously obtained?
    Sir EDWIN CORNWALL (Comptroller of the Household): I am aware of, and am giving careful attention to, the serious difficulties under which the medical profession are striving to carry out their duties just now, with their numbers so depleted by the demands of the Army for medical men, and the great aggravation of these difficulties by the present epidemic; and I trust that Approved Societies generally are showing all possible consideration for these conditions in their dealing with sickness benefit claims from their members. But I am advised that a general relaxation of the requirement of periodical medical certificates as evidence of incapacity for work would be open to grave objection, as tending to destroy the administrative basis requisite for financial

    2659
    stability. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any individual case in view where a needlessly rigid insistence on a complete fulfilment of some rule in the present abnormal circumstances has occasioned injustice, I will look into the matter and communicate with the various parties concerned.
    Sir S. COLLINS: Now that the Armistice is in progress, will medical men be brought home as quickly as possible?
    Sir E. CORNWALL: Negotiations are being carried on with a view to the bringing of medical men back to this country as rapidly as possible.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    SHELL-FILLING FACTORY, CHILWELL.
    Mr. WRIGHTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether H. A. Gather was employed by the Ministry of Munitions at the shell-filling factory, Chilwell, up to June, 1916; that while in such employment he contracted T.N.T. poisoning and was granted compensation at £l per week; that on 5th October, 1916, he received his calling-up papers to join on the 9th, and was passed into the Army on 13th October after examination before two medical boards at Derby and Normanton barracks and several hospital doctors, and posted to the 2/6th Highland Light Infantry, No. 61699, on 14th October, was taken before the medical officer on 15th October, who passed him for discharge; that his commanding officer refused to sign his discharge and he was placed in Category E and remained in the Army for 165 days, doing neither duties or parades; that he was discharged on 23rd March, 1917, from the 104th Training Reserve, Edinburgh, without pension or allowance; that his pension for poisoning was stopped immediately on his joining the Army; that he is unable to work owing to the poisoning or to earn his livelihood; and whether he will make inquiries into the matter and take the necessary action?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am having inquiry made into the third and fourth parts of my hon. Friend's question and will acquaint him of the result as soon as possible.
    2660
    The remaining part of the question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions.
    Mr. WRIGHT: Is there a difference of opinion between the War Office and the Ministry as to which Department is responsible?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not quite sure about that, but I will make inquiries.

    ALTERNATIVE PENSIONS.
    Col. Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Pensions Minister whether, in view of the fact that two-thirds of the alternative pensions of non-commissioned officers and men are payable to their widows, he will consider the desirability of granting the same proportion of the officers' alternative pensions to officers' widows?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Hodge): It has been decided that the alternative pensions of officers' widows should be assessed on the basis of two-thirds of the maximum alternative retired pay, instead of one-half as hitherto.

    CHIPPING SODBURY PENSIONS COMMITTEE.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that the Chipping Sodbury Pensions Committee has only just elected, under pressure of the Federation of Discharged and Demobilised Soldiers, discharged men on their committee, and have as yet placed no war widow on their committee; what is the cause of the delay; and will the Ministry use its powers to secure the carrying out of the law in this matter?
    Mr. HODGE: I am making inquiries into the circumstances referred to by the hon. Member, and will take whatever action is necessary on receipt of full information. I may point out, however, that the Chipping Sodbury Committee is a sub-committee of the local committee of Gloucestershire, and that the Naval and Military War Pensions (Committees) Act, 1917, does not require the appointment of the widow or dependant of a man who has died in military service to membership of a sub-committee.
    Mr. RENDALL: Having in view the Bill now under consideration, will the right hon. Gentleman recommend that women should be put on?
    Mr. HODGE: I am afraid I cannot promise to do that as far as the new Bill is concerned.

    WOTTON-UNDER-EDGE PENSIONS COMMITTEE.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that, on the the resignation of one of the discharged soldiers on the Wotton-under-Edge Pensions Committee, Mr. C. A. Pearce was, by a majority of ninety-two, selected by the local branch of the National Federation of Discharged and Demobilised Sailors and Soldiers for the local pensions committee on 6th September; whether one week later he was selected by the local pensions committee; whether he attended meetings on 24th September and other dates, but had been told that he had no standing as his appointment had to be ratified by the county committee on 19th October: whether he has heard nothing to date of his ratification; that his appeals to the local chairman of the pensions committee, his letter's to the clerk to the county pensions committee and to the Ministry of Pensions have not even been acknowledged; and whether he can take any action in the matter?
    Mr. HODGE: I received from Mr. Pearce a representation on the 6th instant (which was acknowledged within a day of its receipt) regarding the circumstances referred to by the hon. Member, and I have called for a report on the facts of the case from the inspector, and from the Gloucestershire County Committee. I am informed that Mr. Pearce has now been duly notified of his appointment.

    ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY (DRIVER LE BERTRAND).
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that E. T. Le Bertrand, of Les Merrienne, St. Martin's, Guernsey, No. 91600, Driver, Royal Field Artillery, has been medically examined since the date of the Minister's letter of the 9th October to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Thornbury); whether this man has a completely shattered right arm possessing no strength, and is receiving a pension of only 8s. 3d. a week; and what action he proposes taking?
    Mr. HODGE: This soldier has now been re-examined by a medical board, and in view of their report he has been granted an increased pension of 13s. 9d. a week for twenty-six weeks from 7th May, 1918, and then 11s. a week for twenty-six weeks, at the end of which period he will again be medically examined.

    WORCESTERSHIRE REGIMENT (PRIVATE HEMBRY).
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Pensions Minister whether he has now made inquiry into the case of Private L. Hembry, No. 202128, 3/7th Battalion, Worcestershire Regiment; whether the War Office definitely stated that this man had been classified as fit only for permanent base in November, 1916, but he was in the following year sent in a fighting unit to Italy, where his health and mind completely gave way, and he was finally discharged on 22nd May, 1918; whether he has since been taken to the Gloucester County Asylum and is expected to be permanently insane; if the medical referee, after examination for pension allowance, agreed that his condition resulted from his war service; if an allowance of only 5s. 6d. has been granted, though it has not been paid for three months, because the Ministry will not grant permission to the father to draw it; if the asylum authorities are now pressing this man's father to pay £3 11s., the cost of taking him to the asylum, and 13s. weekly towards the son's maintenance; and what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. HODGE: Private Hembry, at the time of his discharge, was not certifiable, and the medical opinion was that his earning capacity was not much impaired. He was consequently awarded a conditional pension of 5s. 6d. a week. Since his discharge he appears to have become worse, and he is now in the Gloucester County Asylum, where he is classed as a "Service patient." So long as he remains there no necessity arises for a re-examination, as the conditional award is in abeyance and he is regarded as totally disabled. I am making inquiries as to the further statements made in the question.

    PENSIONS (COMMUTATION).
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that the system of partial commutation of pensions of retired officers has been entirely suspended in the Army for about three years, but is still operative in the Navy, the Treasury, as the controlling authority under Section 7 of the Pensions Communtation Act, 1871, will take steps to reopen the system and so enable retired Army officers, who are likely to be leaving the Service soon in largo numbers, to obtain the necessary

    2663
    capital sums to make it possible for them to start again in commercial and other pursuits.
    Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I am glad to be able to inform my Noble Friend that what he desires has already been done. My attention was first directed to the diversity of practice between the War Office and the Admiralty in this matter by a question in this House on 22nd February last. I caused inquiries to be made at once, and the restriction imposed by the War Office has now been removed.

    SELECT COMMITTEE.
    Sir M. BARLOWasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that 302 Members of Parliament of all parties have signified in writing their approval of the proposal that a Select Committee of the House of Commons should be constituted of all parties to deal with pensions; and whether he can take steps to see that such a Select Committee of this House be forthwith constituted to deal with pensions and allowances and similar matters, or to grant a day for the discussion of the proposal?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I regret that it will not be possible to arrange for this discussion before the end of the Session.
    Sir M. BARLOW: In view of the possible approach of an election, cannot we have some statement of Government policy in regard to this before an election takes place?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I recognise the importance of it, but it really is impossible to find a day. Perhaps my hon. Friend may raise it on the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill.

  DEMOBILISATION.

    CIVIL POSITIONS (PRIORITY OF RELEASE).
    Mr. DENMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether in the process of demobilisation priority will be given to those men whose civil positions have been kept open for them; if so, whether employers should make any application; and whether any priority will be given to volunteers over conscripts?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Provision has been made in the demobilisation scheme that those men whose civil positions have been kept open for them shall receive priority of release within their several industrial groups. Instructions will be issued in due course, but no application should be made by employers until public notification is given. While it is not proposed to differentiate between volunteers and conscripts as such, the object aimed at will be achieved by including in early drafts a certain proportion of those men who have served longest in a theatre of active operations.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman state when these particulars or instructions will be issued?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am trying to issue them as soon as possible, but I cannot name the date.
    Mr. DIXON: Will men who have served in Mesopotamia be released early?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I dealt with distant theatres in the last part of my answer. I am hopeful that those men who have borne the heat of the day in a climate like that will be released as early as possible.
    Sir M. BARLOW: Can special priority be given to the staffs of local authorities, in view of the possible forthcoming election?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not think so.

    INFORMATION FROM EMPLOYEES.
    Major WOODasked the Minister of Labour whether, in connection with demobilisation, steps have been or are being taken to obtain from employers of labour a nominal roll of their former employés to whom they could undertake to offer definite employment as soon as they could be spared from military service?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. G. Roberts): In order to assist the working of the schemes by which men with definite employment awaiting them can be released early, action in the direction indicated by the hon. and gallant Member is being taken. Letters are being issued to employers suggesting that they should prepare particulars of men now with the Forces, whom they wish to engage immediately upon dispersal. The particulars required will be the men's names, the nature of the employment and the rate of wages offered, and also, if possible, the

    2665
    unit, regimental number and home address. It is not desired that these particulars should be supplied to the Ministry of Labour at present, but employers will be asked in due course to send the particulars to the Employment Exchanges on special cards which will be supplied.
    Mr. TERRELL: Are arrangements being made so that these releases are granted promptly, or will there be any great delay?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am anxious that the releases should be expedited as far as practicable, and we are pursuing our course with due regard to that fact.
    Major WOOD: Do I understand that these forms are now being issued to employers and that employers will take no further action until they receive public notification?
    Mr. ROBERTS: We will request employers to return them as from a given date.
    Colonel YATE: Whom are the employers to address? To whom are they to send the forms?
    Mr. ROBERTS: That will be stated on the forms. It will be to the Employment Exchanges.

  STRAW PRICES.
  Sir RICHARD COOPERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture what price is paid to the farmer for straw; and what is the price paid by the consumer in the county of Huntingdon?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The maximum prices payable to the producer at the stack are 75s. per ton for oat straw, and 60s. for wheat straw. The cost to the consumer depends on the services necessary to delivery, but the wholesale dealer is limited to 5s. per ton, and the distributing dealer to 6s. per ton to cover establishment charges and profit.
  Sir R. COOPER: Is it not a fact that the Government is making an enormous profit out of the difference between what is paid to the farmer and what the consumer pays?
  Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir. That is not so at all.
  Sir R. COOPER: Is it not a fact that in August last wheat straw near Huntingdon—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    GRASS LAND (PLOUGHING-UP NOTICES).
    Mr. DENMANasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether Cumbrian farmers are to be required to plough out an additional 12,000 acres of grass land; whether some of these farmers are conscious how much the food supply of the country has been decreased, and they themselves have lost by the substitution of crops which it has not been possible to harvest for valuable grass; whether he will refrain from adding to their troubles by fresh demands and be content with the adequate cultivation of existing arable land?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Prothero): The need for an increased production of food continues to be a matter of urgent national importance. The existing arable acreage must be cultivated to the full. But no substantial increase can be obtained without adding to the present arable area. Cumberland has been asked to aim at securing an additional 12,000 acres, so far as labour is available. In putting forward this figure to the War Executive Committee the special climatic conditions of the county were taken into account. I may remind my hon. Friend that any occupier who is ordered to plough up grass land has a statutory right of appeal.
    Mr. DENMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the harvest in Cumberland and Westmorland was very largely ruined by the bad weather, and that therefore the farmers have had special sufferings there; further, that the ground is now so wet that ploughing operations have been seriously delayed?
    Mr. PROTHERO: I am aware of both, those facts.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Will the right hon. Gentleman then tell us where the increase of food production comes in if the harvest is ruined?
    Mr. PROTHERO: The increase of food production amounts to something like 35 per cent. upon the production of 1917

    2667
    in respect of the four corn crops, and although a very considerable proportion of the cereal crops in the North have been injured, there is a very large quantity available for human food and also available for animals.
    Mr. WRIGHT: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Government to let as many agricultural labourers as possible return in order to promote food production?
    Mr. PROTHERO: Certainly, I am doing so.
    Major WOOD: Is not the policy apparent in this question a reversal of the policy previously declared in this House, under which we understood that no further ploughing-up notices were to be served, except that farmers who had refused to plough under the notices served earlier?
    Mr. PROTHERO: What I said in this House was that we should not resort to legal prosecutions to enforce orders to plough up. Wherever the Executive Committee finds an area of land which can be made available for corn production, and the farmer has the labour available, there an Order will be issued. The farmer can then appeal to the legal tribunal, and if in those circumstances the legal tribunal finds that the Order ought to be carried out, it will be enforced, but those cases will be relatively rare.

    CATTLE FEEDING-STUFFS.
    Mr. WRIGHTasked the Prime Minister whether a copy of an unanimous resolution of the Central Advisory Agricultural Council, asking as a matter of extreme urgency that concentrated cattle-feeding-stuffs be given absolute priority of any tonnage rendered available by the cessation or abatement of enemy submarine attacks, and that such resolution be brought to the attention of the War Cabinet, has yet been brought to the attention of that body; and, if so, whether it has been decided to take any, and what, action with reference thereto?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Major Astor): I have been asked to reply. The resolution has been received but the Food Controller had already discussed the allocation of further tonnage for the importation of feeding-stuffs with the inter-Allied Food Council, the Allied Maritime Transport
    2668
    Council, and the Shipping Controller in view of the substitution of armistice for war conditions.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: Is this resolution to be carried into effect, and when will the tonnage be released for the conveyance of the food-stuffs to this country?
    Major ASTOR: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will wait until this afternoon when the Food Controller hopes to deal fully with, this matter.

    MINISTRY OF FOOD.
    Sir R. COOPERasked the Food Controller whether Mr. Tidmarsh holds a responsible position in the Bacon Section of the Ministry of Food; whether that gentleman is connected in business with the firm of Messrs. R. H. Thompson and Company, of Tooley Street; and whether that firm is the agent for an American firm of meat packers?
    Major ASTOR: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. Messrs. R. H. Thompson and Company are not the agents for any American firm of meat packers.

    FLOUR.
    Sir R. COOPERasked the Food Controller whether, in view of the fact that the supplies of flour now available from abroad are increasing, he can see his way to allow the millers in this country to mix a larger proportion of American flour in the G.R. flour supplied to bakers in order to liberate a portion, if not the whole, of the barley, maize, oats, and beans at present mixed in the G.R. flour to be consumed as feeding-stuffs for stock?
    Major ASTOR: In view of the improved tonnage situation the question of increasing the supply of feeding-stuffs in the manner suggested has been considered by the War Cabinet, and the Food Controller hopes to make a full statement on the subject. I may, however, point out that no beans and insignificant quantities of maize and oats are now being mixed with G.R. flour.

    MILK, COFFEE, AND TEA.
    Mr. LOUGHasked the Food Controller (1) with regard to the price to be paid to the producer for milk, whether the rate applies to all parts of the United Kingdom; if it is a maximum rate and obligatory on producers; and whether any penalty is incurred by selling at a lower rate?

    2669
    (2) whether he is aware that coffee bought at the lowest price now ruling on the London market costs 1s. 7d. per pound, whereas he has fixed a compulsory retail price of 1s. 6d. in all shops throughout the Kingdom; whether his Department was approached by the home trade section of the London Coffee Association some six months since and asked to fix a wholesale price for superior Santos which would allow retail sales to continue at the price he had fixed; why he did not adopt this course; and whether he will now fix such a price for superior Santos coffee, giving the legitimate trade an adequate notice, seeng that there are forty weeks' stock available for the requirements of the country, and that the high prices have been mainly caused through outside speculation; and
    (3) whether his Department have issued a notice that the existing control of the tea trade will be continued until the 25th January, when a new system will be introduced for the succeeding six months; and whether the trade is to understand from this notice that the Government have decided that the importation and distribution of tea is to remain in the hands of the Food Controller until this period terminates, irrespective of whether the War is concluded?
    Major ASTOR: The answers to these questions were printed in Tuesday's OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. LOUGH: Cannot I have the answer made verbally, seeing that proper notice has been given in the House?
    Major ASTOR: I could add nothing to the answer given.

    NURSING AND EXPECTANT MOTHERS.
    Mr. E. HARVEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that nursing mothers and expectant mothers who are in prison in many cases receive no extra food ration; and whether, as the present ration provides a bare minimum for the health of one person, steps will be taken to ensure that pregnant women and nursing mothers receive in all cases an additional food ration without waiting for the prison doctor to order it on medical grounds?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him on the 17th October. Such cases are always under the special
    2670
    observation and care of the medical officer and there is no danger of their not having suitable nourishment.
    Mr. HARVEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman not answer the first part of the question? Is it not a fact that there are cases in which no extra allowance is given, and would it not be a humane thing in all cases to provide an extra allowance?
    Mr. BRACE: It is left in the hands of the medical staff, whom surely we can trust.
    Mr. HARVEY: How can it be right that nursing mothers and expectant mothers should not have an extra allowance?
    Mr. BRACE: I hope that my hon. Friend does not assume that I admit that they do not receive it. It is in the hands of the medical staff.
    Mr. HARVEY: I have asked my right hon. Friend whether there are not cases in which they do not receive the extra allowance, and he has not given an answer to that.
    Mr. BRACE: I have no knowledge of any such cases. If my hon. Friend will send me particulars of any such cases I will inquire into them.
    Mr. HARVEY: I have asked if it is true?
    Mr. BRACE: According to my information, no.

  SOCIALIST PRESS, GLASGOW.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has now received the names of the persons owning and controlling the Socialist Press, Glasgow; and whether he will allow the printing work of the press to be continued?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I have received a letter from my hon. Friend in which several names are given as those of the parties owning or controlling the Socialist Labour Press. I have communicated the contents of the letter to the Lord Advocate, who, I understand, in consultation with the criminal authorities in Glasgow, has the matter under consideration.
  Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman now redeem his promise? His promise was quite explicit that if the names were furnished to him he would restore liberty of printing?
  Mr. MUNRO: My hon. Friend is quite mistaken. My undertaking was that if the names were given the whole question should be reconsidered.
  Mr. KING: Is that being done so that the Press may be available for the General Election, or will it be deferred indefinitely till after the election?
  Mr. MUNRO: If my hon. Friend will put down a question on Friday or Monday, I will endeavour to ascertain.
  Mr. WATT: Does my right hon. Friend think it fair to permanently punish the printers of these articles while the authors of them are only temporarily punished?
  Mr. MUNRO: That is not my concern. The whole matter is rather one for the consideration of the Lord Advocate, and he now has it under consideration.

  WOUNDED SOLDIERS BOARDED OUT.
  Major E. WOODasked the Pensions Minister whether he will consider the advisability of reducing the 17s. 6d. per week charged for men boarded out in hostels or lodgings, while undergoing treatment in a hospital, to the same amount that is deducted for the maintenance of men actually in hospital undergoing treatment as in-patients; or, alternatively, whether he will make provision to make up the difference to the former class?
  Mr. HODGE: This matter is now under consideration.
  Major WOOD: In view of the very strong feeling which has been aroused by this obvious injustice and in view of the fact that it must have been under the right hon. Gentleman's consideration for some time past, will he be able to make a statement at an early date before the House is dissolved?
  Mr. HODGE: Whether the House is in session or out of session will make no difference to the decision.

  DISABLED SOLDIERS.

    TRAINING AND TREATMENT.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that the voluntary association
    2672
    formed for the purpose of giving combined training and treatment to disabled soldiers on a farm colony at Enham, in Hampshire, has been refused the appropriate Grants by the Pensions Ministry; and whether he will state the grounds for this refusal?
    Mr. HODGE: It is not the case that the appropriate Grants have been refused by the Ministry, the fact being that the scheme has not yet reached the stage of development at which the Grants appropriate to it can be ascertained. The promoters of the scheme appear to have gained the impression that the Ministry has committed itself in advance to the payment of full-treatment fees (as though for in-patient hospital treatment), combined with full training fees, but for this misunderstanding neither I personally nor my Department can accept responsibility.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: if both training and treatment have to be given, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that he should give Grants for both training and treatment?
    Mr. HODGE: I do not agree. We must first have a scheme before we can say what the payment shall be.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is it not a fact that a scheme has been before the right hon. Gentleman for nearly a year and we cannot got an answer from him?
    Mr. HODGE: A nebulous scheme has been before me.

  JOHN M'LEAN (RELEASE).
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he received in Glasgow last week a deputation urging on him that John M'Lean should be released; and what his reply was to this request?
  Mr. MUNRO: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part, therefore, does not arise.
  Mr. KING: Why was it not received? Was it because the Secretary for Scotland, having promised to attend the meeting, was afraid to attend it, knowing it would be made a demonstration?
  Mr. MUNRO: That is quite an unworthy suggestion which my hon. Friend has no right to make. I have already received a deputation in London on the same subject, and I heard what they had to say at length. I do not see what advantage could be gained by receiving a second.

  JOINT INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS.
  Mr. ROWNTREEasked the Minister of Labour whether he is in a position to give any further information as to the way in which the Government hope to apply the principles of the Whitley Report to the Post Office or other Government Departments?
  Mr. G. ROBERTS: This answer was given yesterday in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but I will repeat it:
  National Joint Industrial Councils have been established and have held one or more full council meetings in the following seventeen industries: namely, baking, bedsteads, bobbins, building, chemical trade, china clay, furniture, gold, silver, horological and allied trades, hosiery, leather goods, matches, paint and varnish, pottery, rubber, silk, vehicle building, woollen and worsted (Scottish section). In the case of each of these councils the members are showing considerable eagerness to get to grips with the important reconstruction and other problems which are facing their industries, and very satisfactory progress has already been made in many directions. In four other industries, namely, municipalities (non-trading services), waterworks, sawmilling, and surgical instruments, the dates for the first meeting of these councils have been fixes. Twelve other industries, namely, boot and shoe, cable-making, commercial road transport, electrical contracting, electricity (power and supply), needles and fish-hooks, newspapers, paper-making, printing, roller engraving, tin mining, woollen and worsted, have already established provisional committees to draw up constitutions for joint industrial councils, and the proceedings have reached an advanced stage in many of these, cases. In a number of other industries the Ministry of Labour is giving assistance in setting up councils. The Government have approved a scheme dealing with the application of the Whitley Report to the industrial establishments of the Government, and immediate steps are being taken to place the scheme before the trade unions and Departments concerned. A Sub-committee of the Inter-departmental Committee on the application of the Whitley Report to Government establishments is considering the question of its application to the clerical and administrative classes of the Civil Service. Arrangements have been made for hearing evidence from representatives of Civil
  2674
  Service Associations, and the first meeting for this purpose will take place on Thursday, 14th November, 1918.
  Mr. ROWNTREE: Will it be possible to see the scheme shortly, and will that suggested for the Post Office be made public?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I will consider that. It is now before the Department and the various parties concerned.

  POST OFFICE TYPISTS AND LEARNERS (EXAMINATIONS).
  Sir JAMES DOUGHERTYasked the Postmaster-General whether, having regard to the difficulty, expense, and risk of the cross-Channel journey at present, he will ask the Civil Service Commissioners to make arrangements for holding the next examination for General Post Office typists and learners simultaneously in Ireland and in England; and whether, in this event, he will advise that an examination centre should be established in Derry or Belfast for candidates from the North of Ireland?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): The competitions for appointments as typists are already held in Dublin at the same time as in London. I see no ground for asking the Civil Service Commissioners to extend them to other towns either in Ireland or in England. Competitions for learnerships are held at the towns at which vacancies exist.

  IRISH MAILS (DELIVERY IN LONDON).
  Mr. FIELDasked if arrangements have been made enabling a more punctual delivery of Irish mails in London, and obviating the inconvenience to passengers arising from two hours' delay at Holyhead, causing arrival in Euston when tube trains and taxi-cabs are not available?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: So far as the postal service is concerned, no inconvenience arises from the present hour of arrival at Euston of the up night mail train from Holyhead. So far as passengers are concerned, I have been repeatedly assured that with the present time of departure of the boat from Kingstown a convenient time of arrival at Euston is not attainable,

  2675
  though in pursuance of a promise made to a deputation I am making further inquiry on this point.
  In view of the suspension of hostilities. I am now also inquiring what is the earliest date at which a return can be made to the timing of the trains and boats which existed before daylight sailings were adopted.
  Mr. LOUGH: Was there not an understanding that this matter should be arranged by the first of this month, and can the right hon. Gentleman say why that understanding was not carried out?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I am not aware of anything of the sort.
  Mr. DILLON: Can the right hon. Gentleman not state what is the reason for the delay of three hours at Holyhead before the mail train leaves after the boat arrives, and whether it has not been brought to his notice that although it may not inconvenience the Post Office, it is a terrible inconvenience to travellers from Ireland?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I am afraid it would take too long by way of answer to a question, but I explained the matter to a deputation the other day, and if the hon. Member wishes I will send him a written statement.
  Mr. DILLON: Thank you!

  POST OFFICE PENSIONERS.
  Mr. DUFFYasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the state of distress existing amongst pensioners of the Post Office owing to the low rate of pensions they are receiving and the increased cost of living; whether representations have reached him to the effect that a number of them are trying to eke out an existence on pensions of 10s. per week; and if he will consider the claims of this deserving body of ex-Civil servants, with a view to granting them increases of pensions or a bonus to enable them to tide over the period of distress through which they are passing?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: As I have previously stated, Post Office pensioners are in the same position as other retired Civil servants, and I am not in a position to take independent action in the matter.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: In view of the very unsatisfactory answer, I beg to give notice that I will raise this question on the first opportunity.

  IRELAND.

    COAL SUPPLIES.
    Mr. FIELDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether arrangements have been made to ensure that a fair ratio of coal shall be available in Ireland for domestic and manufacturing purposes?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): Arrangements exist for Ireland to receive her proportionate share of available coal, both for domestic and industrial purposes, subject to shipping tonnage being provided. As regards domestic coal for the poorer classes, bellmen and hucksters are to receive as nearly as possible their 1917 quantities.
    Mr. DILLON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Ireland is not receiving anything like her due proportion of coal for domestic purposes?
    Mr. WARDLE: It is a question of shipping facilities.
    Mr. DILLON: Oh!
    Mr. BYRNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to secure for Dublin a fair share of coal; if he is aware that, owing to the shortage and distribution of the supplies, lighting restrictions are now in force in Dublin which are causing loss of trade to shopkeepers; and if he will take steps to prevent Dublin's share of coal going to other parts of Ireland?
    Mr. WARDLE: Arrangements have recently been made with a view to ensuring equal distribution of the coal available for Ireland, special measures being taken to provide Dublin with its due proportion, subject to shipping facilities.

    MUNICIPAL KITCHENS, DUBLIN.
    Mr. FIELDasked the Food Controller what arrangements have been or are being made to enable Dublin city to carry on municipal kitchens as are operating in many English cities?
    Major ASTOR: The Food Control Committee for Ireland by letter dated 22nd October, 1918, communicated to the Lord

    2677
    Mayor of Dublin particulars as to the arrangements existing in Great Britain for the establishment of national kitchens by municipal authorities and stated that the Committee would afford every assistance in its power if it was desired to extend the scheme to Ireland.

    INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT (BONUS).
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will cause inquiries to be made into the delay of the payment of the 5s. bonus of 1st July last to the temporary employés of the Inland Revenue Department?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Treasury Circular of 7th September, 1918, authorised improvements in remuneration which should apply only to London Headquarters' Offices, and the arrangement is in process of application subject to the necessary adjustments. As regards staff employed elsewhere, the Circular stated that the Treasury would be prepared to consider the grant of an increase in war bonus (not exceeding 5s.) "in so far as such increases may be shown to be justified by local conditions."
    The Inland Revenue Department has offices in every part of the United Kingdom, and it will be realised that the enquiries necessitated by the Treasury Circular must take a considerable time.

    PRISON WARDERS, BELFAST.
    Mr. FIELDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state when the Government will give the grant recommended by the General Prisons Board to the six warders transferred from Armagh to Belfast in April last, when those officers could not procure houses in Belfast; and, as distress prevails in their families, will the grant be paid immediately, and so allay the discontent amongst those officers?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Shortt): The matter is at present before the Treasury, and a decision may be expected very shortly.

  GERMAN SUBMARINE WARFARE.

    SINKING OF STEAMSHIP "LEINSTER."
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to have an immediate sworn inquiry into the loss of the Royal Mail steamship "Leinster"?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer the hon. Member to the previous answers on this subject.
    Mr. BYRNE: Am I to understand that is a refusal?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That would be perfectly obvious from the previous answers.

  GALLIPOLI EXPEDITION (DECORATION).
  Mr. SUTTONasked the Prime Minister whether he can now state the arrangements made with our self-governing Dominions as to whether it is proposed to grant a special medal, or some other form of recognition, to the troops who took part in the Gallipoli Expedition; and whether he is aware that the men who took part in the expedition are dissatisfied at the way in which they have been treated?
  Sir M. BARLOWasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now received replies from the Colonial authorities with regard to the award of the Gallipoli decoration; and, if not, can he say what is causing the delay?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer these questions. I hope to be in a position to make an announcement on the subject to-morrow.

  ARMISTICE WITH GERMANY.

    OVERSEAS DOMINIONS (REPRESENTATION).
    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 these Dominions; and further, and in any event, if these Dominions will be fully consulted in regard to the terms of peace and their representatives duly summoned to attend the Conference and to participate in the discussions previous to the signing of the peace or to the making of any arrangements for the security of the Empire and the preservation of the peace of the world?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have nothing to add to the answers which I gave to similar questions on this subject yesterday, and in particular to the supplementary question of my hon. Friend, when I said that the Dominions would have their full share in settling the terms of peace.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Mr. MACMASTERasked the Prime Minister if His Majesty's Government will insist, as a preliminary condition of entering into any peace conference, on the immediate release and return of all prisoners of war or interned persons now detained in Germany or under German control elsewhere; and, in the alternative, will he say whether provision has been made for the fulfilment of this condition in connection with the armistice itself?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer my hon. Friend to the terms of the armistice which were read to the House on Monday.

    RECRUITING.
    Mr. E. HARVEYasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to discontinue during the period of the armistice the calling up of men for military service; and what instructions are being issued to tribunals to provide for a uniform standard being adopted?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. S. Walsh): I have been asked to answer this question. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday to a question by the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means. The tribunals have been officially informed that recruiting is to be suspended, and that all outstanding cases are to be suspended likewise.
    Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether boys in secondary and other schools in Officers' Training Corps will be left to continue their time at school or to go on to college, or will they have to do military service?
    Mr. WALSH: That is rather a comprehensive question. It is a matter for the War Office.
    Mr. ROBERTS: Is the hon. Member aware that I have inquired at the War Office, and I am told that it is not a question for them?
    Mr. WALSH: The hon. Member will perhaps put down a question.

  BUILDINGS AND PREMISES (ADMIRALTY OCCUPATION).
  Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the termination
  2680
  of hostilities, he will take such steps as may be necessary to give firms in the City of London and elsewhere whose works and warehouses are being commandeered by the Admiralty a right of appeal?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I have been asked to answer this question. Any buildings and premises occupied by the Admiralty under the Defence of the Realm Act will be released as soon as the necessity for their use by the Crown disappears, but it will be clear to my hon. Friend that the cessation of hostilities does not permit of the immediate termination of many of the activities of the Admiralty. While occupation under the Defence of the Realm Act continues, the compensation to owners will continue to be settled by the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission, unless otherwise agreed.
  Mr. TERRELL: Does my right hon. Friend understand that he has not answered my question at all? Is he aware that the Admiralty are still commandeering property? To-day they are taking proceedings to commandeer, now that hostilities have ceased.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: That may very well be. I do not know the case. Of course, we do not commandeer in any case except in the public interest.
  Mr. TERRELL: Will my right hon. Friend agree to owners of this property having the right of appeal to some independent party as to whether the property is really necessary?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I should like the case where commandeering is really taking place; perhaps my hon. Friend will give me that. Even from the point of view of our own convenience we want to get under our own roof as soon as possible.
  Captain CARR-GOMM: Have the schemes been before the Cabinet Committee on Office Accommodation?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I understand all schemes have to be submitted to the Committee.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS.
    Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the altered War position and of the urgent necessity and importance of increasing the home

    2681
    production of food, he will give directions that all agricultural labourers and other agriculturists now serving in the Army should be forthwith returned to their civil occupations?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave yesterday in reply to questions by the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Burdett-Coutts) and the hon. and gallant Member for Rotherhithe (Captain Carr-Gomm).
    Mr. TERRELL: If the right hon. Gentleman is unable to make a clean-cut and grant complete release of agriculturists, can he at any rate make a clean-cut of all men who have been recruited in the last three months, which he must know are the hardest cases?
    Mr. BECK: The answer I gave yesterday showed that machinery has been set up under the Ministry of Labour and is now in existence which will immediately deal with all these difficult problems.
    Mr. TERRELL: When will this machinery be put into operation—when shall we have a definite statement?
    Mr. BECK: That is not a question for me.

    WALSALL TRIBUNAL.
    Sir R. COOPERasked the Minister of National Service if his attention has been drawn to the action of the National Service representative, Lieutenant Letts, in threatening the Walsall Tribunal on Tuesday, 20th October, that he would appeal against its decision in the case of eight men before the decision of the tribunal was given; and, in view of previous cases in which this officer's action has reflected on the dignity of the Walsall Tribunal, will he remove him to a more suitable sphere?
    Mr. BECK: Inquiries are being made into the matters referred to in my hon. Friend's question, and I will inform him of the result as soon as I receive the necessary information. I am afraid there may be a little delay as, unfortunately, the National Service representative is ill with influenza.

    ONE-MAN BUSINESSES.
    Mr. MACMASTERasked the Minister of National Service whether it is possible, in view of the present situation and the
    2682
    progress towards peace, to relax the restrictions in respect of men carrying on what is known as a one-man business, especially in view of the fact that the War must come to a termination before the one-man business men could be trained for service, and that in the meantime the businesses of such men, which involves making purchases and contracts in advance, are both obstructed and paralysed by the uncertainty which prevails?
    Mr. BECK: If my hon. Friend has in mind the calling up of proprietors of one-man businesses, I would refer him to the announcement made by the Government to the effect that recruiting is suspended.

  SHIPYARD LABOUR (INCOME TAX).
  Mr. BYRNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that to speed up the output of shipping and munitions, workmen are encouraged, after their ordinary day's work, to work two or three nights a week overtime; if he is aware of the discontent amongst the men caused by the Government assessing Income Tax for night work without making any allowance for the trouble and inconvenience to the worker; and if, in order to encourage the men to work night shifts, he will exempt them from Income Tax on wages earned for night work?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot adopt the hon. Member's suggestion. Income tax must be charged on income.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  Sir M. BARLOWasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry with regard to the case of Mrs. Tunner, of 88, Halliwell Street, off Trafford Road, Salford, whether he is aware that her son, William Tunner, No. 251938, A Squadron, Royal Air Force, No. 2 School of Navigation, Andover, Hants, joined up with the Royal Air Force on the 4th March, 1918; that he allotted his mother 7s. and applied for the Government allowance and filled up the proper form, but, in spite of continued correspondence with the paymaster, no Government allowance has, after nine months, yet come through; and whether he can give directions to have the matter at once attended to?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE to the AIR MINISTRY (Major Baird): This case is being fully investigated, and I will inform my hon. Friend of the result as soon as possible.
  Sir M. BARLOW: After nine months' delay, surely it is possible to give an answer?

  MINISTRIES OF HEALTH (POWERS).
  Mr. THOMASasked the Minister for Reconstruction whether the power of compulsory medical examination of the whole population is to be conferred upon the new Ministry of Health, in addition to the powers already announced; and, if so, on what grounds the Government consider it expedient to attempt in the new Department this policy?
  The MINISTER of RECONSTRUCTION (Dr. Addison): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part does not, therefore, arise.
  Mr. WATT: Is it intended to proceed with this Bill this Session?
  Dr. ADDISON: My hon. Friend, I think, knows that it is not.

  OVERSEAS TRADE (COMMERCIAL ATTACHES).
  Captain CARR-GOMMasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what pension rights are to be attached to the appointments of commercial attaches under the Overseas Trade Department which he stated to be under consideration in his reply to a question on Monday, 13th May, 1918?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND (Department of Overseas Trade): It has been decided to apply to these officers the provisions of the Civil Service Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1914 and of the Order in Council of the 10th January, 1910.
  I take the opportunity of stating that it has been decided to alter the designation of the officers referred to by the hon. Member. A commercial attaché of the first grade will in future bear the title of "Commercial Counsellor of Embassy," and the designation of commercial attaches of lower grades has been altered to "Commercial Secretary of Embassy."

  ALIENS RESTRICTION ORDER.
  Sir R. COOPERasked the Home Secretary of State how many persons have been required to resume their original name since the Aliens Restriction Order in Council became absolute on 4th March, 1918; and in how many cases has he granted exemption under Clause 4 of this order?
  Mr. BRACE: Article 25 A of the Aliens Restriction Order, which prohibits alien enemies from changing their names, was enacted, not on the 4th March, 1918, but on the 8th October, 1914, and covered all changes since the beginning of the War. Exemptions have been granted in thirty cases, of which twenty-six relate to British-born women who had married alien enemies. If there is any other alien enemy using a name other than that by which he was known before the war he is liable to prosecution.
  Sir. R. COOPER: Have any alien enemies resumed their original names?
  Mr. BRACE: Perhaps my hon. Friend will give notice.

  LIGHTING RESTRICTIONS.
  Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can see his way, in view of the termination of hostilities, to forthwith withdraw all restrictions as to lights, and particularly motor headlights?
  Mr. BRACE: With regard to street lights, and lights in houses and shops, I would refer to the answer I gave yesterday to questions on the same subject. The relaxations which I announced apply not only to the Metropolitan police district but generally throughout the country, except that the naval authorities desire that the restrictions on lights visible from the sea should not be withdrawn at present on certain parts of the coast. The question of lights on vehicles is under consideration, and for the present the restrictions remain in force.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT.

    WAR LEGISLATION.
    Mr. DILLON (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to abandon the Defence of the Realm Act

    2685
    and war legislation of a similar character; whether he will undertake to suspend in Great Britain, during the period from now until after the election is over, all Orders under the Defence of the Realm Act interfering with personal liberty with the right of meeting and publication; and whether the censorship will be suspended during the same period.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to a Private Notice Question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland yesterday, to which I have nothing to add, except that a small Committee is being set up to consider the subject.
    Mr. DILLON (by Private Notice)asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether all the provisions of the Defence of the Realm Act interfering with freedom of meeting or freedom of speech or writing will be suspended during the coming election; whether the censorship will be abolished during that period; and when he proposes to release the prisoners now detained under an administration order under the Defence of the Realm Act?
    Mr. SHORTT: With regard to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question on this subject on the 4th instant. The other matters mentioned in the question are under consideration.
    Mr. DILLON: Can the right hon. Gentleman not now state whether he proposes to release the prisoners held under the Defence of the Realm Act, or whether he has decided not to release them? Surely he has had time to consider the matter and ought to let us know before the Session ends?
    Mr. SHORTT: No. I am sorry that I cannot make any statement to-day.
    Mr. KING: As at last the leader of the Irish party has come in on behalf of the release of the prisoners, is not that a very remarkable event showing that the whole Irish people are united on this subject?

IRISH LAND (PROVISION FOR SAILORS AND SOLDIERS) BILL.
Mr. DILLON: May I ask the Leader of the House a question as to the Order Paper—Whether he can now state whether the Government propose to go on with the Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Bill during the present Session?
Mr. BONAR LAW: No. It is impossible to proceed with it and carry it this Session, but we intend that it shall be one of the first things undertaken in the new Session.

POLICE (PENSIONS) BILL.
Mr. SNOWDEN: Is it the intention of the Government, following the Motion for the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule, to take the Police (Pensions) Bill?
Mr. BONAR LAW: No. What we propose to take are Orders Nos. 1 to 5, and No. 7.

PRISONERS OF WAR.
General CROFT: I would ask the House to permit me to make a very short personal statement, arising out of the Debate on the prisoners of war, which owing to the force of circumstances and the conclusion of peace I have been unable to make during the last few days. The right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Macpherson) quoted last week in this House the following remarks which were made by me:
"Not only have they, the Government, kept, the truth from the people, but I believe I am right in saying that the War Office, or some other authority, has compelled escapers and exchanged prisoners to promise that they will not tell the truth about this question on the platform or in the newspapers. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, and I have been told that by at least a score.
Sir E. Carson: Is it true or is it not?
Mr Macpherson: I am informed that it is not true."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Tuesday, 29th October, 1918, col. 1360.]
The last thing which I should have desired to do would be to appear discourteous to the right hon. Gentleman, who has always been extremely courteous in his dealings with myself and with everyone else. After five days I did write to the newspapers stating that I was going to ask the question on Thursday in order to get a definite reply, and I was not of the opinion that that was in any way discourteous to the right hon. Gentleman, as it seemed to me that he had the same right of reply in the newspapers; but in this matter the charge was very definite—that the statement which I had made was not correct either in substance or in fact. Now the right hon. Gentleman in the

2687
Debate said—and I am not going to make any debating point, but merely to quote his remarks—that Lord Kitchener had issued such an order which had the effect of preventing escaped officers and prisoners from stating these facts. That policy may have been wise or unwise, but that was the effect of Lord Kitchener's order, unless they had the permission of the War Office. But I want to point out that I was not referring to this order of Lord Kitchener's. I was referring to a very much later order, from a copy of which the right hon. Gentleman quoted in this House. He quoted the first two paragraphs, but he did not quote the third paragraph, which I think the House is entitled to have. It reads:
"The communication by interviews, correspondence, or otherwise, of information to the Press on any military subject is contrary to the provisions of paragraph 453 of the King's Regulations. The procedure laid down in that paragraph must be strictly followed in reference to accounts of treatment experienced while in the hands of the enemy."
That was the paragraph which I had in mind when I made this suggestion, and I think that the House will agree that it does convey to any officer or soldier who is an escaped or exchanged prisoner that he must not state these facts unless he first gets the permission of the Army Council as required in the previous paragraph. I hope that under those circumstances the House will exonerate me from having in any way deliberately tried to misinform it, because I merely quoted those facts, which I think it is now perfectly evident had that effect. The right hon. Gentleman also stated in his personal statement that there were no restrictions on the Press, but so long as that order remains I submit that I was not incorrect in saying that there were.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I said that the Press was unrestricted in practice.
General CROFT: Yes; but the Press cannot be unrestricted in practice so long as no single witness is permitted to give information to the Press. I have in my pocket a large amount of evidence, which I can use in debate, which shows that whenever the Press have appealed to prisoners the prisoners have felt that they were bound by this order, which I hold in my hand, not to give any information to it. I thank the House for the courtesy with which it has heard me.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—

Gas Light and Coke Company Bill, without Amendment.

Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Bill,

Commercial Gas Bill, with an Amendment.

Petroleum Production Bill,

Education (Scotland) Bill,

Lancaster Corporation Bill,

Sheffield Corporation (Consolidation) Bill,

South Suburban Gas Bill, with Amendments.

PETROLEUM PRODUCTION BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 112.]
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 111.]

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
Tenth Report of the Select Committee brought up, and read; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 132.]
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 132.]

BILLS PRESENTED.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT) BILL,—"to extend the maximum period which may be allowed to elapse at elections during the present War and a period of twelve months thereafter between the close of the poll and the counting of the votes and to exclude from the operation of the Rules Publication Act, 1893, Orders in Council made under the Representation of the People Act, 1918," presented by Mr. MUNRO; supported by Mr. Shortt and Mr. Brace; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 110.]
TERMINATION OF THE WAR BILL,—"to make provision for determining the date of the termination of the present War; and

2689
for purposes connected therewith," presented by Dr. ADDISON; supported by Mr. Munro and Mr. Macpherson; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 115.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  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.]

  SUPPLY.— [12TH NOVEMBER] SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT, 1918–19.
  Resolution reported,
  1. "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 3lst day of March, 1919, for General Navy, Army, and Air Services in so far as specific provision is not made therefor 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 oil Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Mr. CAUTLEY: I think I may safely say that there is no place in England or in Scotland where there is not much agricultural discontent and dissatisfaction, and more discontent and more dissatisfaction than those interested in agriculture have ever known. Although I shall have to criticise the Food Controller, I desire at the outset to state definitely that I do not criticise him in any part of his work relating to rationing or the distribution of human food or the fixing of prices of human food. But I shall deal solely with his dealing and management of the farms of Great Britain, which in my opinion he has improperly usurped from the Board of Agriculture. Speaking as a farmer and for farmers, I desire to dwell this afternoon more particularly on the national loss of food that has been caused by the various Orders he has made for the administration of our farms, rather than on the personal loss to farmers, although
  2698
  they are heavy enough. Some hon. Members may think the Armistice having taken place that things may be better in the future than they have been in the past, but for my part I do not take that view. Having regard to the fact that the large population of the Central Powers are now coming into immediate competition with the Western world for the world's food supplies, in my opinion the shortage of meats and fats, which was very serious, and which was likely to be more serious in February and March, may be considerably accentuated rather than diminished. Before coming to the main question with which I wish to deal, let me refer to one point of administration By the Food Controller which particularly affects my own Constituents. I refer to the appointment of an official called a super-grader of cattle, or I think the Food Controller calls him a sub-commissioner of grading. The House—or, at least, those who take an interest in the subject—may recollect that under the Cattle Sales Order, made by the Food Controller, all cattle sold for slaughter have to be sold in a market, and they have to be graded by a person authorised by the Food Controller, and they then have to be sold to a person authorised by the Food Controller, and the farmer and owner of the cattle has no other way of disposing of them. The Order goes on in terms to say that after they have been graded by the person so authorised by the Food Controller his determination as to the value and as to the grading or weight of such animal shall be conclusive.
  4.0 P.M.
  The House may further recollect that there was an attempt made by the Food Controller to foist on the agricultural population a system by which the only means of sale was to be by dead-weight. That was strongly opposed by agriculturists all over the country, and it was ultimately settled by the system of grading to which I have referred. The system brought into being was this, that the grading or quality of the cattle—that is to say, the percentage of meat contained in a live beast—had to be ascertained by a committee consisting of one appointed by the Butchers' Association of the markets and one by the Farmers' Association of the market, and one by the auctioneer, who was called in if the other two could not agree. That system—and I defy the Food Controller to bring any instance to the contrary—worked well. There were cases undoubtedly where, perhaps, the farmer got the better of the matter, and

  2699
  other cases where the butcher got the better of the transaction, as there must be in all valuations and in all estimates. But, on the whole, the ups and downs balanced, and farmers were satisfied and butchers were satisfied. But whether that were so or not, by the Order under which they were appointed, as soon as their determination was declared it was conclusive, and the Order in Council has the effect of a Statute. I am going to put it to the House that the Food Controller has been guilty of gross illegality; and, furthermore, if not of illegality, as I am firmly convinced he has, that he has adopted a system of gross inexpediency. I think the best way of showing what he has done will be to give a concrete case. A farmer in my own Division sent a cow to the Haywards Heath market. It was graded by the Grading Commission appointed by the right hon. Gentleman in the third class at the price of 53s. per cwt. It weighed 9 cwt., and the farmer ought to have received nine times 53s. To his surprise he received only nine times 50s.—in other words, 27s. less than he anticipated. On application to the auctioneer he was told that, alter the Grading Commission had done its work, the sub-commissioner, or super-grader, came round and reduced the price to 50s. Application was made to the auctioneer for the balance of the 27s., and it was referred to the right hon. Gentleman's office. The farmer was told that Mr. Godfrey was a super-grader appointed by the right hon. Gentleman himself, and that he had reduced the price. The Food Controller was applied to for information as to the business of Mr. Godfrey and the terms of his appointment. The Food Controller—and I have his letter in my hand—refused to give either Mr. Godfrey's business or the terms of his appointment. Would the House be surprised to hear that Mr. Godfrey is a butcher, having a large butcher's shop at Eastbourne, and formerly the manager of a business within one mile of Haywards Heath market. He is a friend of all the butchers in the district. I do not know anything about him except that; but I do appeal to the House, what would be said by any man of business in the country if the spinner were compelled to sell his weft to the weaver at the weaver's price? What would the right hon. Gentleman himself say if that were done in Lancashire;
  2700
  if the manufacturer had to sell at the merchant's price, or if the shopkeeper had to sell at the chance customer's price?
  Yet this is the position in which agriculture is placed under the right hon. Gentleman's administration. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to refer the legal question to the Law Officers of the Crown; but I would suggest that if it is found that the action is illegal, the right hon. Gentleman should be asked to repay to the farmers all over the country the money of which they have thus been improperly deprived. I made such inquiries as I could at the Haywards Heath market. I found that the gentleman appointed in this way goes round after the Grading Commission has done its work. He ascertains the prices fixed by the Committee. He never puts one up; he only pulls them down. And in other markets in Sussex where I have applied for information I do not think a case is to be found—except, perhaps one solitary instance at Lewes—where this gentleman has ever put up a single price.
  Let me now turn to a more general question than the one to which I have just referred. I have already stated that under the Cattle Sales Order—and the same applies to sheep—the farmer who has any cattle or sheep for slaughter is bound to sell in the market, and is not entitled to sell to anybody but a Government agent. I suggest that that should cast, I will not say a legal obligation, for I do not think it comes to that, but at any rate it casts an obligation, in the view of the ordinary man in the street, on the Government to provide purchasers for these cattle and sheep when they come to the market, more especially when we remember that the Food Controller issued an invitation to all farmers to hold their stocks in July. It hardly needs me to inform the House that the grazing season for cattle comes to an end in or about October. Anybody with the smallest knowledge of agriculture knows that in October cattle have to be taken from the grass, which has lost its feeding properties, and those that are ready for the slaughter have to be slaughtered; or, if they are not ready for slaughter—if they are only three-parts fat and gradually getting fit for the market—they have to be taken into the yard and fed on concentrated foods and roots. There are, roughly speaking, three classes of grazing farms for fat cattle in this

  2701
  country. You have the grazing farm pure and simple for fat cattle during the summer months. There is no yard into which to put the beasts when the bad weather comes, and consequently they have to be sold to some other farmer who can make them fit for market in the yard. The second class of farm in this country has both grazing land and arable land, and these farmers at the end of October can put their cattle into their yards and fatten them there for market with cake and concentrated foods. Then you have a third class of farmer—the man who has a yard and requires the straw for manure for growing corn. He is the man who buys the lean stock from the first class of farmer and fattens the cattle up in the way I have mentioned. Owing to the fact that we have as Food Controller a Gentleman eminent in many ways, qualified for his office in many ways but disqualified by his sympathies and by his lack of knowledge of the management of farms in England, he does not make the slightest preparation for October and November, and he does not provide for the cattle those foodstuffs which anybody who has the slightest knowledge of agriculture is aware that they need. If they are fit to go on the market he does not provide the other alternative—that is, freezing plant and chilling plant necessary for their cold storage.
  Before the Food Controller stepped in, and took over the work, the Board of Agriculture had already taken steps to provide this freezing plant; but now nothing has been done, and the result is that the cattle unsold on the market have to be returned to the farmer, who has no food for them, and no means of getting food for them or of keeping them. As a result in the case of those cattle which are fit for slaughter the flesh is running off them, and I need hardly tell the House that the flesh runs off an animal if it is not properly fed much faster than it can be put on when the animal is properly fed. I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the fact, but if you send a fat animal ten miles to market and subject it to all the disturbing elements of the market and then return it to the farm from which it started it will take at least two or three weeks to get it back into the condition it was in when it was sent to market. It is impossible at the present time to keep an animal of that sort at a less cost than £1 a week, so the sending of the animals to
  2702
  market and returning them to the farm involves the farmer in a loss of at least £2 per head, and many men skilled in agriculture put it as high as £3 or £4 per head. These cattle have been returned to grazing farmers, who have no means of keeping them and nothing to feed them on. All the markets in the neighbourhood have been shut up for some weeks, and the loss of flesh is running into many, many tons, while the loss of money to the farmer is running into many thousands of pounds, and that is due entirely, I venture to submit to the House, to the want of foresight, knowledge, and capacity on the part of the Food Controller.
  The same argument applies to sheep. No provision was made for giving sheep even the smallest modicum of cake and concentrated food, things which are so necessary for them during the critical periods of their lives. In the East Riding of Yorkshire—on the Yorkshire Wolds-lambs have died by the hundreds. I do not want to exaggerate; I will therefore say they have died in large numbers, while the rest of the flock have been deteriorated in value. In the South of England, where sheep feeders and sheep breeders go in for early maturity and where corn is grown on the land, in the cases of the animals in the critical periods of their lives when they are lambing and when they have to be weaned, and when, therefore, there ought to be no paucity of feeding-stuffs, no provision has been made to supply them. When we come to the pig, of which I have some knowledge, we find that the Food Controller has first pulled its head and then its tail until it has practically disappeared. They decided, first of all, that it was not economic to put bread corn through a pig and to make it into bacon or pork. They decided that the bread corn would feed more human beings as cereals than if passed through a pig, and so made into bacon or pork. They did not learn, even from the Germans, that man cannot live by bread alone, but must have fat. But when they ascertained that simple fact, they realised that the pig was the most rapid means of making fat, and they suddenly reversed their policy, altered the whole thing, and everybody in the country was to be induced to keep pigs and make bacon. They entrusted that to the Board of Agriculture, and thousands of people, and very poor people, were induced to keep pigs to carry out that policy. Orders were made, by-laws were

  2703
  waived, and inducements were offered, by putting aside the Food Hoarding Orders of various kinds, to get people to keep pigs. Having induced the people to keep pigs, and because, as I venture to say, the American Food Controller comes over here and sees our Food Controller, the whole policy, in a night almost, is altered without a single consultation and without a single communication with the persons who have been asked to induce the people of this country to keep pigs. All that is sent round is practically an Order to put an end to their pigs before 25th January.
  That is the way in which our affairs are managed. What has caused it? We are told there are no feeding-stuffs. Why are there no feeding-stuffs? Why was not a proper allocation of shipping made for the greatest industry in this country? Because we have a gentleman at the head of our farms in England who cares nothing for agriculture, and because we have that gentleman assisted by another who cares nothing for agriculture, and they are unaware of the importance of this industry, and they play fast and loose with it in this way. The argument is that we can get the food from the United States. I do not wish anything that I say to be taken in any way as any offence to the United States. I rather admire the United States for having such an efficient negotiator and bargainer as their Food Controller, but the fault I find is that our Food Controller was no match for him, and the result has been that we have been handed over in our meat supplies to the greatest trust in the world to-day, that is, the American Meat Packers' Trust, not intentionally by the right hon. Gentleman—of course, I do not suggest that—but we are actually put in the same position, and suffer from the same grievances as the United States. I am perfectly well aware that this Meat Packers' Trust has been found by a committee of the House of Congress an illegal conspiracy, but I am afraid that even President Wilson will not be able to bust it with all its ramifications, which extend to the Argentine, and, I believe, has got its tentacles in Australia and New Zealand. The whole tendency of the administration of the Food Office has been, and is now, to hand over our meat supplies to this American trust.
  One would have thought in this country the proper people to look after our farms and animals were the Board of
  2704
  Agriculture. The Board of Agriculture are responsible for diseases and for counting the animals, but when it comes to feeding them, or distributing such food as there is in the country, the House will be surprised to hear that they have not a single voice, practically speaking, in either one or the other. The Food Controller works through three committees. He has the Home Cereals Committee, the Meat Committee, and the Feeding-stuffs Committee, and the charge I bring against him is that he is entirely in the hands of the retail trade. On his Meat Committee he has butchers, meat dealers, and meat sellers of all kinds. On his Home Cereals Committee he has corn merchants, corn dealers, and so on. When the farmer looks further and sees that, as the result of these various committees, every article of produce he has, whether of grain or meat, has to go through a market, and when he sees that every article of food, even down to his damaged grain, has to go through a market, and one of these middlemen takes his profit out of it, are you surprised at the unrest and dissatisfaction there are in the farming community?
  An instance occurs to me of the sort of thing we have to put up with through this ignorance of all farming matters of the Food Controller. I think it will rather amuse the House. In carrying out this policy of putting everything under the control of the middlemen, so that, as I say, the middleman's profit has to come out of it, they carried this recently to pigs as well as to cattle and to sheep. But the right hon. Gentleman—I am not surprised at it—forgot that the fat pig cannot walk to the market, but must go in its own carriage, and he actually provided by an Order that every single pig which was to go to slaughter had to go to a market, and if his Order had stood we should have had the spectacle of every small man in the country, every cottager, every workman, ten or fifteen miles, in some cases, from the market, when he wanted to sell his pig, having to hire a horse and cart, which he could not do in any part of the country under 15s. a day, and having to lose his day's wages to take his pig to market. It was by the merest accident I discovered that. At that time I was called Director of Pig Production, but I was the last person he thought of consulting. Fortunately, a chance copy of this scheme came into my possession, and at last I

  2705
  succeeded in inducing the Food Controller to exempt a man from the Order who sold only three pigs in one year. The Food Controller, not content with taking into his capacious maw the feeding of the whole population, assumed to himself the feeding of our animal population, and the feeding-stuffs for our animals are actually at this moment being carried on by a Feeding-stuffs Committee appointed entirely by the right hon. Gentleman, over which the Board of Agriculture has no control, and to whom it has nothing to say. When I tell the House that my experience in the last two months has been that half of my correspondence was complaints as to the administration of this Feeding-stuffs Committee, and that all I could do was to send a copy of these letters to the Food Controller or chairman of this Committee, without getting a single alteration, the House, I think, will understand what an impossible position it was.
  Having landed us into this difficult position by the Regulations he made, and by the incapacity of the Feeding-stuffs Committee to distribute such feedingstuffs as there were, he would not accept the slightest advice or slightest suggestion as to how that could be ameliorated. He had no sympathy with the farmer. It was urged on him by myself many times, and in this House, that there was one way in which to afford some amelioration, and in which he could have shown that he had some sympathy with the farmers. I pointed out it was a monstrous thing that the farmer should be deprived of the right he always had of using his damaged corn, his damaged grain, for feeding animals when the Food Controller deprived them of the right of feeding them with any other stuffs. He would not listen. He went further with his bureaucratic ways; and even to-day, although I have a field of barley which was only gathered last week, which is grown through and through, which cannot be threshed, which is good for nothing except to let pigs pick over, I am not entitled to give that to my pigs unless I go ten miles to Haywards Heath to persuade the officer there to come up and look at it, and to give, a licence to me to use it. Is not that bureaucracy? That is the position in which we are.
  There is one point on a fresh matter altogether to which I must draw the attention of the House. In addition to these powers which the right hon. Gentleman
  2706
  exercises in this way—bureaucracy, as I say, of the worst kind—he has taken to himself the power of taxing the agricultural community, and there are millions going into his office, instead of going into the Treasury, to hide the enormous expense and extravagance of which he is the author, of which the public have very little idea, and, I venture to say, the House of Commons has very little idea. I charge him not only with that, but also with being a profiteer of the worst kind. He has by himself, without the consideration of this House, and without the consideration of the Board of Agriculture, levied a tax of 11s. 4d. a hundredweight on every bullock or head of cattle that is slaughtered from one end of the country to the other. There are at the present time—in these times of scarcity—something like 400,000 beasts killed per year. If we take the average animal at 10 cwt.
  I think that in below the average, but take it so—that is a £5 13s. 4d. tax on the owner of every single bullock or cow that is slaughtered in this country. I think that is a gross sum of £2,250,000. On every sheep—and 2,000,000 of sheep are killed annually in this country—he has levied a tax, and is collecting it in varying amounts, about, say, 5s. for every 12 lbs. in weight. I think, on a reasonable estimate, £l per sheep tax is paid to the Food Controller. That amounts to a sum of £2,000,000 upon all the sheep that are killed. There are now 150,000 pigs killed per year. He has levied a tax of 2d. in the pound on every pig killed. So far as I can gather, a fair average is about £2 per pig; and although that may not be quite the figure, it is near enough, and amounts to a total of £300,000 in all. The total sums levied by the right hon. Gentleman on the owners of this stock is something like between £1,000,000 and £5,000,000 sterling. In addition he has put on a charge of 1s. 6d. per head on every owner of sheep and a charge of 2s. 6d. on every owner of pigs, besides put ting on the owners of pigs the expense of getting the pigs to market.
  I think this ought to be made public. I do not charge the right hon. Gentleman with it, but farmers are not very popular, because the idea has been fostered that they were profiteering. Yet you have these large sums charged on home-grown meat which is going to feed this army of attendants that the right hon. Gentleman has got, is going to pay for this American

  2707
  beef with which we are to be flooded, whilst our own mean is disappearing in the way I have mentioned. Our young pigs are being killed as soon as they are born. Our sheep and pigs are losing flesh; and I spent my last day at the Board of Agriculture in considering two cases—when two poor pig owners were being prosecuted for starving their pigs because the Feeding Supplies Committee had broken down, and they could not get any feed for them; whilst the men themselves, remember, had been keeping the pigs at the request of the Board of Agriculture! For this administration we have this enormous tax, and the public believe it is going into the pockets of the farmers. I have said all I have to say. I think hon. Members will agree with me that there is an enormous waste of meat going on in this country which we shall very much need, if not now, in the very near future. The industry of which I am speaking is harassed beyond all reason by countless and stupid orders that are made. In my firm belief the agriculture of this country, and our herds and flocks, are likely for many years to feel the effect of these things unless they are got rid of before long, and unless control is handed back to the Board of Agriculture. The right hon. Gentleman knows a great deal about cotton; he knows nothing about cotton cake. He is very learned in calico; he does not know much about corn. I ask him what would he think if a farmer were appointed to control the cotton trade, or if a farmer had been appointed to control his own union?
  Colonel FITZROY: I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Food Controller will acquit me of any wish to embarrass him, or to speak of him in any unfriendly spirit, because there is nobody who realises more than I do the extraordinary difficulty of his task. I do not believe that any Department of State has had to deal with a more difficult question than has the Controller of the Food Supplies of this country in rationing the people. I venture to say, so far as that goes, the right hon. Gentleman has given great satisfaction, and I fancy that those people who have had to suffer from rationing have done it with the least amount of grumbling possible. While I say that, I am one of those who have been very anxious and have looked forward to a great increase of production from agriculture in this
  2708
  country. I am afraid, however, that if the methods with which agriculture has been treated in the past by the right hon. Gentleman are pursued we shall not get that increased production in agriculture to which we have a right to look forward. That may not be the fault of the right hon. Gentleman, because we must remember that we have the Board of Agriculture; but for the life of me I cannot understand why it is not the Board of Agriculture that controls agriculture, and not the Food Controller. The great mistake, in my judgment, that has been made by the Food Controller is that he has neglected entirely to look after the interests of the producer and considered alone the interests of the consumer. We know—unfortunately know—that there is always a certain amount of antipathy between the town and the country. I think it ought to have been the object of the Food Controller to try and make the consumer in the town look upon the agriculturist as his best friend. If that were the policy pursued there would be much more opportunity in the future to get this increased agricultural production for which we hope.
  I do not wish to criticise the right hon. Gentleman, but I want to ask for information. I happen to represent in this House one of the largest grazing districts in this country where the grazing and the feeding of cattle is pretty well the principal industry. Knowing, as I do, that the success of agriculture entirely depends upon the confidence that you put in it, I want to know what is to be the policy in regard to feeding-stuffs in the future? The hon. Member who has just preceded me has told us something about the losses that have taken place in the last two or three months—the losses in meat by the policy pursued in regard to the sale of fat cattle. I do not want to approach this subject, any more than the hon. Gentleman opposite did, from the point of view of the loss that the farmers themselves have sustained, but if the amount could be calculated the House and the country would be amazed to find the quantity of meat that has been lost to the consumer by the policy adopted in regard to the sale of fat cattle. I myself graze and feed a considerable number of cattle. I have been inundated with Orders each more contradictory than the preceding one. I have not been able to send cattle to market when they have been ready. When I have been allowed to send them to market I

  2709
  have had to send them one day and bring them back the next, and send them again the next, and in some cases fat cattle have had to walk 24 miles to market when they might have been allowed to go on one day and have walked only six. That kind of thing has been a cause of the enormous waste to consumers in this country.
  Anyone who knows anything about agriculture knows perfectly well that at this time of the year fat cattle on grass fall away in flesh extremely rapidly, however good the pasture may be, unless their feeding is supplemented by concentrated feeding-stuffs. These we know we cannot get. But the Food Controller knew we could not get them just as well as we did, and therefore should have anticipated the meat supplies with which he had to deal at the latter end of the summer. Every year in my country we buy cattle in the spring, and we reckon to finish them off in the first week in November. The hon. Gentleman who is beside him (Major Astor) went down to a farmer's meeting. I do not know whether he did it then, or at another time, but, at any rate, he stated that the farmers who had fat cattle and could not get rid of them were to put them into store. But in the grazing countries we have not got yards to put the fat cattle into; we have to keep them at grass and supplement their feeding with concentrated feeding-stuffs. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Food Controller whether he is going on controlling feeding-stuffs and the Board of Agriculture, or whether he is going to hand the matter over to the Board of Agriculture? If he is going to continue the control of feeding-stuffs and agricultural pursuits, I hope he will tell us what is his policy for the future. This Parliament is very near Dissolution. Probably we shall not have another opportunity of bringing forward this question, or of hearing, for a considerable time, what has to be said by the right hon. Gentleman. In a few months the farmers in my country will be thinking of buying for next summer. If they anticipate that they are going to be treated next autumn in the way they have been treated this autumn they certainly will not buy in the spring with any confidence. Therefore, we should like to know what is the policy of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to feeding stuffs. I would ask, further, in regard to the Board of Agriculture: Why is it that Board has given up its control of agriculture? That is a
  2710
  thing the farmers of the country cannot understand. Difficult as it is at the present time to carry on the agricultural industry, what with all the contradictory orders that we get from the Food Controller, the difficulty of getting labour and so forth, if that is accentuated and added to by lack of confidence in the fact that the Food Controller of this country controls agriculture and not the Board of Agriculture, the agricultural industry will go back instead of, as we all hoped, going forward. I could only wish that the President of the Board of Agriculture were here—
  An HON. MEMBER: Why is he not here?
  Colonel FITZROY: So that he could tell us why it is that, to a very large extent, he has relinquished his control over agriculture and handed it over to the Controller of Food Supplies. I trust the Food Controller will tell us what will be his policy in the future.
  The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): I hope hon. Members will not take it amiss if I say that, little as I may know about this problem, my small stock of knowledge has not been increased by anything that has been said this afternoon, for, simple as I am, I know if cattle are not fed they will not thrive, and I know that there is less grass available in October and November than in May and June. Having listened with the greatest patience in the hope of profiting on this side of the question, I have listened in vain for any valuable addition to a Food Controller's moiety of knowledge on these food questions. If the House will give him some little of its time I think an answer can be afforded which will convince hon. Members that no just charge can lie at the door of the Minister of Food with regard to the feeding of cattle, and the national effort to obtain feeding-stuffs from abroad, or with regard to the distribution and grading of cattle.
  I continue to resent the imputation that I have no sympathy with agriculture. The hon. Gentleman who commenced this Debate said very emphatically that whatever I possessed in the way of other qualities, I had no sympathy with agriculture. I may have failed in my purpose from one reason or another to meet the needs of the Food Ministry, but I resent the charge that that disability or failure is due to want of sympathy with agriculture.

  2711
  I was charged when I fixed the price of milk, and when I fixed an increased price for grain, and when in regard to other foods I fixed prices far higher than representative consumers desired, with having surrendered to the agriculturists and with having been in the grip of the profiteer. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who by?"] The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) quite recently in the Labour Press, in relation to my fixing of the winter price of milk, said that this was the case of a Labour man having surrendered to the profiteer. On every Labour platform I have stood since I have seen fully the facts of this great food problem, I have expressed my deep sympathy with agriculturists, farmers, and food producers, and I have said what I repeat here, that it is clear to any mind or any person who troubles to understand this problem that agriculture has been one of the ill-treated and despised trades of this country. That those who have laboured as agriculturists and farm workers have not been sufficiently paid and properly treated is clear to all who have studied this problem. As a consumer, if as nothing else, I say that those of us who look for good food and good supplies of it should consent, whatever else we might neglect, to pay as consumers rates and prices for our food that will afford a good and reasonable return to those who have both their labour and capital invested in agriculture. I have not failed on that account in regard to want of sympathy in reference to any defect in the work of the Food Ministry.
  There is just one other personal point. The hon. Member complained that when a certain change took place in our policy with regard to pigs, I did not communicate with him. It was not my business to do so because he was the representative and the servant of the Board of Agriculture, and it would have been improper for me to have done so, or to have communicated with him upon such a matter, and it was not my duty as Food Controller to usurp that particular function. As to the general question of the Food Controller usurping the functions of the Board of Agriculture, the answer is that when the food situation reached the stage it did towards the end of 1916, it was decided by the Government, with the general assent of the House—and I do not know that any objection was taken then by my hon. Friend—to establish a Ministry
  2712
  of Food. That Ministry was given certain functions and duties, and we are exercising those functions and discharging those duties, but we are keeping in the closest touch and working in the warmest co-operation with the President of the Board of Agriculture and his representatives.
  On all Committees that have anything whatever to do with questions affecting food, cattle and prices, representatives of these two State Departments mingle together their stock of knowledge and usually reach agreed conclusions. The cases are rare where any action of the Ministry of Food is resented or disapproved of by the Board of Agriculture. Personally I do not fix prices, and I do not reach decisions on policy without communicating with the President of the Board of Agriculture. In cases where there are serious differences, and we find ourselves unable to agree, there usually is a Court of Arbitration, and that Court is the War Cabinet; and frequently the President and myself have been before it to place our respective views or make our joint appeal, as the case may be, and it has been by that process, before this supreme Court, so to speak, that decisions have been reached relating to questions like prices and our treatment of cattle. Certainly I have not usurped any of the functions exercised by the Board of Agriculture before the War, and for myself I shall be heartily glad to have my task lessened by a more equitable distribution, if that is seriously the desire of the House. I cannot claim to be master of such a mass of jobs as fall to the lot of the Food Controller, and if I was a complete farmer, in how many other respects would I be lacking in my understanding of scores—indeed, hundreds—of different questions which have to be handled by the Ministry of Food! No man can live a life long enough to make himself complete master of the bewildering number of subjects which come under the Ministry of Food.
  I will mention two or three points as illustrating what I think is a lack of point in some of the arguments and some of the charges which have been made by my right hon. Friend opposite. He complained by giving to the House an instance of super-grading by those who have been charged with the duty of grading cattle. This is done by sub-commissioners who were appointed as the result of experience. The House has had an opportunity

  2713
  of debating this matter, and the reasons were given. They were that it was quite possible for ordinary graders to err and they are not infallible, and there were defects and mistakes in grading discovered to such an extent that though we did not allege that there was any deliberate wrongdoing, yet clearly there were instances revealed to us calling for supervision, and this Commission was appointed for the purpose of checking and preventing mistakes in the interests of the consumer and the Government, and I think common experience has justified these appointments. Although there may be here and there an odd case of even a sub-commissioner himself being at fault, I say that, generally speaking, experience has fully justified the appointment of these representatives in the public interest.
  I was charged with not having foreseen what would arise from there not being adequate freezing apparatus and sufficient feeding-stuffs for cattle. I was charged with having surrendered to Mr. Hoover, and with having changed in a night the policy of the Food Ministry. I leave the House to test these charges by the answer. I do not want to prey on the feelings of hon. Members by allusions to the War, but the War so closely affects the question and is the cause of so completely upsetting our food programme for cattle that I must allude to it. I did not foresee in March last that the Germans would make such headway, or that they would get within 20 miles of Paris. I did not foresee that this country would lose such enormous quantities of munitions of war stores which were waiting to be used. I did not foresee that we would have to make good those errors and losses. I did not foresee in the months from March to August, during the period of the German advance, that we would require to bring over American soldiers at the rate of 300,000 a month, and that ships would be required for all that additional tonnage which the building up of an army carried over the sea means. I did not foresee all this, nor did Marshal Haig, nor Marshal Foch, but it is within the memory of the House that both these military leaders told us they could look with confidence to the German attack.
  5.0 P.M.
  All that means that a state of things was reached in this country in August, when the Cabinet, in spite of our appeals, upset the foodstuffs programme, insisted upon combing out more and more slaughtermen and butchers, and all those whose work in detail must be linked up with the
  2714
  larger aspects of the food problem. In August, when we went to get shipping facilities to bring in this cattle food, we were not opposed by Mr. Hoover nor the Allied representatives of other countries. We have an Inter-Allied Food Council, and the representatives of France, Italy, and America agreed with respect to the quantities of feeding-stuffs that we asked for, and those quantities I think, if I can trust my memory, were rather larger in bulk than were previously claimed by the representatives of the Board of Agriculture. We went before the Cabinet with our food programme when the military situation was such that in respect to our appeals the Cabinet decided that our food programme must be cut down. Naturally, we were compelled to begin, not with the food of men, but with the food of cattle. I know that the two are closely associated, and that it is important to feed cattle if we can in this country in order that the cattle may be turned into food for human beings; but, expressed as it had to be at that moment in terms of ships, it meant that it was more economical and more necessary as a military measure for us to import food from abroad than to import a much heavier weight of feeding-stuffs in order to produce food here in this country. We were faced with that situation, and the Cabinet had in sight the more supreme military reasons, reasons which have since been justified, and which have enabled us this week to rejoice at the War practically being brought to an end. The Cabinet, having reached those decisions, I think it can now be said that if the farmers of this country are told the truth they will not be likely further to complain of the policy of the Government at so critical and so supreme a moment. I am not going to pretend, nor do I think any hon. Member here would pretend, that the farmers, compared with any other class, are in such a situation that they cannot bear their full share of the burden imposed upon all classes by the War. I am not saying that they are not prepared to do so; but, patriotically as they have worked, and willing as they have shown themselves, our war measures, stern as they have been, have not placed the farming class under any greater disadvantage as regards this world's goods and the prospects of profit than any other class. The general state of admitted prosperity

  2715
  —relative prosperity, at any rate—amongst the farmers and food producers of this country is ample evidence that our measures have not treated them in any way prejudicially as compared with any other class in the country. It was not the ignorance of the Food Ministry; it was not a want of foresight on the part of the Ministry of Food; it was not the machinations of Mr. Hoover; and it was not the ambitions of those who wished to place us in the grip of the American Food Trust which caused this so-called reversal of policy—it was the supreme military necessity that drove the Cabinet at that critical moment into saying that whatever else came second, whatever else was lost, soldiers and munitions must come first, and ships must have the prior claim over everything else. Faced with that situation, I submit that no just complaint can be made against the action taken by the Ministry of Food.
  The hon. Gentleman who commenced this Debate gave two other instances in detail of unjust dealing with the farmers. He explained that the farmers made claims for supplies of damaged grain and appealed in vain. I am assured that in nine-tenths of the cases the claims are met. What is it that compels us to refuse in the tenth case? It is that where there is a shortage of a particular article there must be rationing. There must be arrangements for apportionments. You must issue licences. You must tick off and take the applications that are made with the quantities that are available in order to ascertain the quantities that should be conceded. That this causes dissatisfaction we well know. The wonder would be if in these times the farmers were not dissatisfied. Every class must of necessity be dissatisfied with the Regulations and Orders which war-time has entailed. My hon. Friend referred to a tax, or a levy as he termed it, amounting to some £4,000,000 or £5,000,000, which he said the farmers were compelled to pay practically for permission to sell their cattle. These charges merely take the place of other sums which cattle sellers have always had to pay in the way of market dues and auctioneers' charges. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If I am wrong in this respect, so are my advisers, and so are the agricultural experts and all those who know these questions as intimately as hon. Members can know them, for these things
  2716
  are done upon their advice and upon the strength of the customs which have prevailed in connection with the sale of cattle. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
  Mr. LOUGH: What does the Food Controller do with the large sums thus levied?
  Mr. CLYNES: There is a Live Stock Fund. Answers have often been given as to the centre to which all these moneys go and out of which the various charges in connection with this business of State cattle buying have to be met. Let me try to give the House one or two evidences of the policy of the Ministry during the course of this difficult and trying time of serious shortage of cattle food. I have tried as Food Minister to maintain supplies of human food at quantities equal to maintaining in reasonable comfort our home population. Next to that, or contingent upon that frequently, there have been sacrifices which we have had to make to supreme pressing and military considerations. For instance, it was never our desire to lessen in this country the number of coal miners or of slaughtermen, or of butchers, or of very important farming hands, which in turn brought great difficulties to the Food Ministry, but we could not have our way in face of these pressing military necessities. There have been financial considerations as well as the shipping considerations to which I have referred, and these drove us incidentally on to the nearest market—America—which inevitably was the dearest market. It would have been preferable to have gone further overseas and to have brought meat from Australia rather than to have given our patronage to such a considerable extent to America. Had shipping been available we could have secured the 1,700,000 tons of cattle feeding-stuffs for which we appealed in August last when we went before the Cabinet. I am not now revealing secrets. These things are really common knowledge, and I cannot understand how the hon. Gentleman who commenced this Debate seemed to be totally unaware of these more or less well-known facts. We failed to convince the Cabinet, and we were driven to the nearest market for reasons of quantity and for reasons of finance.
  Since August this feeding-stuffs programme has been further drastically reduced, bringing about the announcement which has to be made in relation to pigs. That announcement was travested in some

  2717
  newspapers and commented upon in others in a manner unfortunately to mislead certain pig-breeders. What we said was, that in view of this decision of the Cabinet we could not carry feeding-stuffs for pigs and that in view of the small stocks of cattle feeding-stuffs we could not guarantee the quantities after Christmas. It was then for those who had done their best to respond to the call that was made to them last May to face the consequences as we were compelled to face them. The appeal that was made in May to increase the supplies of food and to breed pigs was made before the August situation could possibly be known by anyone, and in this at least, I refuse to admit that there was any reasonable lack of foresight in estimating what the food situation would be. This drastic reduction in our minimum programme unexpectedly occurring within the last two months has created an extremely difficult position, but in face of the changed military situation relief, I believe, will not be long delayed. We have lost no time since the military situation changed and even before the Armistice was signed in pressing in the proper quarter the urgency of releasing ships for the purpose of increasing food production at home, and I shall be able to close, I think, with some consolation for those poor cottagers particularly and small pig owners who undoubtedly have laid out their few pounds in response to the national appeal and whose position ought to receive the greatest sympathy from the Government.
  It was early last month that the War Cabinet decided its policy in relation to the maintenance of munitions importations and determined that the importation of feeding-stuffs must be; so far restricted as to involve a possible serious rationing being applied to dairy herds and breeding stocks. These restrictions came upon us only because of overwhelming military necessity, and it was determined to inform the public, as we did, that after Christmas food for pigs could not be guaranteed. Meantime, in view of the change in the food situation, the restriction on the slaughtering of young pigs has been withdrawn. Instructions will now be given that in the allocation of additional feedingstuffs care shall be taken that cottagers and those who have joined pig clubs can secure a sufficient quantity of offals to enable them to fatten their pigs. Several relief measures have been taken. The price of cattle and sheep will be increased as from December on a graduated scale.
  2718
  The highest point will be reached in May, when the price will be 85s. per live cwt. That was a measure of mere justice, providing reasonable compensation to farmers who were obliged to keep back their cattle at a time when we could not guarantee feeding-stuffs for them and at a time when, had we consumed any increased ration, we should have endangered our prospects of even a slender ration during the beginning of next year.
  Sir F. BANBURY: What will be the price in December?
  Mr. CLYNES: The prices have been quite recently announced in the House, and can easily be referred to, but I have not the scale before me. I have only before me the highest price—85s. per cwt. The second measure that we propose to take—it has been authorised and approved by the Cabinet only this week, which shows that we have been urging these matters forward as well as we could—is in order to deal with the present heavy surplus of cattle from the grazing districts, estimated approximately at 18,000 head per week. Supplies have been first taken from these districts, and the markets in arable districts have been temporarily closed to local supplies. These markets are being supplied from adjacent grazing counties. Further, the use of barley for feeding-stuffs has been sanctioned by the Cabinet during the course of the day.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Does that 18,000 per week include Irish fat cattle?
  Mr. CLYNES: My impression is no, but I should not like to give a definite answer. The Cabinet, as I say, has sanctioned a contemplated release of barley, and arrangements are now being completed to release to the farmer 20 per cent. of each thrashing of barley, the remainder being allocated to manufactures, distilling, munition purposes, and stock owners who do not grow barley. On a rough estimate, this should make no less than 3,000,000 quarters of food available for the feeding of stocks. Again, in order to assist pig owners, the prohibition of the slaughter of pigs weighing less than 112 lbs. live weight, as I have intimated, has been withdrawn. The steps taken as regards closing markets in arable districts I have already announced, and they are quite in accordance with the recent recommendations of the War Emergency Committee of the Royal Agricultural Society.

  2719
  As a result of the relief in the tonnage situation afforded by recent military events, the Cabinet have sanctioned a reduction of the percentage of flour to be extracted from wheat. This alone will mean a release approximately of 18,000 tons of offal weekly to the farmers—food which will be in every respect finer than that commonly used. The House will see that as soon as there was a release from the critical period, and as soon as we were able to pursue further our demands for shipping on the Cabinet, the Cabinet, relieved of the military tension, has reasonably met the present needs of agriculturists and farmers. The rationing of individuals, to which my hon. Friend did not refer, was really a small thing in comparison with the larger task of practically rationing nations, and in order that that rationing should be carried out we have worked recently in connection with or through an inter-Allied Food Council. Food and feeding-stuffs were and are short, and unhappily for some time must remain short, and the scarcity was aggravated by unequal distribution. It was imperative, therefore, that these arrangements and this machinery should be set up so as to secure equitable distribution of whatever feeding-stuffs were available.
  We pooled practically our finances and our shipping as we have pooled our military resources as allied nations, and the farmers and agriculturists of this country are suffering no more severely—indeed, I would allege they are suffering less severely—than the farmers of France and of Italy. We have not been unmindful of their sufferings, and I do not think we have unfairly aggravated them by any want of foresight or by the absence of any policy that in the circumstances could have been pursued. The aim of the inter-Allied organisation is not absolutely limited by the War. We must continue, I think, to control supplies and prices until the normal demand is satisfied and prices reach a level commensurate with the wage-earners' purchasing power in this country. At the present time meat prices range from 1s. 5d. per lb. in this country to 4s. in some neutral countries. In Austria a pound of meat can be bought for 8s., and in Germany between 4s. and 5s. These are things which clearly have had their bearing on the recent military situation, and it is not too much to say that the Ministry of Food has by its policy and its inter-Allied
  2720
  purchasing arrangement, and the manner in which it has been able practically to monopolise the markets of the world outside Russia and the Central Empire, provided some of the factors which recently have brought about the happy military situation which has caused us to rejoice during the course of this week. Reference was made to the position of the American Meat Trust. I think my hon. Friend (Mr. Cautley) will not suspect me of any sympathy with a meat trust.
  Mr. CAUTLEY: I expressly said that I did not.
  Mr. CLYNES: Since we were compulsorily driven to that American market I have been as mindful as anyone of the unrest and the natural uneasiness of the farming class of this country as to what ultimately would be the effect of trading with the meat trust of America to any considerable extent. As to the extent of it, I am able to say that our recent purchases have not been more than about one-third of the total. There are very much larger quantities of meat, so far as we can bring them to this country, brought from other places than those supplied by the American Meat Trust. We did not trade with them for preference, but out of necessity. We have had before us as a Ministry the findings and recommendations of the American Parliamentary Commission appointed to investigate the position of the Meat Trust. Those recommendations have been placed before the President of America, and until he gives a decision it clearly would be improper for me to express myself further than I have already done. I have already pointed out that we are protected as far as we can be by the fact that we buy meat in the United States through the American Food Administration, and buy at exactly the same prices which they pay themselves for meat for their Army and Navy. Before the War we bought little meat in North America, and it has only been by economy of consumption that the United States has been able to supply our present demands. As I have said, we are not buying all the meat in America, and of the recent purchases, covering a total of more than 600,000 tons, not more than 200,000 tons were bought from the United States. Let me, as I close, refer to an aspect of this question which I trust will receive some sympathy from hon. Members. The question naturally is asked as to what relaxation of restrictions may be possible now

  2721
  that we have substituted armistice for hostilities. Victory imposes obligations on us as well as a state of war, and the duty of feeding the destitute countries is one of them, and it is a satisfaction to be able to announce that, in conjunction with Mr. Hoover, I was enabled to set up the inter-Allied organisation to which I have referred through which assistance can be rendered to the starving enemy—it is not too much to say that—and at the same time further continue to ourselves.
  Mr. J. O'CONNOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider the starving friend and Ally? Take, for example, Serbia.
  Mr. CLYNES: Certainly; I do not mean to give any preference to the starving enemy. The neutral and Allies certainly have our first claim. All I say is that before we substantially increase our own rations, or throw away our own coupons, there is an obligation which victory imposes of supplying the reasonable and immediate needs of the conquered foe. That is not a mere measure which humanity dictates, but is advisable as an act of self-protection, for if that were not done there would be indiscriminate buying at famine prices the world over. It would mean that we would be still further within the control of trusts, and those who are interested only in getting big prices. It is far better that for the common purposes of mankind there should be co-operative buying for the reasonable supplies of the feeding of the world. The needs of these starving nations are before the Ministry of Food, and steps are being taken, which we are satisfied will receive the approval of the country at large, in order that speedy relief may be given. I have already dealt with the matter of cattle, and now let me just touch on one very small matter, though it is of very great importance to some traders, and some people of particular tastes. Owing to the changed situation in respect of shipping, we believe before long we can secure supplies of apples, oranges and nuts, and certain fruits, and provide a much more agreeable Christmas table than we could last year. I submit to the House, whilst not having attempted any complete reply to all the arguments which I am certain are yet in the minds of hon. Members, nor so far as they have been uttered, that working under the stress we have, and being by no means our own masters, but mastered by greater forces than ourselves, we have shown no lack of
  2722
  sympathy with the agricultural community, and, if this be not accepted, I ask the House to accept the assurance and see our sympathy in the relief to the agricultural community to which I have committed myself in the announcements I have made.
  Mr. G. LAMBERT: My right hon. Friend has by his sympathetic speech relieved, I hope, some of the worst fears of those who are interested in the production of food. Personally, with the glorious news we have been rejoicing at, I propose to let bygones be bygones, and do not propose to twit him at all with his lack of foresight. I cannot think his defence even this afternoon has entirely exonerated the Ministry of Food from lack of foresight, but I am not dealing with that subject now, because, after all, we have all made blunders, and as we have all come out very well, let us let those blunders slide. There are one or two points to which I would direct the Food Controller's attention. Starvation evidently is the great question that has to be faced in Europe. You cannot combat starvation by a food controller; you must have food production, and I cannot understand why the President of the Board of Agriculture is not present, because, after all, the Board of Agriculture is especially charged with the problem of increasing food production in this country.
  The Food Controller himself, however sympathetic he may be, still must have the co-operation and the advice of the Board of Agriculture. One of our complaints is that he has not, taken that advice and that he has not worked in sufficient co-operation with the President of the Board of Agriculture in the matter of promoting production. I am far more interested in production than in the control of prices. It is production that we want to encourage entirely. The cost of living to-day bears with almost intolerable hardship upon people whose wages have not been commensurately increased—upon old age pensioners and especially upon people with small incomes, who have not benefited by this fictitious war prosperity. You cannot get a decrease in prices until you have increased production. I want to impress upon the Food Controller that he will not get an increase of food production by an enormous increase of officials. That is what we are complaining about in the country as much as anything—the enormous number of officials. We have to go to an official for this and to

  2723
  an official for that. Really we do not know-where we are. In fact, the two plagues from which the country and the country districts are suffering to-day are officials and influenza; both of which leave very debilitating influences behind them.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The officials are the worst.
  Mr. LAMBERT: The influenza is bad enough. May I put this question to the right hon. Gentleman? He stated that owing to the Cabinet's decision of August last shipping facilities for 1,700,000 tons of feeding-stuffs had to be cut off. How far do the concessions he has made this afternoon go to fill up that gap? It has a very important bearing for the stock-raising community. What the Food Control Department does not quite understand is that in farming operations you must have sufficient notice. You cannot produce beef or pork or even wheat without some months and, in some cases, years' notice. Therefore it would be a very great convenience to the agricultural community if the Food Controller himself or the Parliamentary Secretary would give us an assurance later on as to what these concessions which the Food Controller has adumbrated really amount to. Another thing I want to point out is that it is no use issuing these priority certificates in country places unless the stuff is there to supply the certificates. I hope things will be better now, but in our small village the other day several holders of these priority certificates for feeding stuffs for cattle went to the merchant and he had no stuff with which to supply them. He brought out a bundle of forms which he said they might have, but that was all. I hope that somebody will see—I do not know whether it is the business of the Food Controller or whose business it is—that when these priority certificates are issued the cattle-feeding foods shall be there to meet them when they are presented. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can guarantee that. Another point about which he did not give us information is whether shipping has been released for bringing cotton cakes and linseed to this country. Could he give us the information now? He told us that barley would be released and that the milling of flour would be greater, but has any shipping yet been released for the conveyance here of cotton seeds and other cattle-feeding cakes? The Food
  2724
  Controller said he had been pressing it upon the attention of the Cabinet, but has the Cabinet done this thing? That is what we want to know. After all, it was recommended by the Central Advisory Committee, and I want very earnestly to press home that recommendation, because I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the Government that these concentrated feeding stuffs are like the steel in the spearpoint. The farmers may have roots and potatoes, but they must have concentrated feeding stuffs in order to make their stuff fit for the market.
  Again, cannot the Food Controller reduce the high charges which are made upon the seller and so make the selling of bullocks and other animals cheaper. I think he said that these charges were only just as much as they were before. Let him believe me when I say he is very much mistaken. The auctioneers used to receive 2d. in the £1, that is to say, if you sold a bullock for £30 the charge was 5s., whereas the right hon. Gentleman's charges range up to £2, or something like that. This money is apparently going to maintain a large number of officials at the Food Ministry. Personally, I would far rather that the benefit went to the consuming public; it would be far better for everyone. Can the right hon. Gentleman reduce those charges? It would give a great deal of satisfaction to the farmer to know that the money of which he was mulcted in respect of the sale of his stock was not going into the pockets of a large number of officials. I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his announcement that the farmers may use their home-grown barley to some extent for feeding cattle. May I ask another question which does not relate entirely to the Food Controller, but which does affect food production: What about the supply of manures to farmers? I have no doubt my right hon. Friend cannot give me any information on that point, but we have a grievance against the Board of Agriculture for not being represented here this afternoon to answer these questions. Another matter which has been the subject of a great deal of circumlocution is the getting hold of a supply of labour. I am still on the point of food production. If you want to get home key-men, it really takes a scythe to cut away the red-tape that envelopes them. I made an application recently, and I was first told to go to the Ministry of National

  2725
  Service. I went there, and I was told to go to the War Office. I went to the War office, and they referred me to the Ministry of Labour. I went to the Ministry of Labour, and was referred back to the Ministry of National Service again in order to get this man back. It is the business of the Food Controller, who is responsible for the food position in the country, to impress upon the authorities that if they want production we must have labour, and the sooner we can get this labour home the better it will be for all concerned. The Government might have given us some assurances on this point.
  I regret that the Treasury Bench is so meagrely attended this afternoon, because this is a real problem, and it is going to be a real one for many months to come. Probably it will be quite as acute in February, March, and April as it is today. I do make complaint that we have not had a representative of the Board of Agriculture here to tell us something about one or two mutters I have mentioned, and especially with regard to one question which is of primary importance, namely, the getting home of some labour to put in the crops for next year's consumption. There is one further point I would like to put to the Food Controller, as it directly concerns him. He has fixed the price of milk at 2s. 3d. per gallon. I suggest to him that it would be well—here I appear rather against the interests of some of my Constituents who are producers—if he could allow the local food committee to fix the price of milk, because in rural districts the 2s. 3d. per gallon for milk is a price which ought really not to be paid. I say that because there are so many people who have to consume milk. If I were the right hon. Gentleman, I would really leave it as a matter of local government to the local food committees to ensure that there is a sufficient supply of milk in their districts; then I think they would fix the price at a figure much lower than it is now and would also ensure an ample supply. I throw out that suggestion to my right hon. Friend. I thank him very much for the concessions that he has granted this afternoon, and I trust he will not think I have been guilty of personally criticising him. I have endeavoured to impress upon him, as I do upon everybody, the fact that food production is vitally essential to the mation in the months to come.
  Major LANE-FOX: Before dealing with the main subject of the Debate, I should like to refer to a remark made by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. G. Lambert), when he urged the Food Controller to further reduce the price of milk.
  Mr. LAMBERT: I urged him to leave it to the local food committee.
  Major LANE-FOX: I hope that the Food Controller will do nothing of the kind. I am not speaking on behalf of the producers in saying this, but I know that the most anxious question in the whole food situation, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, in the West Riding of Yorkshire is how to maintain the supply of milk. There is every prospect of there being a milk famine in the spring. Already, owing to other causes, such as the shortage of labour and feeding-stuffs, there is a reduction in the stock of dairy cattle, and a great many farmers are seriously considering going out of the milk business altogether. If that happens, and a further reduction is made, there is a grave danger in the industrial districts of a milk famine. Many of the local food committees do not know their own interests, and it is impossible for them to realise what is likely to happen. I had something to do with bringing a deputation to see the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman on this very subject. We went most carefully into all the figures of production. Although I admit that, in certain cases in rural districts in the south, the prices may be higher than is necessary, in the northern districts, especially where vegetation is bad owing to smoke and other causes, it is impossible to sell at a price which yields any sort of reasonable profit below that which is fixed now. I am not speaking on behalf of farmers, but with the knowledge I have of the very grave anxiety of the Food Ministry's own local officials with regard to the situation that might arise if there is a milk famine in the West Riding.
  The right hon. Gentleman's announcements of the so-called concessions which he has been able to make have made his position a very pleasant one, and have put us all in a very good humour. I am the last person to wish to attack him personally. I recognise the excellent work that he has done, and no one can deny that in carrying out the rationing of food for the population of this country, the Ministry has been wonderfully successful. It is

  2727
  enormously creditable to him and those who work with him. As long as he has stuck to his own job he has been a magnificent success, and I very much hope—I am sure he did not wish to trench upon the work of the Board of Agriculture—that at the earliest possible moment he will try to shed all such encroachments on their work, and that he will realise that his chance of fame hereafter depends on sticking to his own immediate job, the control of food, rather than the control of production. The control of production should be in the hands of the Board of Agriculture. He said one thing about farmers which, although he did not intend it to be unfair, was not strictly accurate. He suggested that farmers have had a pretty good time, in spite of the difficulties and drawbacks which the War brought upon them, and were a little inclined to complain unduly. I do not think that is a fair statement to make. Farmers have had a good deal to put up with. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman would suggest that they have been profiteers. He knows better than that, although it has been unfairly and very ignorantly said in many cases. But I do not think it is fair to say they have been complaining unduly of the various drawbacks which have come to them through the operation of the War. They have had a great deal to complain of, and have borne it extraordinarily well—the constant shifting of policy and the constant change of Orders which come out day by day. After all, the farmer is not accustomed to shifting his policy or to reading fresh Orders. He is not looking at the newspapers every day seeing exactly what the policy of the Food Controller is, and the whole thing has been most harassing and difficult. Farmers deserve the greatest credit for the way they have borne all these things. The right hon. Gentleman has told us of certain improvements in the situation which, owing to the change in the military position, will now be possible. I hope he will not delay it, because the situation is really very urgent. It is only very slightly a question of the farmers' profits. It is very largely a question of the maintenance of the live stock of the country. One point which is very obvious, though it has not been mentioned, is the absolute necessity of keeping up the stock of cattle on the farm in order to maintain the fertility of the soil. If we allow live stock and cattle to go down we shall inevitably destroy the fertility of the soil.
  2728
  We are all talking about the number of men we hope to be able to put on the land after the War. If we starve the soil first and then put the men on it, we shall starve the men after the War.
  The right hon. Gentleman has had a fairly easy task, because he has been able to turn on to the pleasant announcements with which he finished his speech, and thereby left out some of the charges which have been made against his office. I do not wish to be ungenerous. We are all smiling over the announcements he has been able to make, and I do not wish to go back on his statement, but I do not want the House or the public outside to-have the impression that the speeches which have been made have no justification. We have had no explanation of the local butcher who became a supergrader. We have had no explanation why better provision was not made for a situation which must have been obvious months ago—the situation of the surplus cattle coming into the market all at the same time. I merely say that in justification of my hon. Friends who have raised these questions. They have not been answered and there is considerable justification for bringing them up. I am sure the rural community will be enormously relieved when they hear the announcement which the right hon. Gentleman has been able to make. If the situation had gone on any longer disastrous results would have happened. Above all things I hope he will get these measures passed on without delay and will impress on the Cabinet, as far as he can, the absolute vital necessity of maintaining our live stock, and above all, maintaining our milk supply, owing to the great danger of industrial unrest if it comes to a milk famine. If the Ministry of Food and the Board of Agriculture between them can do something at the earliest possible moment to get key men back to agriculture they will do more for maintaining the success of the Department than any other measure-which could be adopted.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes) in announcing the concessions he was prepared to make has said nothing about cake. I should like to ask what he proposes to do with regard to cake. I found very great difficulty first of all in obtaining the form necessary to apply for cake from the merchants from whom I generally purchase it. I had a short interview with the right hon. Gentleman and then I wrote

  2729
  to the Department, but it took at least ten days before I got an answer. Then I had to write to the merchants and then I had to receive the forms, so that nearly three weeks elapsed from the time I first wanted cake before I could fill up the forms and send them to the merchant. Then I found I was only allowed 8 cwts. I wanted to give it to thirty-two calves about six months old. I should have had to fetch it from the station to my farm. I have never had less than 2 tons at a time, for two reasons. First of all, you got cheaper railway freight, and secondly, a wagon and a man and two horses will take 2 tons. I had to send a wagon, a man, and a horse to fetch 8 cwts. You have only to see the number of times 8 cwts. will go into 2 tons to see that there would be several occasions on which I should have to send a cart, a horse, and a man, at a time when labour is very scarce and horses are scarce; and once you get a man and a cart to the station you do not get him back much before the close of the day. I should have to waste a whole day, when I could get all the amount I want in one day. The result was that I did not have anything at all. I made up my mind I would go without. I wish to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman that farmers do not give their animals more food than is necessary. You can trust them. If you allow them a certain amount, they will not waste it. It is against their interest to waste it. There seems to be an idea in the official mind that a farmer will out of malice prepense use a greater quantity than is necessary. That is a very great mistake. Also cattle should have a certain ration every day, and you must have a certain spare amount of food in stock, because if you have not, and you are delayed in getting a fresh quantity in owing to delays on the railway or any other cause, and have to alter the ration of the cattle, the result is disadvantageous. You must always have a certain amount of stock in hand to bridge over the period when you are getting more stock. That does not seem to have occurred to the officials of the Food Department. I hope they will remember, first of all, that the farmer does not want to waste his food. He is anxious in his own interests to use as little as possible consistent with keeping his cattle in proper health or fattening them, as the case may be. Secondly, he cannot afford to be constantly sending to the station for small quantities. As far
  2730
  as I can make out from the forms which have been sent to me, no provision has yet been made for sheep. Ewes must have a little cake when they are suckling their lambs next month, but no provision has as yet been made for that.
  I want to say a word about the super-grader. The right hon. Gentleman, as I understood him, said it was necessary in the interests of the country to appoint a super-grader because errors had arisen in grading. There has been very great feeling amongst people who had had cattle to send to market with regard to grading, and if it is in consequence of suspicion of that sort that he has appointed a super-grader, I do not know that I have anything to say except to ask what proof he has that the super-grader is any better than the existing graders. As far as I understand, the super-grader who has been appointed in the particular instance brought forward was a butcher. Why should one butcher be better than another? Butchers are the people who have been a little suspect in this matter as graders. I do not see that you are going to improve matters by setting one butcher to watch another. I do not quite know why, unless the right hon. Gentleman's Department was a little ashamed of the business of the particular gentleman in question, they refused to state his occupation. It is a very important matter because you are putting into the hands of two or three men at each market a very great power to influence the business and the profits of their neighbours, I admit it is a very difficult thing to get people who have a thorough knowledge of the grading of cattle who can be trusted to carry it out in a fair and impartial manner. It is one of the difficulties of the situation. But if these people are not doing it properly, the right thing to do is to get rid of them and to put some one else in their place, not to leave them there and put someone else over them.
  6.0 P.M.
  I understand the Minister for Agriculture has had a family bereavement, and that is the reason he is not here to-day. He said he would come down to listen to the case I wanted to bring before him, but I thought I could not possibly ask him to come cm such an occasion, and therefore I shall be obliged if the right hon. Gentleman will communicate my remarks to him. I have a letter from Colonel Turner, who is a landowner in Wiltshire and a magistrate for the county and has been acting Chief Constable. He informs me that he had a dispute

  2731
  with the Wiltshire Agricultural Committee about a year ago. He entered into possession of a farm of about 720 acres at Lady Day this year, the tenant having left the farm. He desired to keep a portion of it, and the house, for the occupation of his; son, who is an officer in the Army. The rest he let on a grazing term of six months to a neighbouring farmer with the exception of about 58 acres let on permanent tenure. The Wiltshire Agricultural Committee took the farm away from him and took that portion of the land which was let on a six months' grazing tenancy away from the tenant. They then proceeded to stock it, and according to his statement, it was stocked with the cattle of one of the sub-committee who had come down and recommended that the farm should be taken away from him. It was then let to a nephew of one of the members of the committee. In the first place, they took the farm away from him then they prevented his son, who is in the Army, occupying the farm, they turned out the grazing tenant and let the farm, according to Colonel Turner's statement, to a gentleman who is supposed to be a nephew of one of the sub-committee who recommended that he should be turned out of the farm, and they stocked it with the cattle of one of the members of the committee. Colonel Turner, feeling aggrieved at the treatment he had received from the war agricultural executive committee, instructed his solicitors to bring the facts before the notice of the President of the Board of Agriculture, which they did, and a reply was received to the effect that what the executive committee had done was in order and that any claim for loss must be referred to the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission. On the 10th June application was made to the Committee for forms, but they were not received until the 23rd September. If you take a man's property and tell him he may claim compensation you might at any rate give him the forms with which to make application a little quicker than the space of time between the 10th June and the 23rd September. The amount of the valuation of tillages between him, the Committee and their tenant was received by the Committee last July, but they have not paid Colonel Turner anything. Colonel Turner asked for the farm to be inspected, because he says it is being very badly-farmed at the present moment. He tells
  2732
  me that the hayricks have never been thatched and that they have been spoilt owing to the incessant rain, but notwithstanding this they have been sold to the Government at the top prices. He says the corn ricks have never been thatched, and that the corn has been spoilt. Colonel Turner asked the Board of Agriculture to send someone to look at the farm, and the reply he got was that the farm had been inspected in July and could not be inspected again. I think that a case of this sort ought to be brought to the notice of the Board of Agriculture, because it is not conducive either to the good cultivation of the land or to the security of property if people are treated in this way. If the agricultural committees are to do these things, they ought to-be careful that no member of the committee benefits, directly or indirectly, from their action.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: The Food Controller has said that his Department have not aggravated the conditions of the farmers, by want of notice. I cannot agree with him in that statement, because it appears to me quite evident, and I think it appears evident to any hon. Member who represents, either in Leicestershire, Yorkshire, Devonshire, or elsewhere, grazing districts, that the want of knowledge shown by the Food Controller as to the numbers of cattle that would be fat in the fall of the year shows absolute ignorance and has led to this want of notice. I cannot understand, if they had knowledge, that they would not have made provision for the present condition of affairs. It is evident to me, and to every man in this House, that they had no knowledge whatever of the number of cattle that, after the grass season, would come fit for slaughter from the middle of October to the middle of November. The result is that they have restricted the number of cattle fit for the butcher that could be slaughtered and the number of cattle that could be slaughtered per week. The excuse given by the Food Controller is that they desire that the supply of beef after Christmas should be kept up. To any man with any practical knowledge at all of the situation, either in this country or in Ireland, a more ridiculous excuse was never made by any responsible Minister. Two days ago I asked the hon. Member for Plymouth (Major Astor) whether any calculation had been made by the Food Control Department as to the loss that would be incurred in a beast of 10 to 11 cwt. from the middle

  2733
  of October to the middle of November—when it was fit for slaughter then—if it had to be kept over on bare pasturage without cake or without any other concentrated food until he relaxes his present Regulation. I asked what the loss of food would be, and how much the beast would reduce in weight and in grade. The hon. Member said that that was too hypothetical a question for him to make a calculation about. Anybody who represents a grazing district knows that a beast in the middle of October fit for the butcher, weighing 12 cwt., to be kept for the next two months until after Christmas on a bare pasturage without cake or without any other concentrated food, will not weigh 12 cwt., but will lose before Christmas every bit of increased weight it has put on since the 1st of May. The whole of the beef will run off the beast, and on the 1st of January you will have a store beast. You will undoubtedly have skin and bone, but you will have very little beef.
  I cannot understand how an intelligent man like the Food Controller, and how intelligent men like those who were associated with him in his Department, can for a moment imagine that they are going to increase the beef supply after Christmas by preventing cattle on grazing farms that are now fit for slaughter to be sold and used for food. The hon. Member who opened this Debate reminded the Food Controller of the condition of affairs that exists in England in the grass districts. There is no farm steading here, and it is so in all the grazing districts in Ireland. There is practically no farmsteading. No matter how willing the farmers on the grass farms in this country or in Ireland may be to help the Food Controller to prevent a beef famine in the spring months of the coming year it is out of their power to do so. They have no steading to keep them and no concentrated food to give them. Neither the Food Controller nor anybody connected with his Department had any previous knowledge how, under ordinary circumstances after the 1st November, fat cattle were kept on grass farms. True, they were kept on very often until Christmas on grass farms by giving them cake and other concentrated food, which was necessary if you wanted to keep them. The grass farmers will be only too delighted to assist the right hon. Gentleman in his desire to avert the beef famine after Christmas, but there is no cake or concentrated foodstuffs to give the cattle. I
  2734
  cannot understand why it is that the English people are deprived of excellent beef now when it is fat. It will not be beef in the next few months; the cattle will be nothing more than store cattle.
  What is the loss to the farmer? The right hon. Member has told us that he is doing nothing to aggravate their condition. May I point out that if he continues to keep this regulation in force the effect on every grass farmer who has land that will make cattle fat will be that before he can turn his cattle into cash he will lose his profit for the whole year. The right hon. Gentleman does not appear to have realised that. He prevents the people of this country from having excellent beef now, but he does not conserve the beef supply by what he is doing; he deliberately deprives the grass farmers of this country and in Ireland of the usual profit of their occupation. We have more than that to complain about. One hon. Member who has spoken said that owing to the nature of agriculture you cannot make sudden changes. You must give farmers a reasonable warning if you are going to make great changes in their industry. It may be necessary to make changes in the stress of the time we have gone through, but unless you give them warning it is impossible for the farmers to comply with the condition. No such warning has been given in this case. If the right hon. Gentleman knew last May the numbers of cattle that were to be fat now, he ought to have given the farmers, five or six months ago, some warning as to what the condition of affairs would be, and then the farmers in this country and in Ireland would not find themselves in their present condition. On the question of sudden notice, I may say that the exporters and the farmers in Ireland had no notice whatever of the changes that the right hon. Gentleman was about to make. There was not a port in Ireland, Dublin, Dundalk, Newry, Waterford, or other ports from which fat cattle are shipped to this country in which, through want of notice of the sudden change, large numbers of cattle were not held up in the hands of the exporters who had taken them from the farms ready to be shipped. There was not a single port in Ireland where numbers of these cattle were not held up, and it meant almost ruin to some of the exporters dealing in these cattle. They could not send the cattle back to the farmers from whom they had first purchased them. They had to keep them in

  2735
  the yards and supply them with hay, and very often with very indifferent hay. It is perfectly obvious that these cattle could not maintain their condition. They were held two or three weeks before they could be shipped, with the result that enormous losses were incurred by the exporters because of a little want of prescience on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. If he had given a week or two weeks' notice he might have avoided all these difficulties.
  He says he has not gone out of his way to inflict unnecessary suffering or unnecessary hardship upon anybody. I say he has. It may not be intentional with him; I do not suppose it was; but it was due to the fact that, whatever other qualities the right hon. Gentleman possesses to deal with the food question of this country, it is lamentably true that he was absolutely ignorant of every condition with regard to farming and the farming industry. A short time ago I sent the Department the result arrived at by a very considerable conference of the South Kildare Farmers' Association. South Kildare is an agricultural constituency, and North Kildare is a grazing constituency, and the calculation made by these practical men was this, that, taking the present prices—store prices—on the 1st November at 70s., and with the increase of 13s. per cwt., a 10-cwt. beast on 1st November would in April probably weigh about 12 cwt., live-weight, and, allowing for the 2 cwt. increase in weight, it would not be sufficient to compensate them for the feeding of the cattle, taking cake, where it is available, I think it is £22 10s. a ton, and making a low calculation, the attendance per beast during 150 days, the calculation was that it would be only 1d. per week. I think that was a very low calculation. The hon. Member, in reply to a question, said that did not show that the present prices were the increased prices. The calculation was made at the time the official price was 80s. per cwt. The conclusion they came to was this, that a beast of 10 cwt. on the 1st November to be sold in April at 80s. weighing 12 cwt., calculating the ordinary market price for hay, for straw, for cake, for turnips—only £19 per ton—that the loss per beast would be £3 1s. 5d. The hon. Member says, "Yes, but the increase of 3s. will largely obviate that loss, and we cannot increase the price." He did not refute the calculation, he did not pretend to say that it was wrong, he rather by inference admitted that it was quite correct. I want to ask
  2736
  him this. Are the farmers in this country and Ireland the only industry that you expect to work for the State at a loss? I know no other industry that has been working for the State during these times at a loss. On the contrary, several are infinitely richer to-day than on the day when war broke out. I know some people myself whose banking accounts on the day War was declared were rather slender, but who now have two or three motor-oars. [HON. MEMBERS: "Irish."] English, I am sorry to say; I wish they were Irish. I understood from the Food Controller that 18,000 cattle per week is what he calculates to be going to the market about this time. I did not quite follow the calculation he was making, and I asked him if that included the 4,500 fat cattle which is the maximum which we are now allowed to export per week from Ireland. He said he thought it did not. I should like to know if he will tell us what are the actual numbers which are going to be permitted to be slaughtered per week in Great Britain, also whether it includes that 4,500 fat cattle from Ireland. Considering that the usual Dublin weekly market, held every Thursday at this time of the year has about 7,000 cattle, that shows you are dealing with a good deal more than half the cattle which is shown per week in the Dublin market. That 4,000 has nothing in the world to do with cattle in the provinces or in the province of Ulster. They go to other markets. The Dublin market is largely made up of cattle which come from the province of Leinster alone. I do not want the House to understand that 7,000 fat cattle is the total number produced in Ireland. That 7,000 a week is the number usually shown in one market—the Dublin cattle market. We are restricted now to 4,500, but he says, "You can export as many as you like," meaning, send them to a store market in England. I think that is extremely unfair to the Irish farmer. It means this, that an Irish farmer who has fat cattle, and must get rid of them at this time of the year because he has no keep, must take his chance of what he can sell, and as for the others, he can send there here to a store cattle market. That means that an English farmer can buy the Irish farmer's fat cattle at store cattle prices. Is that equal treatment? Is not that differentiation? I am glad the Chief Secretary is here. The right hon. Gentleman always boasts about equal

  2737
  treatment, and says that the Irishman gets as good as the Englishman does under British rule and administration. He does not. I do not know whether the Chief Secretary has a voice of sufficient influence in the present Government to have these matters changed.
  Major WOOD: He is in the same position as the English farmer.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman makes a mistake. I agree that if the English farmer can by no possibility keep them, then the Irish farmer is in the same position. But I think my hon. Friend here was talking more as I was of the Irish grass farmer than he was of the farmer in the agricultural districts. But an English farmer who has a sufficient supply of farm steading and of roots can buy Irish fat cattle at store prices in the markets here. He can put them into his steading and can keep them on. I say that that is unfair, and is differentiation against the Irish farmer, and in favour of the English farmer.
  Colonel ROYDS: Sell them to an Irishman instead of an Englishman.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: That is the difficulty, because we have not the steading, we have no housing accommodation as you have here, and that is our difficulty in keeping cattle on during the winter. I admit that steadings on some English farms are just as scarce. I have been in Leicestershire more than once, and I observed extremely little steading, if any at all. I ask the Food Controller that if, after this Debate, they should find it necessary to make any other changes in their regulations, they should give the farming community some decent notice about it. It is of most vital importance to the farming industry that when changes are made they should get sufficient notice of what those changes are. I hope that he will be able to see his way to increase the price of meat in the month of April. I do not think there will be a large supply of beef in the month of April. Last year we were told over and over again that the prices fixed for February, March and April would be sufficient to safeguard a supply, and to ensure a supply of beef in this country during these months. But what happened? We all know that during the spring months of last year a beef famine existed, due no doubt somewhat to the shortage of food, but largely due to the fact that farmers
  2738
  did not see their way to feed cattle during these five or six months, and sell them at control prices. I know one man, a friend of mine, who usually fed a considerable number of cattle every winter, and who, last year, did not put in a beast. The reason he did not tie up a beast was, as he said to me, that he was certain that the control prices, instead of meaning a profit to him, meant a dead loss. The same thing, in my opinion, will largely occur unless the Food Controller increases the April and the May prices above 83s. and 80s. I know that he desires to keep food as cheap as possible; but which is better, for the working population and all classes—that you should have a sufficient supply of food at a high price or no food at all at what you may call a reasonable price? What is the use of a reasonable price for beef if you have none? Another question I want to ask is: What about the price of sheep in the spring? Some time ago the regulation was that there should be an all-round increase, a flat rate of 5s. per head per sheep, no account whatever being taken of the relative weight. I pointed out to the hon. Member what that meant. It meant on a big Roscommon wether in the month of March a halfpenny per pound, while on a short-woolled wether of 60 lbs. it meant a penny per pound. This is another instance of the want of knowledge of a practical kind in reference to farming on the part of the Food Controller, and it means differentiating in favour of the lightweight short-woolled breeds as against the heavyweight long-woolled breeds of sheep. I am not quite sure as to what the regulation is now, if the regulation is to work out fairly all round it ought to be an increase of so much per pound. I wish to know what the spring regulation about the price of sheep is to be. Is it to be a penny, or a halfpenny, or how much per pound over last year's spring price? Does the hon. Member not see that when you allow a flat rate-that was the first proposal—of 5s. per head next spring over last year's spring price it is not fair to all sheep breeders, and that it operates in favour of the man who breeds lightweight, short-woolled varieties and penalises the sheep breeder who breeds long-woolled heavyweight sheep?
  My hon. Friend here says what about the price of wool? You want more wool, and in order to get it you put a premium on the sheep that produces the least wool

  2739
  and penalise the breed of sheep that produces the most. But that kind of thing on the part of any Government Department does not surprise me. These are questions to which I would like the hon. Member to address himself. He told me the other day that there was going to be no controlled price for malt, and that a committee was to be set up consisting partly of maltsters and partly of brewers to fix the price of malt. Are the barley growers and producers to have any say in this matter? If not, it is quite clear that their interests will not be represented by the maltsters and brewers, and will be forgotten, while the interests of the maltsters and brewers will be remembered. Then I would like the hon. Member to tell us when he is going to remove the restriction of 4,500 head of cattle from Ireland per week, as a settlement of this question is the greatest necessity in Ireland at present. These cattle are wasting, losing flesh; they will be worth from £4 to £5 per head less in a few months than they are now. Meantime you are depriving the English people of food. You are restricting the quantity of beef that is there available for them, and you are not conserving it. You are losing it by wasting it. The weather is washing it away. An hon. Member says that you have too much of it already, but have you so much of it that you want to waste it, because that is exactly what you are doing? You are getting rid of it by waste instead of allowing people to eat it. I hope that the hon. Member will direct his attention to the state of Ireland in reference to these matters when he comes to speak.
  Sir F. BLAKE: I have been asked by farmers in my own Constituency in which which I live to protest in their name against the appointment of the super-grader and his action. I listened to what the Food Controller said on this subject, and I do not think that it gave satisfaction to the House. He dealt with the matter in a very superficial way, and gave no justification for the appointment and existence of these officials. I hope that when the hon. Gentleman comes to reply he will tell us something more than we have hitherto heard of the abuses which were alleged, which the appointment of these gentlemen is supposed to check. I cannot imagine a better method for ascertaining the quality of a bullock than by asking those who feed him and those who
  2740
  buy him, each of them, to appoint one of their most experienced and trusted members, and, with the auctioneer as arbitrator in case of dispute, to leave it to them to fix a fair live-weight of the animal. I do not know why that method is departed from. I should like very much to know what are the dangers which a super-grader is meant to check into which the super-grader himself is not likely to fall. Why was this method of dealing with the subject adopted at all? Why were these committees set up? I understood that they were set up to avoid the very perils and dangers that are likely to be incurred by the appointment of a suitable arbitrator, such as has been appointed now—that they were set up to avoid all difficulties and dangers and suspicions which are likely to be engendered in the minds of those who have to take the judgment and decision of a single arbitrator. Surely it is going back upon that wise decision practically to appoint somebody who overrides the decisions of those who have been set up for the purpose, of avoiding these one-man judgments. It is asking too much of any man. It is not a super-grader you want for a business of this sort, it is a super-man.
  I defy any man—and anybody who knows anything about agriculture, and, at all events, anybody who knows anything about stock-breeding will bear me out—to come down and say, of a particular animal, when it has been valued at, Bay, 74s. or 75s. a cwt. live-weight, to say, "It is not worth 75s. It is only worth 74s.," or "If it is worth more than 75s., it is worth 76s." It is mere speculation, mere guesswork, and does not commend itself to those who have to take the verdict of the man who purports to give such a decision. It is not a position in which any man ought to be put. Just to give the House an instance of the difficulties in these matters: I heard, the other day, that two bullocks were brought into the market that I know. They were exactly the same weight, 11 cwt. apiece. They were graded exactly in the same grade and valued at the same price—75s., or whatever it was—and the butcher who was there, a man of great experience, was given his choice of the two and he picked out that which he thought was the better, and another man got the other animal. But when the animals came to be killed that which was supposed to be the better, which was taken by the butcher who got his choice, killed 6 stone less than the supposed inferior

  2741
  animal. That is an instance of the impossibility of anybody coming in and checking the considered judgment of two or three people who have been specially appointed for the purpose. It may seem a small matter to the right hon. Gentleman and those who are associated with him, but it is just one of these pinpricks which they ought to try to avoid. I know, from what has been said to me on many occasions, that farmers and butchers alike look upon this as questioning or impugning their honesty and throwing doubt upon their judgment. I do hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will look into the matter, and that, if he is satisfied, as I am sure he will be, that their work on the whole has been honestly and fairly done, though there may occasionally be errors of judgment, and that the appointment of these people over them to check these errors is unnecessary and leads to distrust, friction, and a want of that co-operation which is just as necessary now as it was at the most strenuous times of the War, he will cease making these appointments and do what he can to withdraw those which have already been made.
  Mr. W. NICHOLSON: My hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Cautley) called the attention of the Food Controller to the new duty which has lately been imposed upon home-grown beef of 11s. 4d. per cwt. When the right hon. Gentleman replied to my hon. Friend he rather passed over the question of this duty and stated that he did not think that any duty which had been imposed by the Food Controller had in any way placed the farmer in a worse position that he was in before. I differ entirely from the right hon. Gentleman. This tax is having a great effect on the price of low grade cattle, and it is going to have a greater effect in the future. I shall give the House an instance of the effect on low-grade cattle. On the 16th October last four dairy cows were sent in by a farmer to Petersfield Market, and were put into the fourth grade before the tax was imposed on animals, and at that time they would fetch as much as 42s. per cwt. After the tax was imposed butchers were not anxious to buy fourth-grade cattle, because they were to some extent unaware of what the tax might be on the cattle which they bought. When these cows were brought into the market the other day and put up to auction the four cows, which originally
  2742
  had cost their owner £50 each, were sold for the large sum of £2 each. That is where the 11s. 4d. tax comes in. The purchaser of those four cows had to pay £8 in the market, and the Food Controller comes down and charges a duty of £20 8s. on them. In fact, the Food Controller has imposed upon the food of the people of this country a tax of 250 per cent. of the value of the cattle. I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether it is not the fact that the Food Controller in the past has prosecuted various people for profiteering, and whether in this case the farmer is guilty of profiteering for having sold what originally cost £50 for £2, or whether, on the other hand, the Food Controller is profiteering by imposing a tax of 250 per cent. on the price of cattle sold in the open market? I hope that the Food Controller will give his attention to this very important matter, because a large number of cattle are now being brought into market. If the number is beyond the quota allowed to the particular market they have to be sent back, if they cannot be sent to London to be slaughtered and put into cold storage. Having been sent back they come up, perhaps, in a month's time and will be classed in the fourth-grade, and consequently the farmer will lose, especially if a large number of cattle become classified in that grade.
  Another important point is that within the last few months I understand the Food Controller is closing some of the markets for fat cattle. For instance, I understand that at the next market to be held at Winchester no beasts will be allowed, and the week afterwards no mutton will be allowed. I am told that in some cases markets are being closed altogether both for cattle and sheep. The tax will, therefore, fall all the harder upon farmers in the future, and I am not at all surprised that there is a very great deal of discontent expressed by farmers in the markets at the present time with this 11s. 4d. tax per cwt. There is then the question of dealing with damaged grain. The farmer has to take a sample of damaged grain to an inspector. A short time ago a farmer had a certain amount of damaged rye. A sample was taken to an inspector at Winchester who said he could not deal with it, but that it must be sent on to another inspector at Reading, and some days afterwards the farmer received a certificate from Reading and across it was written in pencil "fit for human food." The farmer was quite sure it was not fit for human food. He took

  2743
  another sample to Winchester and the inspector said, "An inspector will be sent from Reading to inspect this rye." The inspector eventually did arrive, inspected the rye, and found it was totally unfit for human food. The farmer then received a telegram from Heading to say that the rye which had been considered fit for human food was not so fit, and that it might be disposed of for animal food. From the time the first sample was submitted until the matter was disposed of there was an interval of three weeks. I do not know what is going to happen in that instance, but I understand where a farmer receives a certificate that damaged corn is fit for human consumption, he had then to apply to the Food Controller to reimburse him to the full value of the rye, or 75s. 6d. per quarter. I strongly object to the taxpayer to have to pay for the faults of the food control office or of its inspectors.
  I sincerely trust that the Food Controller will reconsider the whole question of allowing farmers to use their damaged corn. I believe if you were to do away with those inspectors who are running about the country in motor cars and doing no good work, and if you were to ask the farmers of the country to save the corn which is fit for human consumption, and on the other hand, allow them to use whatever damaged corn they had without asking any further question, you would find far more corn saved, and the farmers in a better condition than they are at present. Farmers have been simply hustled and harried by the Food Control Office for the last few months and for the last few years, and I am quite sure if the Food Control Office wish to get on better with the farmers of this country than they have done in the past, the best thing they can do is to withdraw as many as possible of the restrictions which they have imposed and reduce their officials to a mere fraction of what they are at present.
  Major PEEL: I do not think that the answer of the Food Controller to my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Cautley) was quite so satisfactory as seems to have been thought by some hon. Members. The whole gist and substance of the right hon. Gentleman's argument was that he did not foresee, and that he could not have foreseen, the crisis which has arisen with regard to feeding-stuffs. His reason was that in March of this year an unforeseen military
  2744
  crisis arose and that they were short of shipping and short of men and short of other supplies, and that, in his own words, he was helpless in the face of an overwhelming military situation. Surely all those who follow the important question of agriculture in this House must remember, and I have no doubt do remember, the speech that was made two months earlier by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture, whose absence for the reason which we have been told we all so much deplore. In that speech of January of this year the President of the Board of Agriculture pointed out that there was no prospect of anything like the usual supplies of feeding-stuffs during the course of this year. You have not, he said to the farmers of the country, up to this moment realised what your position would be if all that supply of feedingstuffs was cut off, and it is cut off. At this moment, he continued, you have barely sufficient concentrated feedingstuffs to feed with a reduced ration your horses and cows, and hardly anything will be left during the remainder of the year for your pigs and poultry. If the Food Controller had read and was acquainted with the speeches and views of the Minister of Agriculture he must have foreseen long before March, when the disaster occurred, what a grave situation was bound to arise in regard to the question of feeding stuffs.
  7.0 P.M.
  There is one further question I would like to ask. I do not quite understand from the speech of the Food Controller how it was exactly that he appointed a director of pig production in March to do all he could to increase the number of pigs, although the Board of Agriculture was at that time perfectly well aware of the great shortage of feeding-stuffs. I do not quite understand either how it was that the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Grinstead could have undertaken that task, in view of the fact that it was well known that there was that great shortage. Further, I recall that in July of this year there was a great scene here of mutual self-congratulation among some of those interested in agriculture on the great increase in the production of pigs. There was a speech by the then hon. Member for Wilton, now Lord Bledisloe, who, although not very apt to indulge in lavish eulogies, did on that occasion deliver a most warm, gushing eulogy on the Board of Agriculture on account of the extraordinary and successful efforts

  2745
  made in the production of pigs. He said that the President had been most far-sighted as to the question of the additional production of pigs, and, having given instances, added, "If, as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's efforts, that is reproduced all over the country, I shall offer him my warmest congratulations, because I am sure there is no industry which deserves greater support." What was the reason, in face of the well-known shortage of feeding-stuffs, why the hon. Member was allowed to encourage this great production of pigs, and that he was not stopped until it was too late? I am afraid to say that the reason was a campaign in the newspapers. There was a campaign between January and March in favour of the production of pigs, and one of those numerous Press stunts, and I really think that and no other is the explanation for this appointment and this great attempt to increase pig production. Only a day or two ago I was in the Fens of Lincolnshire, and in spite of the hon. Gentleman's encouragement in this House for the production of pigs, I do not think the people there will feel very satisfied when they are told, as they have been this afternoon, that they can have the advantage of slaughtering their pigs. The only other point I wish to mention is as to the very grave charges advanced by my hon. Friend this afternoon with regard to this country being under the control of the American Meat Trust. We are told on the other side that we are not under that control, and there, so far as this House is concerned, the matter is left. But I would suggest that we should ask, not for statements and counter-statements on this point, but for proof that we are not under the control of this Trust. As I understand the situation, the American Meat Trust prefer to send us the finished product. I think I am right in saying that in December the American crop of maize will be ready for shipment. In the Argentine also there is a great deal of maize of the 1917–18 crop. I can quite understand that the American Meat Trust and other American interests are not very desirous to see the transfer of that maize from the Argentine in order that we may get back our trade with the Argentine, a trade which we are very anxious indeed to recover, and I would suggest that the proof that we are not under the influence of the American Meat Trust is whether we can get from the Government any promise that these feeding-stuffs
  2746
  are to be shipped to us from the Argentine and the States. I should be very glad to have some answer on that point. I have only to say, in conclusion, that I think the speech of my hon. Friend—a very powerful one—has hardly had a sufficient answer, and I for one would like to see those two policies co-ordinated in some respects, so that we may speak with a single voice in the matter of agricultural production.
  Mr. LOUGH: I think the point in the very interesting Debate we have had to-day to which the most importance must be attached, is the reply received from my right hon. Friend, the Food Controller, with regard to the changes which will be made when peace comes. I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman did not; promise any change. Let us look at one or two of the complaints that have been made this evening. They are not new complaints. The complaints, for instance, about the grading of cattle were fought out six months, or a year ago, when the matter was brought before this House as a practical question. We then said the scheme could not be worked, and the complaints which have been repeated to-day have shown that it cannot be worked fairly. Yet we do not get any promise that it will be moderated or withdrawn. Take the extraordinary position in which we are put with regard to fat cattle. My hon. Friend who spoke on behalf of Ireland put the case for that, and there is only one thing to be said. As far as my knowledge goes—and I am a farmer in a small way—everything my hon. Friend said about Ireland was true, but he seemed to try to make out that the grievances of Ireland were greater than the grievances of agriculturists in other parts of the Kingdom.
  Mr. FIELD: And so they are.
  Mr. LOUGH: I cannot follow my hon. Friend there, and I would suggest it is better policy for us in this House to fight one another's battles, especially when we have a united case. I think, at any rate, that on this question the complaints in England are just as grave as those in Ireland. Here you have the meat ration reduced to a miserable scrap of meat with which one can scarcely do anything. It amounts to 3 ozs. per coupon. On the other hand, thousands of tons of beef are-actually being wasted. The man who has the beef is not allowed to sell to the person who wishes to buy it in this country. That

  2747
  is the state of things with which we have to grapple. The complaint we make against the Food Controller is this, that in dealing with these great commodities he invariably takes the wrong course. What reason is given by the Food Controller for destroying all these thousands of tons of beef? He says, "I am destroying the beef now in order that there may be plenty of beef in January, February, and March next." That is the only reason he gives, and it has been repeated in this House ad nauseum. Is it likely to encourage the production of beef three or four months later on? I am afraid it will have the contrary effect. I may mention one or two other commodities. The case of milk was alluded to by my right hon. Friend. He rather complained of our criticism of his policy. I think the House does not remember the whole case of the Food Controller with regard to milk. It can be put in a nutshell. He said that by increasing the price of milk to 2s. 3d. per gallon on the 1st October he would be able to get more milk later on. I never heard a more foolish defence of the Government policy than that the price you fix on the 1st October will produce you more milk in the following winter. My right hon. Friend should go back to the period of gestation of the cow. It is no good giving high prices on the 1st October. What you want to do is to treat the farmer fairly in the preceding spring. In March and April the right hon. Gentleman came down to this House threatening the agricultural interests that he would reduce the price of milk to 1s. per gallon on the 1st May. That is what he did in March and April, which were the vital months, and he thought that thereby he was going to produce plenty of milk in the winter. But as a matter of fact he then struck a fatal blow at the industry. The House pressed him at the time to put up the price, but he would not move from it. He said it must come into force on the 1st of May, and when it came into force he would then appoint a Committee to consider the question. What is the good of doing a thing and then appointing a committee to say whether or not it is wise. This Committee sat and reported in four or five weeks. It reported that the price was absurd and that it should have been 1s. 4d. per gallon. The right hon. Gentleman had promised to compensate those farmers who had supplied milk at the lower price if it
  2748
  should be found that the price was unfair. The Committee found that it was unfair. They said it should have been at 1s. 4d. a gallon, and that was the condemnation of the right hon. Gentleman, but I have never heard yet how those people who supplied the milk at the lower price during the month of May or the beginning of June were compensated.
  Mr. CLYNES: I did not fix the price. That was done by a better man than I. I simply made the announcement.
  Mr. LOUGH: Quite so, but the extraordinary position is that the people who sit behind the right hon. Gentleman are far worse than he is. He has considerable merits. I acknowledge that he makes a good speech. He is courageous; he is candid, but he has behind him counsellors who always give him the wrong advice. The proper time to secure plenty of milk for this winter was last spring, and whatever he does in October cannot bring about that desirable result. He cannot increase the quantity of milk available. I should like to say one or two more words about beef. A year or two ago we were fighting the stupidity of the policy in this matter, and we then received exactly the same answer as we have got to-day. The House will remember the circumstances. In September last year the right hon. Gentleman, who was then Assistant Food Controller, announced a graduated increase in price for beef, but in January it was to be 15s. less than in September. No more cunning step could have been taken by the most ingenious man to discourage people from producing beef. The result was that the Food Controller, as a result perhaps of the criticisms of the House, altered the prices when it was too late. That is the complaint we have to make over and over again. Foolish steps are taken which produce exactly the opposite result to those which the Food Controller desires. For these reasons I am very sorry we have got such an unsatisfactory answer from the right hon. Gentleman. When will the producer who serves the country be allowed to deal directly with the consumer? He is only too anxious to serve the consumer in the future, and now the War is over we might expect more encouragement with regard to a change in policy than we have had from the right hon. Gentleman. I may mention the example set by other Ministers. The Minister of Munitions the other day said that the policy of that great Department was to restore the supply of

  2749
  material as soon as possible to the regular channels of business. The Shipping Controller told us that ships are to be freed from control as soon as possible. I want to know from the Food Controller what is to be his policy in this matter. Will he as soon as possible, in the interests of the public and of the consumer, free these articles from a control which has worked so badly and done so much harm?
  Perhaps my hon. Friend who has maintained the Debate on one subject will excuse me if for a moment I mention one or two other commodities. I asked my right hon. Friend a question this afternoon about coffee, and I got a written answer of a very unsatisfactory character. There have been some speculations in coffee. We were all agreed with the Controller in not rationing it. What we object to is the bad methods which the Food Controller adopts to secure his ends.
  Mr. FIELD: Unbusinesslike methods.
  Mr. LOUGH: As my hon. Friend says, "unbusinesslike methods." I asked him a question about coffee. You would have thought he would get a correct answer for me, having had notice of the question. I pointed out the great speculation in coffee, and that it had gone up 50 per cent. He replied that coffee could be got in London to-day at 85s. None could be got at that price since October. By 25th October it was 95s., and by 9th November 105s., and this is all due to speculation. I appealed to the right hon. Gentleman and he said he would consider the matter. In view of that inaccurate statement with regard to existing prices, I do hope a little more consideration will be given to that point. I will mention tea. The control of tea—will my agricultural friends forgive me for saying—has been as bad as the control of beef. The control was to terminate on the 28th December, but my right hon. Friend has given notice that he is going to extend it for seven months. Will the House remember the promise he made about tea? The promise was that he would bring in China tea, of which there is plenty, in May last, but he did not do it. He promised he would reduce the price of tea in May last. He did not do it. He is profiteering in the most gigantic way in tea, and he is introducing that most fatal system of treating tea as if it were all the same quality. The result is the tea is now sold of a kind which, I am afraid, must have a very bad effect on the health
  2750
  of the country. There is some medical opinion, I believe, which traces influenza to bad meat and bad cheese. I heard a story about cheese. Some friend of mine interested in sending food to prisoners bought 20 tons of cheese for this purpose. They got one ton as the first consignment, and they said this Government cheese nearly walked out of the window. Everybody knows the cheese is almost uneatable, and why? Because the right hon. Gentleman insists that there shall be only one price. He told me he gives the same price when he is buying skim-milk cheese as for full-cream cheese. In giving these answers you would think that a man would admit himself to be foolish in the sight of all mankind, but he says these foolish things and goes on all the same. So much for the first answer he gave the House. He has not told us that the system will be modified as regards anything. He wants to go on. He likes this job, perhaps. I am glad to see he shakes his head. He likes to keep these committees going, and the 10,000 officials in his Department. They are all working, I suppose, so nicely that it has all to go on perpetually.
  I want to direct the attention of the House for one moment to the second answer my right hon. Friend gave. He said they had to cut off feeding-stuffs because of the exigency of the War. I now want to call the attention of the House to a statement we have had from my right hon. Friend in another quarter. He published an article in a magazine in which he explained why he took these steps, and in that magazine article he dealt entirely with what he would do when peace came He did not give the same explanation he has given in the House. The article was headed, "Peace without Plenty." That was a bad subject to take for an article. We have had plenty in this country for 1,000 years; and if it is the policy of this new party, which is so ably represented by my right hon. Friend, to abolish plenty in the country, I do not think it will be a popular party. He laid down five principles on which the new policy after the War was to be based. The first was "We have to import as little as possible." Why should we import as little as possible? Why not import as much as possible? This country gets rich by importing. Then he said, "We must not expect to throw away our ration books." Those beautiful ration books, which are so unequal in their operation, are to be continued

  2751
  during time of peace. The third was, "We are compelled to use the grain for fodder; there is nothing else to be done." Then, "We must revolutionise our methods of feeding cattle." This restriction on the importation of feedingstuffs is a matured policy which is set out in this article.
  My right hon. Friend denied this afternoon—at least, so I understood—that he made any bargain with Mr. Hoover, but in this article he says, "America has assured us our food supply for two years," and he used this expression, "America is providing us with half our food for nothing." What did he mean by that? I wish my right hon. Friend could have told us. He makes the most remarkable statements, in view of the Debate we have had to-night. He was showing that it was a good thing for this country to give up fattening cattle. I wonder what Irishmen think of that? In substantiation, he made this statement—and I would like to know whether he adheres to it—that you can give 64 lbs. of dry fodder to a steer before you get 1 lb. of beef from it. Does the right hon. Gentleman adhere to that statement? He does not make any sign. I am willing, however, to exonerate him from this article altogether. I believe it was written by some of those foolish professors whom he employs at the Ministry of Food. But look at the statement that for every pound of beef the steer gives us, it must receive 64 lbs. of dry fodder. Why, all these cattle from Ireland never receive one pound of dry fodder. They are eating grass all the time. He says we must revolutionise our methods of feeding animals, and that all our cattle, as I understand him, should be killed, as they are on the Continent, at the calf stage. Here is the policy set out in full. If any hon. Member wishes to see it more fully than I have given it, he will find it in a magazine called "London," and it is carrying out that revolutionary policy which is plunging the country into such difficulties with regard to this matter. I do think some explanation ought to have been given. This Parliament is so near its end, that Debates do not go very well, but I do think we might very fairly have expected some explanation to be given of the extraordinary statements that were made in that article as to the new policy which the Government is going to adopt.
  I would only make one protest in conclusion. My right hon. Friend might make all
  2752
  his experiments if he were going to pay for them, or if he would allow the country freedom to carry on its business while he makes them. He will not allow feedingstuffs to be imported, and he will not import them himself. He will not allow anyone to bring in tea, and the Government do not bring it in. There has been a great change—even quicker in other countries than this—with regard to shipping. I saw last week that for the Scandinavian countries the insurance rate for. America is down to one per cent. and even half per cent. If we cannot get British ships, and if freedom is only given to the importers of this country, they will get other ships to bring in feeding-stuffs and food of every kind to this country. It is a dreadful thing that we should have all these prophesies of evil and not be allowed to help ourselves. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider this policy. He told us that oranges and nuts may be brought in. I would ask him with regard to sugar, beef, tea, and feeding-stuffs, that freedom should be restored, that the ports should be reopened, and that we should be allowed to do for ourselves what he refuses to do for us, and if he gives us that promise, I venture to say that the position in every respect will be improved in a very few months.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Major Astor): I understand it will be generally convenient if I now deal with some of the points that have been raised, as there are other subjects which the House wishes to discuss presently. We have covered a great deal of ground, and there are a considerable number of comparatively small points in the main dealing with the past which have been raised. The majority-have been quite fair, and some of them have been due to misunderstanding. To-some of the criticisms and suggestions which have been made, I have no reply to make except this, that our action was due-entirely to war conditions and that we had really no alternative. The only thing to which I take exception—and I am sorry the hon. Member is not here—was a statement of the hon. Member who started the discussion (Mr. Cautley), who said I have no interest in the maintenance of agriculture. He had no right whatever to make a statement like that. After all, as I said just now, most of the points which have been dealt with refer to our action in the past, and our action, as my right hon.

  2753
  Friend explained in his speech earlier in the afternoon, was guided, as was the policy of the Government, entirely by the military situation. The Government had only one policy, and that was to win the War. They had to make adjustments periodically in order to carry that out. An hon. Member who spoke just now referred to the fact that the President of the Board of Agriculture in February or March—
  Major PEEL: January.
  Major ASTOR:—in January said there would be a shortage of feeding-stuffs. As a result of the German offensive in March, the Allied Governments had to find more men. In the early part of the year they got them from this country. Later in the year they had to get them from the United States, and had to bring them across the Atlantic. In August and September they were bringing them over by the hundred thousand. In August they came to a final decision as to the number of American troops to be brought over during the autumn. It was quite impossible for my right hon. Friend to know in January or February the number of American troops' which the Allied Governments decided to bring over in August and it was because of their decision in August that various Departments had to make adjustments in their policy. It was because of that, that in August and September our feeding-stuffs and our human food programme had to be altered.
  We have had two Debates on the question of turning back cattle, and on our policy as it affects cattle graziers and farmers generally. On previous occasions I was able to summarise the main reasons which compelled us to take the action, which we realised quite frankly imposed hardship upon the farmers, but for which there was absolutely no alternative. The hon. Member for Kildare, I think, said we ought to have given the farmers four or five months' notice. It was quite impossible to do that, as the Government did not give us four or five months' notice of their policy, which was decided by the German offensive. In all these things we had to look ahead as far as we were able, always realising that it was subject to adjustment and modification, according to the course of the campaign.
  It has been also said that we ought to have known more accurately the number of cattle which were to come forward this
  2754
  autumn. Earlier in the year we sent out requests for this information, and asked that we might be told the number of cattle the farmers expected would be coming forward month by month. The actual number that did come forward during the autumn showed that the farmers themselves had made mistakes which had misled us as to the number of cattle coming forward. I need not go into that now, because I have already dealt with it. But the experts, whom we are always urged to consult, were themselves wrong in the estimates and forecasts of the number of cattle coming forward in August. We have had a good deal of criticism, but I have not heard any practical proposal this evening which the Ministry had not itself thought of—as I have said on previous occasions—for dealing with the situation. It is no good saying that there ought to have been more of one thing or the other. I have already explained we could not have both cold storage accommodation and the freezing plant. On the whole, the Ministry, I think, were wise in concentrating on storing accommodation. There is ample storage accommodation. We could not have both.
  An HON. MEMBER: Is that any use for English beef?
  Major ASTOR: Oh, yes. We are freezing as much home-killed beef as possible. There is a difficulty in the plant which we have. It is adequate for maintaining the temperature, as I have already said, for frozen meat in good condition. It takes three or four days to get to the proper freezing point for this, while it takes twelve to fourteen days with the plant we have to freeze fresh-killed meat. The hon. Member referred again to the fact that we were inviting the farmers to hold back cattle. I quite agree that some of the cattle may lose condition, but it is better to have, from February to April, a beast that has lost condition than to have no beast at all. We are dealing with the situation, and by adding to the rates we give the farmers to keep their cattle back, hope to meet it. The Food Controller saw what appeared to be the obvious position, and he trusts that his measures will enable the farmers to produce their cattle in better condition later in the year. As I have said, and as probably most Members who are interested in this question-know, improvement in the position has been going on in grazing districts, and the situation is getting easier every day in the week.

  2755
  At the moment we are killing something like 50,000 beasts per week, and I understand that next week we shall probably be able—this in answer to a question which was put to me specifically from Ireland—considerably to increase the number of cattle coming from Ireland—by something like 50 per cent.
  Mr. FIELD: Are you in a position to give the number of beasts?
  Major ASTOR: Something like 50 per cent. increase some day next week, and without prejudicing the British farmer. There will be equal treatment. As to the added price we have fixed for the cattle, that was naturally settled after consultation with the representatives of the Board of Agriculture and the Central Agricultural Advisory Committee, and, generally-speaking, these prices have been accepted as being fair. The hon. Member from Ireland raised one or two points. I will re-examine those points, and see that the whole matter is gone into again. The hon. Member for the South Molton Division (Mr. Lambert) wanted to know what additional feeding-stuffs would be available as the result of the announcement made by the Food Controller. We shall be able to get 18,000 tons of offal more per week, so that the total may be easily reckoned, but it will be not quite double the amount of offal that is now available. In addition to that there will be 20 per cent. of barley, which—I again speak from memory—is equivalent to 300,000 tons. In respect to the total represented to be damaged grain, I think it is 17 per cent. of the cereal crop which is damaged. I am not able offhand to say what that amounts to in total tonnage. As to feeding cake, every effort is being made to increase the amount of that. We are in touch with all the markets where cake may be available. It is only fair to say that I saw a cable announcing that the United States were actually importing cake, so that it is quite possible we may not be able to get supplies from there. Very frequently, when the crop is particularly good in the States, we are able to get it. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London referred to the amount of cake allocated to sheep. Any alteration, of the tonnage that the Food Controller has at his disposal can be very small, and thus limits the amount of feeding-stuffs, but he has allocated them over the different kinds of live stock.
  2756
  He consulted the Board of Agriculture and also the Central Agricultural Advisory Committee in fixing the actual ration for the different classes of live stock, and where priority was given it was arrived at in consultation with those expert bodies. Everybody who has any knowledge of the matter would admit the prior claim of dairy herds over store cattle, and that was the principle adopted by the Food Controller when he fixed the amount of feeding-stuffs available for the different classes of stock.
  On the question of milk, everyone in the House will realise that the Food Controller, when fixing what is admittedly, from the point of view of the consumer, high prices for milk to producers, was guided by the main consideration—the vital necessity of maintaining the milk supply of the country for the children.
  Mr. LOUGH: But it should have been done last spring!
  Major ASTOR: I was going to deal with that point; let me deal with it now. My right hon. Friend says it ought to have been done last spring. Could the right hon. Gentleman have told us last May whether the cost of labour, and, if so, to what extent, was going up in August; and could he have told us last May the cost of the amount of feeding-stuffs available, and all the other factors which had to be considered by the Food Controller and the Committee that decided on the price of milk? It was quite impossible last May to give anything like an accurate and satisfactory figure.
  Mr. LOUGH: But did not the Committee fix it then?
  Major ASTOR: They did not fix the price last May; they were sitting later. I think I am right in saying that the Subcommittee, in respect of the winter price—
  Mr. LOUGH: My point is, that the Committee that was appointed sat and recommended 1s. 4d., but the Controller fixed 1s., and it was fixing that low price that discouraged the people producing the milk.
  Major ASTOR: But the right hon. Gentleman also said that the winter price of 2s. 3d. ought to have been settled before October. That was the point with which I was dealing.
  Mr. LOUGH: No.
  Major ASTOR: Oh, well, certainly, I understood him to say that. As regards the price of milk, a Committee was set up. That Committee sat for a long time dealing with the question of price to be fixed for this winter. They were asked specifically whether it was possible or advisable to have different rates for producers in different parts of the country, or whether there should be a flat rate. They unanimously recommended a flat rate for producers throughout the whole of the country. We were guided by the urgent, the vital necessity, for maintaining the milk production even in those areas where the milk production is expensive. It would have been prejudicial to the welfare of the children if the output of milk this winter had been reduced by 10 per cent. as a result of preventing the production of milk in those areas where that production is expensive. Now another Committee has been set up and has been going into the question as to whether or not it is possible to vary the rates.
  Various hon. Members have raised the question of the appointment of super-graders. These officers were appointed by the Food Controller because there had been errors both in respect of the farmers and the butchers, and it was considered advisable and desirable to appoint these additional officers to supervise the operations. As a result of their appointment there have been fewer complaints, and the grading on the whole has been considerably improved.
  Mr. FIELD: There was plenty of room for it.
  Major ASTOR: Then I am glad to have the support of the hon. Gentleman to the appointment of these super-graders. I was just going to say that I understand that actually in one market there has been such an improvement in the grading that the gain to the Ministry—there was a loss before—has more than made up the salary paid to the super-grader. Various points were raised in connection with charges: the cost of auctioneers, and various payments made in handling the cattle as between the producer and the retailer. The farmer, as a matter of fact, is not paying more now than he did in pre-war days. Very often he did not know that the price he; received included some of the charges which are now borne by the Ministry as middlemen and of conveying the cattle between the producer and the retailer. There is the actual cost of handling
  2758
  the cattle and other charges in connection with that operation.
  The hon. and gallant Member opposite referred to the danger of the meat trust. I agree there is a danger, and it is a great deal more serious than many hon. Members realise, but it does not represent a danger coming only from the United States of America. Before the War the United States was becoming less and less an exporting country for cattle. At the present moment North America is exporting cattle for the use of the Allies in Europe by reducing their own consumption of meat, and this is very largely due to a special effort to assist the Allies in Europe by sending them meat from the nearest market. If it were not for the fact that consumers in North America are deliberately and patriotically cutting down the consumption of meat there would be less coming from there.
  The danger in all importing countries is very serious, because the meat trust is not restricted in its operations to North America. There are branches in the Argentine and Australasia, and they control well over 50 per cent. of the available and importable supplies of meat in the world which can be imported by the countries which have to import. Here we import something like 40 per cent., and there is a very serious? menace to the producers and consumers of this and all importing countries. We have this world trust. When hon. Members talk of this danger they must not speak as if it were only a danger from North America. It is a danger because of the branches which exist in other countries and because of their position and hold on the Argentine market. It is a very real danger. You have a world trust and a national trust able to control the supplies on which all importing countries depend for their meat. It may interest hon. Members to know that before the War retailers, to an increasing extent, were making purchases from the agencies in this country of the American Trust, because it was so convenient to be able to buy just the joint they wanted instead of buying a whole bullock, and in many cases they were able to supply what appeared to be more tender meat.
  The House will forgive me, perhaps, going into this matter in some detail, because the exact nature and extent of the menace is not understood. If it is a menace, it applies to a greater extent to

  2759
  the producers and consumers of the United States than to the producers and consumers here, because in the former case there is less competition. We hear all the talk about Mr. Hoover, but we must realise that he has exactly the same interests as hon. Members. They are identical, and they are exactly the same as regards the meat trust; they are, in fact, the same as the interests of the Food Controllers of this country, France, Italy, and all countries which have to import meat. Take the number of the consumers in the United States of America and the number of producers, and it will be found that they are far more numerous than the people connected with the meat trust. The hon. Member opposite said he would take it as a proof that we were not influenced by the meat trust if I could assure him that we were taking every possible step to get feeding-stuffs from the Argentine. Surely he does not think that the American Trust controls the export of feedingstuffs, because that is no concern of theirs, as far as I know. In any case, they have nothing to do with the actual amount which the Government decided to import, and we are trying to get as much maize as we can from the Argentine.
  Mr. LOUGH: You can get more now.
  Major ASTOR: I know we can, but it is only fair to say that it will not get here for some months, because the ships have to be sent to the Argentine, load, and then come back again. We are taking every step to increase the amount of feeding-stuffs available, and we include in that programme maize from the Argentine, and wherever else we can get it. I have not time really to explain to the House the extent of the ramifications of the meat trust and they are not confined to meat. At the conclusion of the War this country would have been faced with a very serious position if it had been the case that there was an international world-wide organisation controlling more than half of the available supplies of the world in a position to dictate the price of the supplies. Hon. Members will doubtless realise that there is going to be for some time a real shortage of meat in Europe. There will be a great demand now for meat, and what is the remedy?
  Mr. FIELD: Increase production at home, if you can.
  Major ASTOR: As hon. Members have raised that point, I will deal with it
  2760
  now. Suppose you had increased home production 5, 10 or 15 per cent., either of pigs or cattle, you really would not have met the danger, because you would still be dependent largely on imported supplies. Hon. Members will also realise that this is a menace not only to this country, but to all countries which have to import meat. My right hon. Friend the Food Controller has already explained to the House the organisation which he and Mr. Hoover, together with the French and Italian Food Controllers, have set up. They have established an Inter-Allied Food Council, and that council buys in the world market wherever there is an exportable surplus through one buyer. This eliminates competition. It is, therefore, in a strong position to fix a reasonable price for consumers in this country. This Inter-Allied Food Council is, I believe, going to be in a position to dictate, if necessary, to the international meat trust. I cannot conceive of any other way of providing an organisation which would be stronger because it is international to deal with the international meat trust. It is quite possible that neutrals and other countries requiring meat or other supplies of which there is a world shortage, will all come in and get their supplies through this allied organisation. Only time will show the vital importance and magnitude to the consumers in all importing countries of this Inter-Allied Food Council which is world-wide in its operations, and which will be able to protect the interests of consumers in all European countries, and which alone could possibly deal with such dangers as exist through the ramifications and the magnitude of the operations of the international meat trust.
  8.0 P.M.
  After having gone so fully into the subject, I need hardly go into the details with regard to the question of bacon. We have been criticised in regard to getting our bacon supplies from North America, but let us compare the position last spring with the position now. Last spring for many months hon. Members were only entitled to something like 4 ozs. of bacon a week, and one month actually the supply was less than 4oz. even with a low meat ration. Now we have a larger meat ration and bacon is off the coupon. That is a very different situation and this could not have been achieved merely by producing the bacon and the ham here in this country. The bacon may not be so good, but it is bacon and it is better than

  2761
  no bacon. The position some months ago was that we had to procure 400,000 tons more bacon than we had in sight, and in order to produce that at home we should have had to import 2,000,000 tons of grain. That was the proposition put to the Central Agricultural Advisory Council in a memorandum sent out jointly by the Board of Agriculture and the Ministry of Food. It was not the ignorant Ministry of Food that made this proposal, but it was one agreed to by representatives of the Board of Agriculture, and it was quite obvious that the amount of bacon required could not possibly be produced in this country, and even if shipping had been available it was obvious that there was a considerable saving to be made in tonnage which was so vital that the Cabinet decided to import bacon from North America instead of feeding-stuffs. As my right hon. Friend explained just now our policy has been most consistent. It has been to win the War as rapidly as possible, and when we came to the decision to reduce the feeding-stuffs import programme and increase our imports of human food hon. Members must realise that Bulgaria had not then shown any signs of collapsing, in fact there were no signs of a collapse anywhere. The Government would very rightly have been blamed if under these circumstances they had not insisted upon bringing over as many men as possible with a view of bringing the War to an end as rapidly as possible. Events have shown how right they were. I prefer to deal with these matters quite openly, because nothing is worse than to have insidious rumours going about. It has been suggested that Mr. Hoover somehow or other was responsible for cutting down our feedingstuffs programme. Mr. Hoover criticised every group of commodities that this country had upon its import programme just in the same manner as every group of commodities, whether for human food or animal food, was criticised by the French representatives and by the Italian representatives, and just in the same way as we ourselves, through our representatives, criticised every group of commodities demanded by France and Italy. When you know that you are going to have only a limited amount of tonnage, you are bound to criticise and examine each other's demands. I think the House will be glad to know that we were able to do so fairly without rupture between the
  2762
  Allies. The final amount of feeding-stuffs passed by the Inter-Allied Food Council, after all our Allied Food Controllers had criticised the items, satisfied the Board of Agriculture, so that the responsibility for the actual amount finally available for live stock was not due to the criticism or action of any of the Allied Food Controllers. It was due to the decision of the Government to give priority to soldiers and munitions over certain foods, both for human beings and animals.
  Hon. Members have referred to the relations or the want of co-operation between the Ministry of Food and the Board of Agriculture. I have here a list of the committees on which the farmers and the Board of Agriculture are jointly represented with the Ministry of Food, and it is a formidable list. We go out of our way to consult the Board of Agriculture. It is in our interests to do so.
  Finally, it may interest hon. Members if I tell them exactly what economy has been possible owing to the control by the Ministry of Food. There has been a certain amount of criticism and a certain amount of irritation and annoyance, but when hon. Members compare this with the achievements I think they will be prepared to give credit to the Ministry of Food. We were this year actually proposing to import something like 7,000,000 tons less foodstuffs than we imported in 1913. In 1913 we imported about 19,000,000, and this year we were only proposing to import 11,700,000. We were actually making a saving of 2,000,000 tons of imported food as compared with the year before there was any rationing. It is only by this complete control which has been set up that that economy has been possible. It would have been quite impossible without having these very irritating restrictions and complete control. As a matter of fact, during these months, we have been actually importing at a lower rate. I think the fact that this country has been able to do with something like 11,000,000 tons instead of 19,000,000 tons of imported foods and yet maintain adequate supplies for the population generally is a great tribute to the work of the Ministry of Food.
  Captain Viscount WOLMER: And to the farmers!
  Major ASTOR: I quite agree. And to the farmers. They have obviously increased food production, but not to the extent of 7,000,000 tons. Agriculture is

  2763
  one of the few industries which has developed during the War. I am glad that it has done so, and I hope that the development will be maintained. When hon. Members say that the inconsiderate action of the Food Controller has ruined agriculture or is threatening the extinction or extermination of the herds, I would remind them that our dairy herds have never been so numerous as at the present time. Food production, I am glad to say, has increased and developed during the War, and the fact that that has been possible and that the people have been able to get a fair and reasonable ration is a tribute to the organisation which has been set up by the Department—I am able to say that because I have only recently become connected with the Ministry—and also to the response which has been made by the people, both producers and consumers, throughout the country.
  Colonel McCALMONT: I desire to occupy the time of the House upon a somewhat different subject which I am afraid does not command the attention of the House very greatly but which is an important one because it concerns a body of officers who are not receiving the consideration that they ought to receive. I refer to the Regular officers of the Old Army who went out from this country in 1914. It is not a matter which could have been brought forward very much sooner, because the obvious answer would have been that it was a post-war problem and not a war problem. I had, in fact, some doubt whether it would be in order to discuss it on this particular Vote. The principal point to which I wish to draw the attention of the House and of the Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Forster) is that of the retired pay of officers who have served their country for many years quite apart from this War. The officers of the New Army are naturally more vocal in the country. There are very many more of them, and they are able to bring their grievances' before their Members with a great deal more freedom than the officers of the Old Army. Taken altogether, this cannot be regarded as quite such an electioneering matter as many of the subjects to which this House has listened during the past few days. The principle under which these officers were granted retired pay previous to the War was entirely that of their particular work during their service. A man did not get higher retired pay unless he had held an
  2764
  important command. Those Regulations in my judgment are entirely obsolete, but they remain in force, with the result that unless an officer has been fortunate enough to reach high substantive rank in the Army he is treated exactly the same as if there had been no war at all. He gets no credit for his war services, and it is immaterial whether he has commanded a battalion, a brigade, or even a division. Under the Royal Warrant the junior officer who can get any real rise in his retired pay is a lieutenant-colonel. Below the rank of lieutenant-colonel it is practically a flat-rate. This, I think, refers to officers of all services. It is a flat-rate for all officers below the rank of lieutenant-colonel, except in the case of majors with over twenty-five years' service. An officer with fifteen years' service is only granted £80; with sixteen years' service £85; with seventeen years' service £90, and so on up to twenty-four years' service or more, £200.
  These rates, despite the increased cost of living, still remain in force. That in itself is a grievance, but the grievance is a great deal more serious now, because it is well known that many officers of junior substantive rank have held very high commands in this War. I will not go into the figures, because my right hon. Friend is aware of them. Many officers whose substantive rank is that of major have commanded divisions. Possibly he is a brevet lieutenant-colonel or colonel, but for the purposes of his retired pay he remains at the substantive rank of major, and it is on his rank as major that he will get his retired pay, without any regard whatever for what he has done during the War. The same applies to a greater extent to brigadier-generals and to lieutenant-colonels. I am, fortunately, able to speak quite freely on this subject, because, joining a new regiment, I happen myself to be of the substantive rank of lieutenant-colonel. A large number of these officers are going to be called upon to retire, or will retire for reasons of health during the next few years, and unless the Government are prepared to give the matter their earnest consideration they will retire as though they had never got any higher than captain, or possibly major. I am very glad to see the Minister of Pensions (Mr. Hodge) present, because he knows as well as I do that a great deal has been done for what are known in the Army as the other ranks. I am bound to say that I do not think that amount of sympathy has

  2765
  been shown with the officers, and especially with the old Regular officers, that ought to have been shown. It always seems a pity to raise a grievance without suggesting a remedy. The remedy is very simple, and I cannot see that it will be extraordinarily expensive. It merely requires an Order which will entitle an officer who has held higher temporary or acting rank on service in the field to reckon that service in that acting or temporary rank for the purposes of his retired pay. If that is not done, the inequalities and anomalies will be extraordinary. There are many even at the present moment. People like myself who happen to have reached a higher substantive rank will get very much higher retired pay than people who have actually commanded divisions. This is not the first time that I have raised this question. I only raise it now in this form because the answer which I received yesterday from my right hon. Friend did not convey the impression to me that the matter had been fully considered or that he was quite familiar with the details of it. He gave me an answer which for a moment I thought was a pledge, but on further reflection I came to the conclusion that it was not a pledge:
  "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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1918, col. 2485.]
  If he meant, and from subsequent conversation with him I do not think that he did mean, that there were not many officers who had held a lieutenant-colonel's command with less than fifteen years' service, I can assure him that he is very greatly mistaken. I would almost go so far as to say that the majority would not have as much as fifteen years' service. I thought, when I first heard the answer, that he meant that the matter was going to engage his attention, and that he was very nearly pledging himself to take steps to see that no such thing occurred. If the Regulation remains as it is, it will undoubtedly happen that very many officers with fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, and eighteen years' service will retire with rates of retired pay varying from £80 to slightly over £100, despite the fact that the commands that they have held in the field, the risks they have taken in the field, and the responsibilities that they have fulfilled in the field have been out of all proportion to their substantive rank. My right hon. Friend referred me to one previous answer
  2766
  which he seemed to think covered the same point. I should just like to point out that the answer he gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Christ-church on the 21st of October really did not touch the question at all, because it referred to officers who had commanded brigades in the field and held the substantive rank of colonel. Those are people with whom I have very little sympathy, because their colonel's retired pay is out of all proportion to the junior ranks. He also referred to those who have retired at the age of fifty-seven or held honorary rank of brigadier-general. That is not the type of officer with whom I am mainly concerned. I am mainly concerned with the young officer of twenty-five to forty who has given all the best years of his life to the service of his country, and who is going to find himself retired on exactly the same retired pay of an officer who has never been out at the front at all, despite the fact that he has been out at the front and held very high rank and high responsibility.
  There is one other small matter. It is one which I thought had been ventilated in the House, but which I find has not, and that is the question, of bandmasters. Every class of soldier, I think, in this War has had improved chances of reaching commissioned rank. As a result of this war thousands of men have received commissions who never hoped to receive them under ordinary circumstances, but for some extraordinary reason there has been no increase made in the commissions of bandmasters. People may say bandmasters do not deserve much sympathy. That may or may not be true, but that is not the bandmaster's fault. It is rather unfair to him to say, "You started life as a musician, therefore you are to be left entirely out of the benefits which have been allowed to people of other ranks." Now, it is well known that the foreign bandmasters are nearly all of commissioned rank, and in the oversea Dominions many bandmasters hold commissions. Yet, as a matter of fact, the number of commissioned bandmasters in the British Army remains as before the War, at five, with the result that many bandmasters who are still warrant officers find themselves saluting people whose services in some cases is about 5 per cent. of their own. There are many bandmasters with thirty or forty years' service, who, if they had not happened to be bandmasters, would have reached commissioned

  2767
  rank if they had behaved themselves and done their duty. I hope my right hon. Friend will give us some assurance that the officer question is not going to be forgotten merely because the officers are badly represented in this House, I mean the old Regular officers, and that he will be able to give us some promise that these matters are engaging the attention of his Department. I do not want to see, after all, that those who have borne the heat and burden of the early stages of the War return to civil life with insufficient money to keep them in decent circumstances.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I can promise my hon. and gallant Friend that with regard to the question of the bandmasters to which he referred in the closing part of his remarks, I hope to have that matter looked into and see whether it will be possible to take any of the steps that he has suggested. My hon. and gallant Friend has brought before the House the position of the officers of the old Regular Army who, after a long service during peace when promotion was slow, have found and seized the opportunities which have been created by the War. He points out with reference to their retired pay that the question is determined by the rules of peace conditions rather than of those obtaining in the War, however meritorious and distinguished the service of those officers may be, and he asks that the rank gained in war shall affect, to a larger extent than at present, the amount of their retired pay. One cannot think of this problem without calling to mind the enormous debt that the country owes to the great bulk of the officers on whose behalf my hon. and gallant Friend speaks—the regimental officers. These men belong to the old Army; they are the men who in the days of peace were the living link in the chain that unites the glorious traditions of the past with the still more glorious realisation of the present, men who in the days of peace moulded and fashioned the old British Army which by such steadfast courage and endurance laid the foundations of the victory that we have won. One cannot overrate the debt that the country owes to officers of that class. It is a debt that can never be discharged in terms of money. My hon. and gallant Friend knows that this question is not merely financial. The whole question of promotion and appointment,
  2768
  permanent, temporary, acting, substantive, is full of startling changes and unequal incidence. It is so intricate and perplexing as to demand the closest scrutiny and consideration before any final decision can be reached. I am sorry there has been any ambiguity in the reply which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend yesterday. No ambiguity was intended. I might say, with regard to the senior officers on whose behalf he has spoken—the general officers—that their position has been under consideration for some time.
  Colonel McCALMONT: I think it was was full substantive colonels?
  Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir, I think not. I think the retired pay of officers holding temporary rank of major-general, but with the substantive rank of major have been under consideration for some time. I promise to look into the case of the other officers to whom my hon. and gallant Friend has referred. He will realise, I am sure, the difficulty of dealing with the whole question of the retired pay of officers at a time like the present. I am afraid I should lack frankness if I allowed my hon. and gallant Friend to expect any very speedy decision, but I can promise that the matter shall be considered, as far as I am concerned, with great sympathy.
  Mr. GLANVILLE: I wish to say a few words on the general question of soldiers' pensions, which has been discussed frequently in this House and many times outside it. We have finished one part of the War, but we have yet another part to finish. We shall have millions of men coming back from France, but I have not heard, up to the present, any scheme proposed for dealing with the men who return healthy and strong on the basis of a permanent reward for what, they have done to save the British Empire. I distinctly remember the war in the United States, which occurred in my boyhood. When that war was over, every soldier who fought in it received a pension from his country. I cannot understand why we should not do exactly the same thing with our healthy able-bodied soldiers when they return. Millions of these men flew to the Colours even before we had the munitions necessary to carry on the War speedily and successfully. They did not stop to consider anything with regard to personal interests, but went immediately war was declared. They have seen four years' fighting. What has been going on

  2769
  in this country during that time? The men who have not been so anxious to go have been earning very high, indeed, abnormal wages, while the men in France and other parts of the Continent have been receiving the bare soldier's pay and, if they have dependants, allowances for them. When these men went they did not even know that their dependants would get any allowance. If they had stayed at home, they would have had many opportunities, such as the munition workers have availed themselves of, to put aside considerable sums of money, which would be useful to them in after days, whereas, in fact, they will come back here, and, although they may go back to their ordinary employment, we must not forget that they have lost four years' opportunity. Although they may go back to their ordinary employment, many of them will find that their prospects of advancement in life are considerably reduced.
  It is the duty of our Government—perhaps they cannot do it this Session—to give a statutory right, something that cannot be taken away or altered by a Pensions Minister—to an annual pension, quite independent of any other remuneration to which the men may be entitled. It is the duty of our Government to bestow a pension on every one of these men who fought in France or who has been in the fighting line. A committee or a commission should be set up to devise a scheme by means of which this could be put into practice. A pension of 1s. a day would be a very moderate sum. If that were capitalised, it would not represent any-think like the amount that the same soldier could have earned if he had been at work at Woolwich Arsenal or in other munition works in the country. It may seem rather extravagant to suggest £18 a year as a pension for a man, but he would have been able to save enough to bring in that amount if he had not gone to France or some other part of the Continent. Further, what about the widow? I have heard haggling in this House about 12s. 6d. and 19s. The widow, who cannot see her husband come back after victory, gets 12s. 6d. The Government ought definitely by Statute to lay down that while that woman remains a widow she shall receive £1 a week—it is not a penny too much—and that she shall receive it for life, so that it cannot be taken away from her. The scheme which I heard propounded here last week which included 4s. 6d. for one of the children,
  2770
  seemed to be little short of an outrage. Four shillings and sixpence a week is not much in these days of high prices, which, apparently, are likely to continue for a year at any rate—I doubt whether we shall get back to the old prices for many years to come. It is proposed to allow 4s. 6d. for the third or fourth child. We ought to have some definite scale of allowances for children from infancy up to sixteen years which shall be statutory, so that no parsimonious Government which comes along later on can whittle it down by 6d. or 9d., as many Departments are fond of doing in cases of this kind. I can assure the House that all over the country the discharged soldiers are dissatisfied, not so much because they have not received consideration, or because their cases are not being investigated, but because they are distrustful and have the feeling that what they are able to get this year may next year, or perhaps a year or two afterwards, be taken away. Everything that is conferred, either on the discharged soldier or on the man who has returned healthy, should be conferred by Statute, so that in no circumstance can an Order in Council set it aside. I know the Pensions Minister is a broad-minded man, that he has plenty to do and think about, and that to a certain extent he is controlled by others who keep a close eye on the finances, but I hope he will give consideration to the suggestions I have made tonight, and that they may not be entirely fruitless.
  Mr. DILLON: There are two subjects I desire to bring to the notice of the House—first, the question of the arms now held in Ulster, and, secondly, the question of what is the intention of the Government with regard to the maintenance of martial law in Ireland. With regard to the question of arms in Ulster, it will probably be within the recollection of the House that for the last two years there has been in force in Ireland a very stringent system for disarming the people. Throughout the three Southern Provinces and in portions of Ulster the disarming of the people was carried out in a most rigorous way. There was no ceremony about it. All the enormous and unlimited powers which are at the disposal of the Government of the day in Ireland were brought into force. Houses were raided and searched; all those found in possession of arms after the Proclamation was issued were severely punished; and, in fact, at this moment you can read in the Irish newspapers accounts

  2771
  of men who have been sentenced to six months', a year, and even two years' hard labour for being in possession illegally of arms. As regards the National Volunteers—that section of the Volunteers in Ireland who remain faithful to our party—their armouries were broken into last year and the arms seized by the military by force and unceremoniously carried away. That system was carried on for upwards of a year, while no attempt was ever made to disarm the Ulster Volunteers, although it was notorious that they were in possession of a vast number of rifles, obtained from Germany by means which we have not yet been able to discover, although it is rumoured that they were sent with the connivance of the German Government, and that they have not yet been fully paid for. At all events, it is admitted and not denied that they were shipped from Hamburg on the very eve of the War and were in the possession of the Unionist party in Ulster. Throughout all these months, now more than a year, during which these stringent measures were in full force for disarming the rest of Ireland, the Ulstermen were allow to retain their arms in spite of the Proclamation.
  No effort whatever was made to deprive them of those arms although it was avowed, and there was no concealment about it, that the purpose with which the Ulster men held them was, on the very moment when the War was over, to use them in a civil war in the event of the Act which is now part of the law of this country being put into force, an Act which comes into operation automatically without any further interference by this House within a very brief period after peace is concluded, as I am prepared to maintain, and full notice had been given to the Government by most responsible men that the moment peace was proclaimed if any attempts were made by the Government to enforce the law civil war and rebellion would be resorted to in Ireland, and these arms were held for the purpose of that rebellion. That appeared to us manifestly and grotesquely unfair. I am confident that in the annals of any other civilised country in the world you could not find a parallel to such a situation. Accordingly this matter was brought before the House at the close of the last Session, and the right hon. Gentleman who is now responsible, for the government of Ireland was asked what he was going to do in regard to these arms and here is the statement he made. He said:
  2772
  "With regard to the question of Ulster arms, I am not going into that except to this extent. I am taunted, apparently, with having left the control of arms to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College. I have not, in fact, asked anyone to take control of the arms, and when I say that, I mean personal and physical control. I do not acknowledge the light hon. Member for Trinity College or the Member for East Clare, who is now described as the leader of the Sinn Fein party—I do not recognise either gentleman as having control over anybody else in Ireland, and I shall only deal with those who have physical control over arms. So long as I am connected with the administration I shall acknowledge nobody outside the Government. I have already explained my position in regard to arms and it is that we mean to get them without trouble if I can, as I am sure everyone in the House would prefer should be done.—"
  He was very tender to Ulster. He did not bother, nor did his predecessors, about the trouble when taking the arms from the Nationalists. He took them in the roughest and rudest manner possible—
  "If we cannot get them without trouble, we will get them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th August, 1918, col. 1651, Vol. 109.]
  On the very day on which the House met a question was put to the right hon. Gentleman as to what has happened in regard to the Ulster arms. When questioned in that Debate as to the number of the arms, he said he was informed by the police that there were 50,000 rifles and twelve machine guns. I have made some inquiries since, and I think he underestimated them. At all events, that was the official number given—a very formidable armament. I suppose there was also a very large quantity of ammunition. Here is the reply the right hon. Gentleman gave to the question—
  "The precise figures are not available,"—
  He had previously stated that they were available—
  "But a very substantial number of rifles have-been handed voluntarily to the military and are under their absolute control. An Order has now been issued making it illegal to have arms without a permit.—"
  That ought to have been made long before.
  "And this Order applies to the whole of Ireland. For all arms handed over voluntarily a receipt is given and they will be returned when the Regulation forbidding the having of arms without a permit is revoked. For military reasons I cannot state where the arms are now kept."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th October, 1918, col. 12.]
  What military reasons? We pressed again and again for details and particulars on the following points: What was the number of the arms handed over; secondly, whether they were handed over on conditions,

  2773
  and, if so, what are the conditions; and thirdly, where they were? There was a very special reason for asking those questions, because the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) when he went to Ulster on 27th September, 1914, made a very famous speech in which he declared that it had been said that he had lent some rifles—the Ulster rifles—to the Government to carry on the War. At that time, of course, our men were really using sticks, and rifles were so scarce that it was impossible to send drafts to France until the factories turned out rifles, and it had been stated that the patriotic men of Ulster had loaned some of their rifles to the Government to make up this deficiency. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) is a man of plain language. He uses language which is not permissible in this House except by way of quotation. He said it was a lie, and that he had never allowed a single rifle to leave Ulster and he never would, although at that time it was a question of saving the Empire. He went on to make this declaration, that if, when the War was over, any attempt were made to put into force the Act which was on the Statute Book, he would call out his Volunteers and defy the law and institute civil war in this country. I have here a short extract from his speech:
  "What I propose to do in the future—may God grant it may be the near future—when the War is over, I propose to summon the Provisional Government.—"
  With us that would be high treason, but of course with the Ulstermen it is patriotism—
  "I propose to summon the Provisional Government together and I propose, if necessary, so far as Ulster is concerned, that their first act shall be to repeal the Home Rule Bill as regards Ulster."
  What is that but rebellion? In what respect does that differ from the action of the Sinn Feiners in the rebellion of 1916? And are we to patiently look forward after the horrors of this War to have in our country a fresh civil war?
  "I propose, in the same Act, to enact that it is the duty of the Volunteers to see that no Act or no attempt under that Bill shall ever be made in Ulster. We have plenty of guns and we are going to keep them. We are afraid of nothing."
  He went on to say:
  "Let them treat the Home Rule Bill—he supposed he ought to call it the Home Rule Act—"
  I should rather think so considering that it had the King's signature—"as a nullity." That is exactly what the Sinn Feiners say, that they will treat all the Acts of this
  2774
  House as a nullity, but they have a good example. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer was standing on the platform beside the right hon. Gentleman and pledged the entire Tory party to back him in that civil war, and in treating this Act as a nullity when the hour came:
  "He solemnly stated that he was in a position: to pledge the entire Tory party to back him in this civil war and go ahead as though it never existed, and let those who dared come and try to force it upon her."
  In other words, the right hon. Gentleman, undertook to give full notice as to these 50,000 rifles brought from Hamburg—German Mausers supplied by the Germans. They talk here of a German plot in Ireland. This was a worse German plot, which existed before the War and which brought on the War. They sent 50,000 rifles to the right hon. Gentleman in Ulster to stir up civil war. Then they believed that England was out of action with the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College, and that they were in a position to trample down the liberties of Europe. That was the condition of things that we had to face when we raised this whole question of the Ulster arms. These rifles and these machine-guns were deliberately left in the hands of a small minority of the Irish people who had announced their intention to rebel against the King and his laws the moment the War was over, encouraged by the present Leader of the House, and who had by their example brought on and given birth to the troubles which have taken place in Ireland throughout this War. To accentuate that position of affairs during the War the Government deliberately set to work to disarm the whole population of Ireland so far as they were suspected of Nationalist ideas—not only those who sympathised with Sinn Fein, but those who followed us and who were faithful followers of the late Leader of my party in the great policy which he preached and which he struggled so hard to carry out. His followers in Ireland were treated as public enemies.
  The only party in Ireland which had renounced physical force in any shape or form, and had conformed to the law, and for thirty or forty years had patiently, in the face of endless disappointments and cruel delays, proceeded by constitutional methods in this House and discouraged their people from resort to methods of revolution—we were literally the only party in Ireland that stood for the law,

  2775
  but our followers were disarmed and disarmed in every circumstance of insult, outrage and violence. At last, under pressure of shame in this House, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shortt) gave a pledge that he would disarm the Ulster Volunteers. I ventured on that occasion to say that I thought he would not be allowed. The right hon. Member for Trinity College was sitting behind him, and he smiled a grim smile. I knew perfectly well what the result would be. When he came here and replied to a question which was put to him he stated that the Ulster arms had been loyally surrendered, but he was not in a position to say how many. That was somewhat suspicious. I want to state here definitely that this is a fraud, and I am amazed that the right hon. Gentleman should come here and make a statement which is calculated to leave the House under a wholly false impression. He has not got the Ulster rifles. It is not true to say that he has got the Ulster arms. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what happened, according to my information. He is there, and he can contradict it if he is able to. He went to Ulster to interview certain leaders of the Ulster Council. Although he has been very courageous in his statement to the House that he would recognise nobody who had not the physical possession of the arms, when he went to Belfast he changed his tone very fast, and had to recognise them. He was met by members of the Ulster Council, and there was a discussion as to what should become of these arms. Before he arrived in Belfast the Ulster arms had been distributed to individual houses, and there are thousands of them, according to my information, now in the hands of the Ulster Volunteers.
  There was a parley, and certain terms were arranged under which these gentlemen undertook to surrender the arms, but, if my information is correct, I do not wonder that the Chief Secretary, for military reasons, declines to let us know where the arms are. Was there ever such a preposterous thing ever tried to be palmed off on this House? It is not for military reasons that he could not tell us where the arms are, but because the Ulstermen told him that they would not allow a rifle to leave Ulster. He had to obey his master In accordance with the statement of the right hon. Member for Trinity College on the 22nd September, 1914, he said, "I will not allow a rifle to leave Ulster." And he
  2776
  has not allowed any to leave Ulster. The right hon. Gentleman dare not take a rifle out of Ulster. He got the rifles on an undertaking to return them to the Ulster-men as soon as peace was proclaimed. In other words, they are to get back their rifles as soon as they want to rebel. Meanwhile the military have them, and they are perfectly willing to leave them there. They do not intend to rebel while the War is on—there is no necessity—but they are ready to rebel and fight against the King's Government immediately peace is concluded. Their rifles are there in Ulster, and they know perfectly well that they have the heads of the War Office on their side. Therefore they are not under the control of the military, but they are practically under their control, and they know that they will get them back whenever they want them. The right hon. Gentleman did not tell us about the machine guns. Perhaps they have been distributed like the rifles. A great quantity of rifles were actually distributed while the right hon. Gentleman was discussing terms with the Ulstermen. While that was taking place the rifles were being scattered over private houses. They have retained a considerable armament in that way, and, though they are not in actual physical possession of the remainder, it is just the same for their purpose as if they had been left in their possession.
  We want to know, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to tell the House, is he going to make any pretence of honest, even-handed justice and fair play to all sections of the population in Ireland? I was opposed and am opposed to the disarming of the population of Ireland altogether. The unhappy rebellion in Dublin was the result of a series of shocking blunders and breaches of faith on the part of the Government, and it was taken part in by a very small body of men, misguided enthusiasts, who did not extend over one-thirtieth part of the population of Ireland. I believe that if the Government had handled Ireland properly they would have left the arms in the hands of the Irish Volunteers, and they could have taken every single soldier out of Ireland if they had followed the advice of the late Mr. Redmond. It would have been perfectly safe. The object was to relieve the Government of all responsibility for holding troops in Ireland, and in order to do everything in his power to strengthen the Government in the conduct of the War. They did not take his advice.

  2777
  Every single piece of advice which he gave to them was turned down and defied and the opposite course was taken and the result has been that at the end of the War 70,000 men were kept in Ireland, whereas at the beginning of the War, if they had acted with common sense and listened to the advice of those who understood the Irish situation, they might have taken every soldier out of Ireland and allowed the Irish population to arm as much as they liked in perfect safety. When you once embark on the policy of disarming a section of the Irish people surely any man who understood the ABC of statesmanship would see that the only course was to disarm all sections impartially. To disarm the majority of the population of Ireland and leave armed to the teeth the minority, who had declared their intention of rebellion and of fighting the Government, was the most wicked policy that could possibly enter into the mind of man and was best calculated to disturb the country and exasperate the people. All this you have done. I say it is not true that the Ulster rifles have been taken up in the real sense of the word. The Ulster rifles and machine guns are still at the disposal of the Ulstermen, and the Member for Trinity College has not the slightest notion, and as long as he dominates the Government—and he does dominate the Government in their Irish policy to-day—he has not the slightest intention of allowing these rifles to leave Ulster, and so long as they are in Ulster no one will believe that they are withdrawn from the control of the Member for Trinity College and his Provisional Government, which is still in existence, and which he intends to summon together as soon as peace is declared. So much for the Ulster rifles.
  I want to say a few words on the question of martial law. Ireland is at present governed by martial law. It may be forgotten by many Members of the House, but we have not forgotten that when the rebellion was put down in May, 1916, now two and a half years ago, we made repeated appeals to the then Government to withdraw draw the Proclamation of martial law and for some obscure reason for which I could never get any explanation from the Government, they refused to withdraw the Proclamation of martial law, giving a whole series of insincere and hardly plausible excuses; but the fact remains
  2778
  that they declined to withdraw the Proclamation, and at this moment Ireland is under martial law. I want to know from the Chief Secretary what is the policy in that respect.
  9.0 P.M.
  Now that the War is over, and all pretence of German plots and danger from rebellion so far as the National side, or I will add the Sinn Fein side is concerned, do they intend to maintain martial law in Ireland? That is a very serious question, and one which I maintain I am entitled to have answered before this Parliament breaks up. Are you going to the country on this platform, that Ireland is to be governed after the War is over by martial law? Was there ever anything to equal it in the history of mankind that a country where there is no serious disturbance, where all military operations and all active resistance to the law has ceased for more than two years, when a state of war is ended, military operations have ceased even on the Continent, that martial law should be maintained in Ireland? When we draw attention to the results of that system, the working of that system, the right hon. Gentleman jumps up—and I really must say in all my experience of Irish Debates in this House I have never heard anything to equal the attitude, the tone, and the style of the replies of the present Irish Secretary. I never heard anything like it. What did he say the other day? His answer was, as a sample of the condition of Ireland, that only the week before last there was discovered in Dublin in one house enough dynamite—I suppose he meant melinite—to blow up the whole city of Belfast and Dublin. With all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I think that is a perfectly grotesque exaggeration. He did not state where the house was. That, I suppose, is a military-secret—a secret, as the old saying is, a secret of polichinelle. I know where the house is. Everybody in Dublin knows it. It is a notorious house. It is in Rutland Square, or, as they call it now, Parnell Square. It is a house I bought myself two or three years ago for the National Volunteers, and I daresay he knows it well too through his police spies. He knows the history of this house. It was taken out of our possession by armed men about a year and a half ago. A body of armed men attacked it one night with the connivance of the police, who never interfered, and it has been held by these men since, and he has the unblushing audacity

  2779
  to stand up in this House and attack the whole Irish cause and the whole country, because in this house, which his police have allowed to be held by an armed force against the lawful owners for nearly two years—that unknown to the police there have been stored bombs and melinite enough to blow up two cities. Where were the police all this time? They knew the character of this house; they knew who were in occupation and control of it; and I say deliberately that these plots in Ireland are, in my opinion, the work of the police spies themselves—of the Secret Service Department. That is what Major Price and company are kept in Ireland for. How did that melinite get into that house without the knowledge of the police? It has been a matter of common rumour in Dublin that there were bomb stores in the city. Everybody has been asking, "What on earth are the police about?" Is he aware of what occurred at Amiens Street Station six weeks ago? I wonder he did not give us that story. That, I suppose, was too indelicate to be heard in this House. The very last time I crossed to Ireland, the night before I arrived, a body of armed men took possession of Amiens Street Station, in Dublin, bound the solitary policeman on duty to a lamp-post, put a revolver to his head, and stole a large quantity of this melinite. The district in which I live was surrounded that night by military, and all the houses searched from the garret to the cellar—a preposterous proceeding, as if the melinite would be stored in the residential quarter of the city! I suppose it was brought to Rutland Square, and they knew quite well where it was and did not get it.
  Does anybody in his senses imagine that in the present condition of Dublin and of Ireland that large quantity of explosives would be left in the Amiens Street Station in Dublin with one policeman to guard it, and that twelve armed men would go down and take possession of the whole station, the military being in the immediate vicinity and some soldiers on guard at the station, and carry off this explosive, unless there were police behind it? The innocence of the Chief Secretary is delightful. He gives this as a justification for all his performances in Ireland; but take up the newspaper every day, and you find the other side of the picture. Twenty girls, most of them under twenty years of age,
  2780
  were arrested in the streets of Dublin last week for selling flags and hauled off to the police station. Two or three men were arrested for singing songs of a seditious character, songs that have been sung in Ireland habitually since I was a child, and were sentenced to hard labour, and in various other ways of that character you make out these terrible eases which, in my opinion, are largely the organised work of your police spies in Ireland to-day; make no mistake about it.
  I got a long letter this morning describing the whole machinery from an inside source, from one of your own men. I will not tell his name. But he describes the whole machinery of spies whose only duty is to get into all the secret societies in Ireland and organise these outrages. That system was going on long before the Chief Secretary ever saw Ireland, and is going on still. The only difference now is that money is plentiful. The Secret Service funds are now unlimited. The millions we vote in this House are used freely in Ireland for carrying on this infernal work—it is infernal work; diabolical work. It is part of the machinery by which our race is being traduced before the world and held up, part of the plot to show that Ireland is not fit for self-government and that this Government is justified in breaking all its pledges and in going before the world and saying, "What are they but a race given over to outrage and disorder, and nothing can keep them quiet but martial law." The Leader of the House promised us the other day that the very moment he knew he would tell us what is going to happen in reference to this Parliament. Apparently he does not know yet in spite of all that happened to-day and yesterday, but before this Parliament breaks up we are entitled to know what is the policy of the Government, since they have cast Home Rule aside, and how are they going to conduct the government of Ireland? Is the country to be asked to endorse a policy of leaving in possession of the German arms which they now possess the minority in Ireland, who have announced their intention of defying the King's law and the King's Armies and carrying on civil war in that country if an attempt is made to enforce the law? And is this country to be asked, in the present condition of Europe and according to the high principles for which, in the words of the Prime Minister, we are ostensibly fighting in every country in Europe, to face Europe and face the world with Ireland

  2781
  under martial law without a shred or shadow of excuse? We are at least entitled to know where we stand.
  This is one of the last opportunities which we can hope to get for extracting from the Government some frank and fair statement of what is their policy and what is their programme so far as the Irish question is concerned, and whether for which they mean to go to the constituencies and ask for a mandate for five years, because that is now the avowed purpose of this Coalition. Is Ireland to be kept under martial law for five years? Remember this: if your present system of provocation goes on, I see no end to it. You cannot trample upon the Irish people. The more you trample upon them and kick them, the more intractable, unmanageable, and ungovernable they will become. You cannot, to use an expression of a predecessor of the present Chief Secretary, create in Ireland an atmosphere favourable for settlement by kicking, insulting, and tyrannising over the Irish people. If the Government are going to carry on their present system, things will go from bad to worse. They may provoke another insurrection. I do not know. I pray God that that may not be the case. But according to their policy they are going about having an insurrection one way or another, because if they grant home government Ulster, armed to the teeth, is to fight, and if they do not grant home government, and maintain martial law, possibly even without arms, they may have some attempt at insurrection in the South. The more they carry on this system of repression, the more difficult the situation becomes. It is getting worse from day to day. I warn the Chief Secretary that that is so. He postures sometimes before the House as if he had produced order and contentment in Ireland. He has done nothing of the kind. His policy has been of such a character as to make the situation worse and worse. The country is entitled to know where it stands. That certainly is a very modest demand. Some kind of hugger-mugger arrangement has apparently been come to behind the scenes by the two parties who form the present Government. Nobody knows what that arrangement is. The British people may be content with such a situation, and if you will not give us the right to govern ourselves the least that even we may reasonably demand is that you will frankly, honestly and clearly state how you mean to govern us in Ireland.
  Mr. NUGENT: I wish to join my hon. Friend in pressing the Chief Secretary for some information as to what he hopes may be done in connection with these Ulster rifles. We have heard statements made in this House, based possibly on reports that he has received, though in my opinion a great many of these statements have been intended mainly to satisfy public opinion in this country—that he, as the representative of the Government in Ireland, is acting in a fair and impartial manner towards all parties in that country. Those who have listened to the various Debates in this House will recollect that some twelve months ago, on the very eve of a series of demonstrations in Ulster, organised by the constitutional party to put the case of the constitutional movement versus the physical force or the extreme movement before the people, that occasion was utilised to raid public halls and private houses, to raid the halls of an organisation with which I have the privilege to be associated, to go into these Hibernian halls, break doors and locks and steal—because I can give no other description—rifles which were there, which were never asked for. But not content with that they proceeded to enter the houses of Catholic clergymen and break locks and doors as if these men were fomenters of disorder and strife. And anyone who knows the position in Ireland will recognise that if there is anything in this world calculated to create disorder and strife in Ireland it is surely this invasion of the private dwellings of Catholic priests. I would like to know how many Orange halls have been entered for the purpose of getting the Ulster rifles, and what means were employed to ascertain where these rifles were?
  I would ask the Chief Secretary for definite information as to whether, when an order was issued, or not an order but a request made by the sergeant of the Royal Irish Constabulary stationed at Keady, in the County of Armagh, whether that sergeant suggested to the constables not to mind the order that was issued by the Inspector-General to watch the houses where the rifles were stored so that they would not be removed, and I would also ask him how many rifles have been taken out of that district and out of the Orange halls in that district, because with all his Secret Service surely the right hon. Gentleman will be able to answer a question on a subject which is public property in the district. I ask that in view of the fact

  2783
  that this particular gentleman was the organiser of the police force in the county to sign the covenant and called meetings during the week previous to the signing so that the police were to throw in their lot entirely with those men. He was stationed at that time at Lurgan. We have these whispering statements made, and we have it given to us as a secret that the rifles, or a certain number of them, have been secured. That may satisfy the very confiding Members of this House, but it certainly satisfies nobody in Ireland, and nobody believes one word about the rifles having been taken. The Chief Secretary for Ireland is merely an agent acting for and on behalf of the hon. and learned Member for Trinity College. He exercises no power in Ireland except with the permission of the hon. and learned Member. Will he tell us how many rifles have been taken in any one county and where they are being stored. Rifles have been taken from the Nationalists and raids made upon them, and the fact that they were taken is public property, and also where they were taken to. Surely if there is to be equal treatment for all people we should get the opportunity of learning here and now how many rifles have been taken and where they are stored. I am informed that the constabulary sergeant at Keady is very anxious to facilitate in every way the Sinn Fein organisers. I happen to know the situation very well there. He was anxious to supply them with information as to how they could conduct their case when a number of them recently were tried. We have looked for some time for information as to the rifles, and we have got very little. Every effort is made by the Chief Secretary and those supposed to be responsible for the government of Ireland to create a panic in the country. One day an order is issued to the Dublin Metropolitan Police that they must all have rifles, and 900 were scattered around the barracks with 250,000 rounds of ammunition, and in the most excited way in the course of a few days all those are lifted, taken back again and placed in the depot. The management of the Government agencies in Ireland is so great that the very guard upon the Chief Secretary's Lodge and on the Vice-Regal Lodge is one day supplied with rifles and a pass word to guard him coming in and going out, and in a fit of this extraordinary panic all that is stopped because the police cannot be trusted, and because Major Price issues an
  2784
  instruction that they cannot be trusted inasmuch as the policemen on guard outside his house allowed two squibs to be thrown on the tram track, and they had frightened himself and his family.
  I have a distinct recollection of a raid that happened to be made on my own house, and there certainty was not the same consideration there for women and children. That was a raid made for what? Will we get any information why that raid was made? [An HON. MEMBER: "A demonstration."] It was merely to tender an insult, nothing more, because supposing, for argument's sake, that I was doing something, and as the Chief Secretary alleged was suspected, surely he does not imagine that I am a fool to keep documents of that kind inside my house. I thought the Government representatives had some common-sense, and I was absolutely mistaken. They thought I was a fool, and they were mistaken. To come to another case referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo about a raid upon a house in Parnell Square, a raid is made, and a seizure takes place, and policemen are sent around looking for information and making needless inquiries. What is the object? The object is to try and circulate in the public mind that something desperate is happening, and it is a system of trying to slander and libel the Irish people. If there were such a thing as explosives, surely the special guard at the Great Northern Railway station would have seen those things coming in, and surely there are sufficient police and soldiers there to protect a policeman and prevent him being caught and tied up. I may say I have made close inquiries, and I cannot discover the name of any policeman that was taken up and tied to a post, or anything of that sort. Around where I live there are a couple of railway bridges, and one night suddenly the whole military forces were called out and the whole place surrounded. The only information we could get was that it was a military manœuvre just to see, in case there was a rebellion, how they were to suppress it. There was a deep feeling in Ireland that all these alleged crimes that have been committed are crimes committed in the Secret Service in Dublin Castle, and are crimes generated there, and that we have a repetition of the old methods. Chief Secretaries come and go, but the crime perpetrators, the men who are employed for the purpose of detecting

  2785
  crime, the Sergeant Sheridan's and Sergeant Sullivan's, are still there, and the only difference is that there are a great deal more of them employed at present. What has this brought the position to in Ireland? It has brought us to this state of affairs, that of all the Chief Secretaries we have had it is generally admitted that the least powerful, the least respected, the least capable of taking charge of the Government machinery, is the right hon. Gentleman who holds the post at this moment. The right hon. Gentleman can ignore these criticisms, but he cannot ignore the responsibility that he owes to the country of which at this moment he is Chief Secretary. He cannot ignore the fact that during the administration of his predecessors Ireland was never in a more discontented state than it is to-day.
  Neither Unionists, Nationalists, Sinn Feiners, nor anybody else have the slightest respect for the Government. It is the laughing-stock of anybody who makes the slightest inquiry into the matter. One day a man is arrested for receiving corn in which ammunition is supposed to be sold to him, and he is put in prison for weeks. After all possible inquiries the person who is supposed to have sent away this stuff disappears, and the whole case collapses. It is a strange thing which I want Members of the House to recollect, that when the stuff arrives in Amiens Station the police were watching it, they saw it delivered, they surrounded the building in which it was. Their information was so clear and definite, and yet they are unable to say where these 30,000 rounds of ammunition were procured. I do not think there is any machinery in Belfast for the manufacture of ammunition, except that which is under the control of the Government. But there is a general impression that the ammunition was manufactured in Birmingham, was sent to Belfast, and was transhipped from Belfast to Dublin as part of a deliberate plot to try and create crime on the eve of the assembly of Parliament and thereby to cause a sensation. The whole state of the country is at this moment deplorable. We have the reign of martial law, and that, to say the least of it, is absurd. You cannot at this moment organise an ordinary boys' brigade for the purpose of drilling exercise. You are not permitted to do that. I have tried it myself, and therefore I know. I was refused permission to give absolutely wrong, and so far as I am
  2786
  little athletic exercise because it was suggested the State would be jeopardised thereby. And yet we have the right hon. Gentleman coming down here and in a most sensational and pathetic manner telling us what serious things are taking place in Ireland, and in what an awful state Ireland is! If it be true, is it not a condemnation of the right hon. Gentle man and of the present Goverment to say that when this War broke out they had practically the whole sympathy of the Irish people; but, by their mismanagement, by their cruel tyranny over the people, they have driven them away and brought Ireland to its present discontented state? If there is all this alleged crime, it is not because it has the sympathy of the people, but because the right hon. Gentleman spends too much Secret Service money in generating crime.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Shortt): I am sure the House will desire that I should not take up very much of its time in replying to the last two speeches. In the first place, we have really heard nothing new at all to-night. I have listened very carefully to both the speeches, and there is not one single charge which has not been made over and over again—and not one single allegation—
  Mr. DILLON: They are true, and you have to make these charges over and over again.
  Mr. SHORTT: There has not been one single allegation or charge which has not been exposed over and over again as totally unfounded and totally inaccurate. The hon. Member referred to the case of Ulster arms. He and his colleagues appear to have an astonishing amount of detailed information as to the sedition, or treachery or rebellion going on in Ulster. Apparently, there never was a more seditious, a more treacherous, or more rebellious organisation than that of the Ulstermen of Belfast and the surrounding district. The hon. Gentleman apparently know everything about them, but so far as my information goes their information is inaccurate. He or his colleagues described how on a certain occasion, when I happened to be in Belfast, Ulster arms were being carefully distributed apparently under my very nose. Of course, I do not know, he may have had more detailed information than I had, but I can say I am satisfied that his information was absolutely wrong, and so far as I am

  2787
  informed, the movement of arms which no doubt he heard about, and which he quotes as signs of the wickedness of these people was the collection of arms for the purpose of handing them over. I have already stated in this House that substantially so far as we know, all Ulster arms have been handed over, and if they have not been handed over it is just as illegal for Ulstermen in Ulster to possess rifles as it is for men in any other part of the country.
  Mr. DILLON: Have you ever searched a single house or prosecuted a single person in this connection?
  Mr. SHORTT: I cannot answer that question. I do not know. It may possibly be that the Ulstermen have given up all their arras and it may be that they have not, but I can tell the hon. Member that if he can give me any information that Ulstermen are holding rifles in an illegal way I will give immemediate instruction for a prosecution. If the hon. Member can tell us that—
  Mr. DILLON: You want us to turn informers!
  Mr. SHORTT: If the hon. Member will name a single house we will direct the police to search for rifles and if they are found a prosecution will follow. I shall go no further with regard to that. With regard to the question of martial law, I take it, of course, that when the hon. Member says martial law he is referring to the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and so on, which exist in Ireland to-day.
  Mr. DILLON: Not at all. I am referring to nothing of the kind. I am referring to the Proclamation which was issued after the rebellion, and which is in full force to-day.
  Mr. SHORTT: The hon. Member called it martial law.
  Mr. DILLON: Yes.
  Mr. SHORTT: My predecessor tried his best to explain to him that there is not martial law in Ireland or anything approaching it.
  Mr. DILLON: There is!
  Mr. SHORTT: As I say, my learned predecessor tried to explain that there was not, and where he failed I do not think I
  2788
  need take up the time of the House in trying to succeed. There is no martial law in Ireland at this time.
  Mr. DILLON: I deny it!
  Mr. SHORTT: Undoubtedly there is a special law required by the circumstances which exist there. Practically the whole of the law which exists in Ireland to-day exists in this country to-day, and if the necessity arose, either by sedition or any other reasons, to put in force Regulations in England which to-day are put in force in Ireland, then of course they would be put in force. We have heard of some instances of alleged fabrication by the police of crime, though apparently it is difficult to say whether it was to obtain a conviction of some innocent person or whether it was that absurd charge that everything was being done to blacken Ireland. Take the case of the oats, over which the hon. Member waxed so contemptuous. Is it denied that the stuff was there, and that the ammunition was in the oats? Is it denied that the gentleman who would have been charged with putting the ammunition into them immediately took to his heels, and has been missing ever since? If it were a pure police stunt, why did he want to run away?
  Mr. NUGENT: Because it was arranged with him to run away.
  Mr. SHORTT: Really, it is not fair criticism to try to make up a case against the police. If that is the sort of argument, I really do not think I need trouble the House any more on the point. That is typical of all the charges. I have at this box before protested against the attack upon the honour of perfectly honourable men. Apparently any stick is good enough to beat Major Price with, or anyone who is doing his duty under most difficult circumstances. I do not propose to deal any further with it. We have heard these charges over and over again, and have denied them over and over again, and it is useless taking up the time of the House in denying them once more. The policy of this Government has not changed in the least. The policy of this Government is to restore order in Ireland.
  Mr. DILLON: You are going the wrong way about it!
  Mr. SHORTT: That is the hon. Gentleman's opinion. My opinion differs from his. My information differs from his. The policy of the Government is exactly the

  2789
  policy it was and remains, namely, a policy of Home Rule for Ireland. I do not want to indulge in recriminations. I am not going to argue here to-night who is to blame for what is taking place in Ireland. Suffice it to say this, I absolutely decline on the part of the Government to admit that we have anything but a minor share of the fault.
  Mr. KING: Surely if there is any truth in the doctrine that we ought to judge the Government by its achievements, or, to put it another way, "By their fruits ye shall know them," there are two countries in regard to which the Government of this country, during the past four years, stands condemned as incapable and contemptible. The two countries to which I refer are Ireland and Russia. Turn your thoughts to four and a half years ago, when we were told that Ireland was the one blight spot. What have we got to-day? Ireland hopeless and helpless, because of the duplicity, incapacity, crooked and contemptible ways of the Government in dealing with it. And really the same remark in the case of Ireland applies to Russia. More than four and a half years ago no country was so united with this country in aim, in methods, in complete harmony of action and purpose; no country was so determined against German aggression and German militarism. And what is the case to-day? We are virtually at war with Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman could only manage Ireland by interning hundreds of the best men in Ireland. I wonder he has not interned the right hon. Gentleman behind him. I think it is only through lack of courage that he has not done so. We are practically at war with Ireland. In spirit there could not be anything more deplorable than the relations between Ireland and this country, and it is exactly the same with Russia. After the greatest enthusiasm four years ago, continuing as it did after the revolution one and a half years ago, we are to-day in an actual state of war with that country, and, moreover, we are at war with that country apparently alone of all the countries of the world. Our warfare with Germany has ceased, but our warfare with our great Ally at the beginning of the War is not only to continue, but, apparently, from all the indications we have, it is to be carried on with greater energy, and now that our soldiers, our sailors, and all our military forces are relieved in other spheres, we are to carry on the war in Russian with redoubled energy. I deplore
  2790
  this state of things. I think it lamentable. I think that a war against Russia ought not to be carried on without definite reason and definite objects. Attempts have been made by myself and by others in this country and other countries, in the Press, by public men to find out for what objects our military operations are still being carried on in Russia. When I ask questions, or others ask questions, absolutely no reply is given. For what reason are we carrying on war in Russia? I gave notice to two Departments that I would raise this question, and I have had quite friendly and courteous consultation with representatives of those two Departments about the subject, but no one attends. Only a few hours ago I had a definite promise that someone would be present to answer this question. I ask the House to observe we are carrying on a war against Russia, or in Russia. There is no attempted explanation of it, and I cannot understand it. Let me recur to the point, at the end of July and the beginning of August, when the present military operations in Russia were begun. An explanation was then given by Mr. Lansing, the American Secretary of State. I quote his exact words:
  "Intervention in Russia was solely to aid the Czecho-Slovaks to leave Russia for the Russian Front and not to establish an Eastern battle front."
  The Czecho-Slovaks, when the fighting started, instead of making for the Western Front, have been moving all the time towards the Eastern Front—that is from somewhere in Siberia. They have been moving the whole time towards Vladivostok. They have been offered repeatedly by the Russian Government that they might pass through Russia either to Archangel or elsewhere on the Russian Western Front if they passed through without their arms. As the Czecho-Slovaks had all been prisoners of war, and as it is usual to disarm prisoners of war, and as on the conclusion of Russia's hostilities against the Central Powers they were offered the opportunity of returning home without their arms, we ought, I think, to have some explicit statement why, in the first place, the repeated offers of the Russian Government have not been accepted, and, secondly, why they have not been allowed, as Mr. Lansing put it, "to leave Russia for their Western Front." Then I think we ought to observe that though Mr. Lansing, on behalf of the American Government, stated most explicitly that

  2791
  "Military intervention in Russia was entirely and solely on behalf of the Czecho-Slovaks to liberate them"
  there is this fact, that many of the speeches and remarks by Allied statesmen have indicated that the intervention was to draw the German soldiers from the German Western Front so that, by getting behind the German lines in Russia, their strength on the West, in France and Flanders, would be weakened by their having to retain soldiers on the Russian borderland. Though Mr. Lansing repudiated the idea of establishing an Eastern Front yet that view has always been pressed in various utterances by both French and English statesmen as one of the objects of our operations. Now that there are no German hostilities, and no power on the part of the Germans to continue the War, that object, obviously, must be out of the question. It cannot possibly be the object of our military operations in Russia to draw off German soldiers from the Western to the Eastern Front. Beyond this there may be other objects. I notice in various papers of very high authority other objects are being stated. I take, for instance, the objects stated by that very eminent journalist, Mr. Garvin, in "The Observer." Mr. Garvin appears to have exceptional opportunities of knowing the mind of the Government, and especially the policy of the Prime Minister. He says:
  "Further intervention in Russia against Bolshevism will be imperative, for we must enable the former Russian territories to rise. The Peace Congress will take the responsibility for remaking Russia."
  These are very important words coming from that authority. I hope they will be repudiated. I maintain that the Peace Congress has no authority, and ought to have none, to continue a war against Russia for the purpose of re-making Russia. If the doctrine of self-determination for nationalities and great countries is to be justified and acted upon, the doctrine put forward that the Peace Congress must take the responsibility for re-making Russia, and must continue its military intervention in that sense, and with that object should be definitely stated. It is so novel and so extraordinary a doctrine that it should be made clear. In connection with this doctrine, that in order to re-make Russia and establish commercial or political relations with ourselves or congenial to those who undertake these operations, I must quote
  2792
  what a German Junker paper, the "Kreutzerzeitung," says. That journal, which, as anybody knows, is one of the leading Conservative Junker papers in Germany, supporting the idea of continued military intervention in Russia, says, or said:
  "The fight against Bolshevism may prove to be the bridge between us and our enemies."
  In other words, it contemplated the time when the capitalists and militarists of this country and the Allies should join with the capitalists and militarists of Germany, and the bridge which leads them into Russia and to Russian exploitation and domination should be the union of interests. Those words are very significant. The way in which this war against Russia is being carried on and the objects that are being maintained by all sorts and conditions of the Press, Liberal and Conservative papers alike, with the same object, entering Russia as a great land of booty and adventure, ought to be made clear. What are our intentions in this matter should be stated. Let me quote one other Minister, Lord Rothermere, in his great organ of the Press, says:
  "Russia cannot save herself, but order must be imposed from without."
  This is what the "Star," a Radical paper, says:
  "It assumes that the Turkish armistice is aimed at our continuing our military operations in Europe, and urges that the great granaries of Southern Russia and the oil reservoirs of Baku will now be open to our trade."
  Central and Northern Russia are starving and yet we are told the granaries there are for us. Rather strange view for a Radical paper. What are the objects of the Government? We have a right to know how long this campaign is going on. With what object and when and on what conditions the Russian campaign will be brought to a close. I suppose really there never was a campaign that was undertaken so rashly and on such bad information. Again and again, in talking to various people, Ministers amongst them, I was told, three or four months ago, in July especially, that as soon as an Allied force entered Russia the power of the Bolsheviks as a dominant party in the Soviet of the day would collapse, and that all the other parties would unite with the soldiers who came in, and that there would then be peace and harmony in Russia. That opinion was stated in the House and constantly in the Press, and it was a constant supposition of many conversations with authorities on the subject

  2793
  that the Bolshevik power would collapse as soon as an intervention Army entered that country.
  10.0 P.M.
  What has happened? Just exactly what would happen if the German Army had entered Ireland. Instead of being at loggerheads with us, the Irish would all have rallied to our side, just as much as if a German Army entered England Radicals and Conservatives, Coalitionists and Labour men, in fact, every man, would have rallied to the side of the defenders of their native soil. That is exactly what has happened in Russia. I read in many papers there the result of our military intervention in Russia, instead of producing a collapse of the Bolsheviks, has really been their establishment. In fact, this is so much the case that in an elaborate account of the position in Russia the other day the "Times," after having prophesied for weeks the collapse of the Bolsheviks, heads one of its articles "Bolshevik Rule Extending"; and we read how the Bolshevik power is extending over North and Central Russia, and from the Urals to the Ukraine. The Bolsheviks have been consolidated by our action, and if your object was to put Bolshevism down, you have gone the wrong way about it. Now you see Bolshevik doctrines spreading like wildfire throughout Europe; and who can say what is the prevailing sentiment amongst the great German people, because, though defeated, starved, discouraged, disheartened, and depressed, they are yet a great people in numbers, genius, and potentiality, and who can say what the prevailing spirit is amongst them? May it not be Bolshevism? I remember reading a speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith), in which he declared that "Bolshevism was sinking into its grave." The right hon. Gentleman has made many wise observations in his time, but he has sometimes made remarkably foolish ones, and of all the foolish things he ever said, I think that is the most foolish. I know we have all made mistakes, but has anybody ever made so great a mistake as to declare two months ago that Bolshevism was sinking into its grave, when, as a matter of fact, it is spreading like wildfire over Germany, Austria, and Bulgaria, and our Government is afraid of it here. Military intervention in Russia has only helped to fan the flame, and has added fuel
  2794
  to it. Who are the Bolsheviks? They are the extreme logical followers of the doctrine of Karl Marx. It is a very popular thing now to represent the Bolsheviks as an absolutely uncultured, incapable set of men, and I would like to quote what the "Daily Mail" says about them through their very eminent correspondent, Mr. Hamilton Fife. This is what they said of Lenin:
  "We must not think of the men Lenin, Trotsky, and Tchitcherin as men of no account or mere mob leaders. Lenin is a thinker and writer. He has been for many years the director of the Bolshevik party, chiefly in exile, but he is a man of high culture, although he is deliberately careless in his dress and prefers to look like a peasant or town labourer, but he has honest ideals."
  I have had the pleasure of meeting some of these men, and I am not ashamed to say I consider they are as much gentlemen as I am a gentleman myself. [HON. MEMBERS:" Hear, hear!"] I consider that in intellect and eloquence they are even the equal of the Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Macpherson). You may represent them through your mob Press, your War Aims Committee, and your other organs of gramophone opinions, as mere blackguards, or whatever else you like, but it does not alter the fact that they are of vital importance in this campaign and to the country and the nation which they have behind them. The idea that you have only to send a few soldiers there and all the people will tally to your banner and down these Bolsheviks is absurd.
  There is another fact about Russia which is too painful to ignore. Russia suffered years before any other country in this War from a shortage of food. I have tried to make out the facts on the best evidence that I could get, and I am convinced that food shortage, which in one form or another has attacked every belligerent country and every neutral country in Europe, attacked Russia earlier than any other country, and that there are now, and have been for a year, people dying of absolute starvation in Russia. A very grave responsibility lies upon those who continue this War, meaning as it does the closing of all ports in Russia against the import either of food or rolling stock or engines or anything else, increased difficulties of transport, of food supply, and of the organisation of the people, and the continuation of a horrible state of starvation in Russia. I was speaking the other day to a gentleman who knows Russian

  2795
  conditons better than anyone else in this country, and he says that if this War goes on there may be millions die of starvation. If it goes on a second year, during next summer and the following winter, without any help in the form of engines, rolling stock, or food, it must mean the perishing of 5,000,000 from starvation.
  Colonel Sir H. JESSEL: Whose fault is if?
  Mr. KING: It is the fault of the people who carry on war when peace may be made. It is certainly not the fault of the poor peasants who are being starved. If the punishment fell upon those who are guilty for all this horrible business, I should not complain, but it falls upon the weak, the helpless, and the poor peasant. That is the horror of this War. I have no wish to abuse anyone. I think everyone is as capable of pity and desires to do justice as much as I do myself, but when a war is being continued under such peculiar conditions one has the right to ask how far and how long it is going to be continued. There is one point of special interest to which I am justified in referring. The various terms of Armistice in the case of Turkey, Austro-Hungary, and Germany all give us particular military facilities for continuing our operations in Russia. There is Article 15 of the Armistice with Turkey—
  "Allied control officers to be placed on all railways, including such portions of the Trans-caucasian railways now under Turkish control, which must be placed at the free and complete disposal of the Allied authorities, due consideration being given to the needs of the population. This clause to include Allied occupation of Batum."
  Batum is Russian territory, but by the terms of the Armistice we are entitled to occupy Batum—a most unusual condition. Then it goes on:
  "Turkey will raise no objection to the occupation of Baku by the Allies."
  Here are two Russian ports to be occupied by us if we choose. I could in the same way follow various Articles in the three Armistices which seem framed or which might have been framed for a continuation on a very large scale of our military operations in Russia. We really ought to have some assurance that these military operations will be brought to a close as soon as possible, that we are not going to interfere with the right of the Russians to set up what Government they like, and that we are not there to occupy
  2796
  the country and manage it for a long period in order to get gain or recompense or repayment of debt or any other material advantage. We ought to seek only the freedom, the self-determination, and the happiness of the Russian people. If we are going to do that by continued military occupation, or continued military invasion, it will indeed be a sad descent from our noble achievements and our noble ideals of liberty and democracy which on the whole this country and the Allies have so wonderfully maintained. I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give us some indication as to how long and with what object this war with Russia is to be continued.
  Captain WATSON: I desire at this somewhat late hour to draw the attention of the Government quite briefly to a matter one of the phases of which was dealt with incidentally yesterday in this House by question and answer. The question was asked of the Leader of the House whether at the earliest possible date members of the Volunteer Training Corps who were serving as such by reason of a certificate of exemption to which was annexed a condition that they should serve in the Volunteer Training Corps would be released from such service at as early a date as was practicable, and I was very glad indeed to hear the answer by the Leader of the House that this would be brought to the attention of the Government as soon as possible.
  As this House is aware, there are many members of the Volunteer Training Corps who are serving as such not incidental to the exemption from military service, but because they took up this very important work quite voluntarily and from the most patriotic motive. Many of these men have been serving, as I well know, from the very early days of the War, and they have given most loyal and effective service. Their conditions of business are such now and their staffs have been so reduced that their work has almost reached a strain which has come to breaking-point. I do desire to ask my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will bring to the notice of the Government this question, in order that not merely those who have this condition annexed to their exemption certificates, but those who are serving in the Volunteer Training Corps may be released at such early date as is practicable and feasible I was glad to notice, two or three moments ago, that my right hon. Friend

  2797
  the Acting Secretary for Home Affairs is also in his place, because I wish for a moment to refer to the case of those who are serving as special constables. Many of those, as we all know, have given many of their midnight and waking hours to this service for a long time. Latterly, at the request of the Local Government Board, this condition that they should serve as special constables has been attached, in a very large number of cases, to the certificates of exemption from Volunteer service. I hope His Majesty's Government will consider as speedily as possible whether some, at any rate, of those to whom the service as special constables is annexed may not, owing to their special domestic and business positions, be re-leased from that covenant which they gave as early as is consistent with the national position and the service of their country.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I think the House will like me to reply to the two speeches which have just been delivered. I appreciate to the full the admirable service of the Volunteer Training Corps, and I agree with every word that my hon. and gallant Friend has said about their services. To-day I was discussing the question as to their future with the military authorities at the War Office, and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that steps will be taken as quickly as possible to see what can be done for the men who have received exemption upon the condition that they join the Volunteers. In my opinion these men have not only a claim but the right to return to their civil service in the country. With regard to those who voluntarily enlisted at the very beginning of the War, no one in this House could fail to recognise the patriotic endeavours and patriotic services of these men. They were men who had physical disabilities, or who were over military age, and who were busy citizens of the United Kingdom, yet all their spare time they fully and in all cases thankfully devoted to the service of this kingdom, in case at any time they might be called upon to render resistance to any foe who dared to invade this country. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that these two classes will have my most sincere sympathy, and will have my sympathetic attention at once. I hope to be in a position, probably before the House rises or before Parliament
  2798
  dissolves, to be able to reply at greater length to my hon. and gallant-Friend.
  A series of questions were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Mr. King). Those questions were ingenious in their nature, very comprehensive and bristling with difficulties. I am sure the House will not be surprised when I tell them that I am not in a position, nor do I think any Minister of the Crown is in a position to answer all the questions that he put. I personally regard them as not being in the national interest. When I remind my hon. Friend that the Inter-Allied Congress will meet very shortly and that all the questions he has raised to-night will be discussed at that Congress, he will feel, I am sure, that it would be impossible to give a definite answer, because it is not this House alone that decides these questions. They will be decided as a whole at the Inter-Allied Congress. I, therefore, do not propose to discuss them, and can only assure my hon. Friend that all these questions will be discussed at the Inter-Allied Congress and that they are prepared to discuss them I do not personally agree with his praise of the Bolsheviks. My view of the Bolshevik is. I gather, the view of the whole House, namely, that the Bolshevik, whatever might have been said of him at the beginning, is a pure anarchist. I for one feel that I could not allow the definition given by my hon. Friend of the Bolsheviks to remain unchallenged.
  Mr. KING: It was the "Daily Mail's," not mine.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not care what the "Daily Mail" said; I can only judge them by their deeds. I am certain no Member of the House will agree with my hon. Friend in praising these men when they read of the brutalities and dastardly crimes—
  Mr. KING: I did not praise them at all. In respect of their ability and intellect I said they were the equal of any others, and I maintain it. I have not said any of their actions should be imitated or even praised. I did not deal with their actions at all.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I can only rely upon the recollection of the House. The impression created upon my mind was that my hon. Friend was out to defend them. I can only recall to the House the numerous instances of dastardly cruelty inflicted upon the peasants. The peasants have

  2799
  been treated as badly as anyone. The record of the last few months of the Bolshevik Government is disgraceful, and I am astonished that any Member of the British House of Commons, which is out for freedom, justice, and liberty, should make the observations which my hon. Friend has made. What I object to much more strongly is that the whole tone of his speech was an indirect attack upon the good intentions of this country. He suggested indirectly, if not directly, that we were in Russia at present for aggrandisement of territory. The one bright fact during the whole of this War, to my mind, is that our motives and intentions were pure, and we have entered this conflict, as we shall end it, without any of the guilty motives which my hon. Friend suggests we have.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY.— [12TH NOVEMBER] SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT, 1918–19.

    CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1918–19.—INTERIM FORESTRY AUTHORITY.
    Resolution reported,
    "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 Forest Authority."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): Owing to the speed with which business came to a conclusion yesterday evening no Debate was possible upon this Estimate and I understand there are one or two points which hon. Members wish to be clear about. During the summer an announcement was made in another place that the War Cabinet had accepted the Report of a Sub-committee which had thoroughly considered the question of forestry in reference to reconstruction and it was the policy of the Government to give effect to these recommendations, so far as the House might ultimately think it advisable. Owing to the pressure of work it has not been possible so far to pass the necessary legislation, but it is felt very strongly that it would be a thousand pities to let the winter and spring go by without taking preliminary steps in the direction which it is desired to tread, and it is with this object that this Estimate has been introduced, to cover expenses which may arise between now and the end of the financial year by an interim authority which the War Cabinet
    2800
    has set up pending the passage of legislation. Certain gentlemen have agreed to serve as a central forestry authority ad interim, and their work will consist in taking whatever preliminary steps may be thought advisable, and among them of course there are such matters as the getting together of seeds—that is a matter which takes time—the raising of various nursery stock, the training of forest officers and foresters, the making of necessary surveys, and the irritation of replanting and afforestation schemes. The personnel of the authority must of necessity he temporary and provisional. Obviously many men well fitted for this work are still serving in the forces. It may interest the Committee if I give the names of those who have so far consented to serve on this authority. The chairman will be the right hon. Member for the Camborne Division (Mr. Acland); the English representatives will be Lord Clinton and Mr. R. L. Robinson; the Scottish representatives, Lord Lovatt, Mr. Walter Conynham, and the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. MacCallum Scott); for Wales the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Major D. Davies); and for Ireland (Mr. T. B. Ponsonby). It has not been possible to snake an Estimate under the various subheads for this short period, but I may say that the members of the authority, with the exception of Mr. Robinson, who will relinquish his position as Superintendent-Inspector of the Board of Agriculture, will be unpaid.
    I am sure the Committee will realise the urgency of the forestry position. If the work is to be done and if afforestation sites are to be secured, there is no time to be lost. I know that there has been a certain amount of controversy as to the centralising of all afforestry effort. I can inform the Committee that the legislation has not been passed. The details of the legislation will be a matter for settlement as early in the New Year as may be possible for Parliament to deal with it. When that matter comes before the House it will be open to all those who are interested and have special knowledge of these problems to press upon the Government the course which they think most desirable to obtain their ends. In order that there shall be no confusion and no clashing of authority in this brief interim period, the War Cabinet has decided that in the appointment of this interim authority, while they shall have power to take all the preliminary steps necessary they

    2801
    shall work, as far as possible, through the Departments of the separate countries involved. In the case of any dispute arising between the interim forestry authority and any of the existing authorities, there would be the right to appeal direct to the War Cabinet for settlement of such disputes. I hope that the few words I have said will commend this Estimate to the Committee, and that it will ease the not unnatural apprehensions entertained by some Members, who perhaps had not been fully seised of the work which is proposed to be entrusted to this interim authority.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: The hon. Gentleman, in introducing the Estimate, has informed the Committee of the purpose which is in view in setting up this new Interim Committee to deal with the question of afforestation, not only in England, but in Scotland and throughout the Kingdom. I regret very much that the House has not been afforded a better opportunity for discussing a matter which raises a question of such vital interest to the whole Kingdom, and especially of Scotland, where the interests of afforestation are so wide. Unfortunately, when the Resolution was passed last night it was not expected that it would be reached, and there was a very small attendance. The same remarks applies to a certain extent to-night. I do not think that in this matter Scottish Members generally, and Scotland as a whole is sufficiently apprised of the important subject to be discussed and dealt with to-night, or there would have been a larger attendance of Members. The effect of this Vote of £100,000 is to set on its legs a new central authority which is to carry into effect, as I understand the hon. Gentleman, the recommendations of the Forestry Reconstruction Committee, an interim authority—to use the words in the Estimate—to carry on the work pending the passing of legislation setting up permanent machinery for the purpose.
    I cannot congratulate the hon. Gentleman as the representative of the public purse on this occasion in asking us to vote £100,000 for a purpose against which a protest was made by the representative of the Treasury in the powerful dissent from the Report of the Forestry Reconstruction Committee. He is opposed to the setting up of a central authority on the ground of the expense and other grounds which were set forth in his dissent. He states:
    2802
    "While there are certain obvious advantages in a policy of concentration such advantages do not appear to me to be sufficient to justify a reversal of the policy of decentralisation which obtains in regard to agricultural policy generally. A separate Forestry Department, with a paid commissioner and assistant commissioners at its head and a considerable subordinate staff which is almost bound to expand rapidly, with large new central offices, is a costly matter. The multiplication of departments is a thing to be avoided except as a matter of the clearest necessity."
    That is the Treasury view, and we are asked to-night by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, notwithstanding this protest, to vote this substantial sum in order to set up this authority which is to carry on, on the lines of the Report, until the new authority is set up. There are two grounds on which I desire to protest very strongly against this matter. The first is, that in the dying days of this Parliament we are asked to authorise the setting up of machinery to carry out the proposals of this Committee, which it was understood would be dealt with by legislation in this House, so that a full opportunity would be afforded to all interests affected to come here and express their views and have the matter fully discussed. The hon. Gentleman clearly indicated that it was the intention to deal with the machinery to be set up by a Bill at a subsequent period. The only reason he gave for anticipating the judgment of the electors and of the members of the new Parliament was that they did not want to let the winter and spring go by, but that they wanted to set up an interim authority to do something in the direction in which they wished to move. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that no Bill would in any circumstances be introduced into this House to deal with this matter until the winter and spring had gone by. We are told that we are going to have a General Election within a month. Does he suggest that the Bill cannot be introduced practically within a month or two at the very outside, when every interest affected will have an opportunity of coming to the House?
    I object to the carrying out of recommendations of this character by the passage of a Supplementary Estimate, and by the appointment of a Committee to the personnel of which I do not take the slightest exception. I take this opportunity of saying that the Gentlemen whose names have been suggested are all men who, I believe, carry great weight, and men who are fitted to deal with these

    2803
    matters, although I should have liked to have had some further representation so far as the different schools of men and authority are concerned in Scotland on this question. My first objection as to the method which has been employed here tonight to get this matter settled is to the appointment of a Committee, which is going to carry us so far upon the road as to prevent us from reconsidering the question maturely when the Bill is before us. It is, I think, a bad precedent for the House of Commons, when we have been promised legislation on the subject, to have the matter settled in advance in this manner, and is not in consonance with the procedure of this House. I hope that view will be supported, as I know it is, by a number of my colleagues from Scotland. The effect of this proposal is to set up a Committee with very wide powers. I followed closely the definition of the powers. They include all aspects of forestry. They include the initiation of forestry schemes, and, in other words, they empower this Committee to take in hand the functions which are at present being discharged by the Scottish Board of Agriculture, and to override that Board if they should differ from it, subject to appeal, as my hon. Friend points out. I should like to ask where the Chief Secretary for Scotland comes in with regard to this matter? I think the Scottish Members are entitled to assume that the Secretary for Scotland is going to have his say in regard to matters of administration which fall under his charge at present. My hon. Friend suggests that he is, but at the present moment he has the right to deal with the question of schemes relating to afforestation proposed by the Board of Agriculture. I take it there is to be an appeal direct from the Board; if there is any difference, to the War Cabinet; and there is to be no regard paid to the views of the Secretary for Scotland himself. That is, to my mind, a very retrograde step in regard to matters of Scottish administration. I hope that we shall have some further assurance from the Treasury and from those responsible for this proposal that this matter has been considered, and that the Secretary for Scotland is fully advised of the difficulties and of the results which may follow from this proposal. I have no knowledge in regard to this matter, but I for one think with regard to Scottish matters we ought at least to be in a position
    2804
    to know what the views of the Scottish Office are on a question of this importance.
    The second ground upon which I oppose this proposal is that on its merits it is a reversal of the present policy in Scotland under which we deal with our own affairs, in our own specially constituted Boards. The question of forestry is one in which Scotland is very deeply interested. We have an area something like three times as great as the area in England to be afforested, and we have our own special conditions and our own special laws. We have at the present moment a separate Board of Agriculture for Scotland which is charged with the Forestry Department as well. The Sceretary for Scotland informed us on the Scottish Estimates the Board was at present taking every possible means to secure the initiation of forestry schemes in the interests of Scotland. I should like to remind the House that on the Estimates the Secretary for Scotland, on the 4th July, 1918, in reply to the charge that insufficient assistance had been given by the Development Commissioners to afforestry as far as the Board of Agriculture was concerned, said that every recommendation of the Board during the last eighteen months had been given effect to by the Development Commissioners, and he was really at a loss to suggest any better arrangement that could be made at this time. In other words, he was satisfied that everything was being done to give effect to the best policy in regard to afforestry in Scotland. I am quite prepared to admit that in the past we have not been able to do all we should have done in regard to afforestry, but to suggest that during the intervening period of two months before the matter can be dealt with by legislation nothing is going to be done unless this central committee is set up is a pure travesty of the situation. I speak as one who knows the interest taken in this matter all over the country and the strong desire to get a further move on.
    My further objection to the proposal to-night is this, that the Committee is set up to anticipate the new scheme, and, although it is charged with afforestry work, is undoubtedly going to deal with a great many other matters affecting agriculture. You cannot separate afforestation from agricultural pursuits. I think it right to point out that in the Report of the Afforestation Reconstruction Committee they make it

    2805
    perfectly clear that in their view the functions of the Forestry Board cannot be separated from other functions of the Board dealing with agriculture and small holdings in Scotland, and they mention further that the question of small holdings is wrapped up in the future of afforestry in Scotland. They point out in their Report the special social and economic benefits that afforestry can bring to bear on small holdings, and that farm work fits in better with them than any other industry. They further point out that concurrently with afforestation the number of small holdings obtainable at a moderate rent can be increased and they consider that to be the duty of the afforestation authority to earmark portions of the present area which are suitable for small holdings. The Report is, in fact, ample proof of the proposition that you cannot deal with forestry altogether independently of such problems as that of small holdings That is a proposition which is accepted by every person, yet the proposal we have tonight is one which is going to set up a special Committee to deal purely with questions of afforestation, and, it may be to give very large powers also with regard to a small holding policy, which might not be in consonance with the small holding policy adopted by the Scottish Board of Agriculture; in other words, it would afford them the right to override our policy with regard to forestry and small holdings. That is a matter of very much importance to Scotland. It is anticipated that 573,000 acres will be held by the Commission in the first ten years, of land acquired by them, of which only 150,000 are to be planted. In other words, the remainder of that very large area is to be not afforested, but is to be made use of for the purpose of constituting small holdings, and therefore we will find that the policy of small holdings, of land settlement, will very largely be dealt with by this authority. It has never been suggested that the whole of the land is to be planted. The suggestion of the report is that you will be able to acquire large areas of land, some of which is suited for afforestation and the remainder of which will be used for small holdings and agricultural purposes. I am not surprised that that should be the view of the Committee, because if the House will refer to page 65 it will be seen that really their main policy, although they only deal with forestry, has been to
    2806
    swallow up all the Scottish Departments dealing both with agriculture and forestry. The passage in the Report says:
    "It has been suggested to us that there is some possibility that a new Ministry may be formed which would embrace the existing Departments of Agriculture of England, Wales, and Scotland, and possess wider powers on all questions of rural land and development than are possessed by these Departments."
    It goes on to say:
    "If action were taken on these lines, the views we express would be to some extent modified, and they would still desire to have a single forestry authority under the new Ministry, which is to swallow up the functions of the Scottish Board of Agriculture."
    I think it is a fair comment to make that this proposal would involve a central authority not only for forestry but for agriculture in our country. I am aware that there are some of my colleagues from Scotland who do share that view, but I do not think they represent anything like the mass of opinion in Scotland on that subject. I am quite sure if we were to take the views of people in Scotland we should find that they would unite in protesting against any policy which, instead of carrying out decentralisation, which is all the current of the time, we should set up a central authority which is going to control us. I do not want to suggest that there are not many competent persons who might not be able to render us splendid assistance in Scotland in regard to forestry, and I should like to make it quite clear that in Scotland we should welcome the reconstitution of our Scottish Board of Agriculture in such a way that we might have the advantage of the very best experts, and those who are best qualified to deal with this important matter. We feel that this is a matter of enormous national interest at the present time—that we should control directly the interests of Scotland, while at the same time keeping in active and sympathetic touch and consultation with the departments or authorities put in charge of reafforestation in the other parts of the United Kingdom. But I am quite sure that I am not exaggerating the feeling in Scotland when I urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that he should not in this matter seek to override what is the very, very strong view held by the Scottish people that they should have control of their own Departments in Scotland, and that so long as the present system continues in operation and the Secretary for Scotland is responsible to Scotland for this Department, that he

    2807
    should not be overridden by any authority. The effect of this proposal is entirely to override him. We look forward to the time when we shall administer these matters in Scotland. What in the meantime is suggested? That these questions should be determined by a central authority. The answer my hon. Friend got was that this is a matter of national interest, and that as England and Wales have an equal interest with Scotland in the matter. But surely it cannot be suggested that Scotland is not able to look after her own interests, and get her own experts, who are efficient and well equipped to advise and deal with this problem; and in the second place, that we have not got an enormously greater interest in this concern in Scotland than any other part of the United Kingdom? Some of my colleagues are present. I appeal for their support in my protest. It may be that at this stage this protest is ineffective in the sense that the Government has made up its mind. Well, whether or not we be saddled with this new authority is a question for which the Government must assume responsibility. So far as the immediate future is concerned, I am quite sure that anything they may do, so far as Scotland is concerned, which takes from that country her existing right of control over her own affairs, will not be disregarded in the coming weeks and months. I urge whoever is responsible for this to estimate very seriously whether it is wise in the interests and objects he has in view to get this matter pushed through at the end of the Session, when no full discussion is likely or possible, whether it might not involve those concerned in the future in far greater controversy than if the discussion were delayed until we got a Bill which could be fully discussed. If the decision is taken to-night, I can promise the right hon. Gentleman that in Scotland, there will be a very wide degree of indignation because of dealing with such matters in such a fashion, no opportunity being afforded for full discussion. I venture to assure him that the protest will assume a very woeful form if he persists in this Resolution.
    Mr. BRADY: I desire to associate myself with the last speaker in his protest against the late hour at which this Vote is taken, though perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is not personally responsible for that; and, secondly, that when the
    2808
    Session is in its dying days a Vote of this importance should be introduced into the House in this fashion. This matter of afforestation is one of very great national importance to all parts of the United Kingdom. I venture to assert that there is no part of the United Kingdom in which the question of reafforestation is of more importance than in Ireland. Those of us who have studied the question are convinced that there are enormous possibilities for afforestation in Ireland, and I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has consulted Irish opinion? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will enlighten us as to who Mr. Ponsonby is and what are his qualifications for so important an office? I think the Irish Department of Agriculture has done something in regard to afforestation in Ireland. It may be that Ireland's financial resources are limited, and hitherto our schemes have not been on a very large scale. Therefore it is all the more important when a proposal of this kind is made that we should know what Irish opinion has been consulted, in order that we may satisfy ourselves that Irish opinion of a representative character has been consulted. I do not know whether the Rules of the House would permit the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what is meant exactly by the appointment of an Irish Commission. We should be very glad to have a little more information before agreeing to this Vote.
    Mr. WATT: I desire to associate myself with the protest which has been made by my hon. Friend (Mr. Millar) on this question. This Vote sets up a new authority to deal with forestry throughout the kingdom, and therefore it takes from Scotland and the Board of Agriculture there the power which that Board at present possesses of dealing with that subject. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote is acting entirely contrary to the recommendations of his own representative on the Committee which dealt with forestry, who indicated in an addendum to the Report that it was unwise to set up a separate institution to deal with forestry in the three kingdoms and yet my right hon. Friend brings up a Motion setting up a body which will deal with the three kingdoms. The Board of Agriculture was set up in 1912 with power to deal with afforestation in Scotland and yet my right hon. Friend is taking action to set up a central institution to deal with the three kingdoms, and I think that is a retrograde step. The

    2809
    Board of Agriculture in Scotland deals with small holdings which are necessarily associated with afforestation, and should this central body be set up to deal with the three kingdoms it follows that the subject of small holdings will fall into the hands of this central body and be taken from the Board of Agriculture, which has only had six years to deal with that subject. I think that is most unwise, and is contrary to the recommendations of the right hon. Gentleman's own Committee. At this stage of the proceedings I feel it is impossible to override the decision which the Government have come to that a central institution should be set up, but it will be unpopular in Scotland that the Board there should be so easily overridden and that they should not be given a longer time to deal with the subject. Scotland possesses more land suitable for afforestation than any other part of the United Kingdom, and we ought to have our own Board to deal with the subject. The hon. Gentleman no doubt will say that our own Board, up till now, has been inefficient in dealing with the matter, and that must be admitted, but if that is the case of the Government, it can easily be remedied by an improvement of the Board. It is quite possible to add members and to strengthen it. There is a strong feeling in Scotland that a Scottish Board should deal with the matter, and I therefore protest against the setting up of a central institution. It will be a most expensive method of dealing with it, as the representative of the Treasury has said. It would be much better if it were left to the various nations of the Empire to deal with it.
    Sir J. FLEMING: I came into the House too late to hear all that has been said upon this Vote, but I am delighted to think that we have now made a start with regard to afforestation. I do not understand how this little Vote, asking only for £100,000, has been brought forward, and I am still less able to understand why it should be brought forward at this late hour and at this fag-end of the Session, but I can fully appreciate the fact that we are now going to begin with afforestation. It will be the time when the big scheme comes up to put everything right regarding England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. It is quite true that the possibilities of afforestation in Scotland in proportion to the acreage are far greater than in England. On the whole, the wood produced is rather better and of greater
    2810
    variety. When I heard the arguments used to-night for the separation of Scotland from England in the management of this matter, I could not help remembering that the Royal Scottish Horticultural Society, of which I have been a member for twenty years, passed a resolution the other day in Edinburgh approving of this scheme. If that body, which has been giving its attention to this vital question of afforestation for the last half-century, passes a resolution of this kind, men like myself, with such a small knowledge of the business, need not find very much fault, though I would much rather Scotland managed its own affairs, not only in afforestation, but also in everything else. But I am afraid we are scarcely ripe for that yet. I do not see that my fellow members from Scotland can continue in opposition to the commencement of this movement. By and by we will be able to have a round talk about this. Meantime, we ought to support the Government in this proposal to get the first instalment of this measure.
    Colonel GREIG: I entirely agree with what has fallen from the last speaker, namely, that we support this Vote. I am not in any sense opposed to it, but I do wish and hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will give us a little more definite assurance than he gave in his speech as to what the meaning and extent of this Vote will be. He told us it was provisional; he told us also there would be legislation necessary in the next Parliament or Session, whatever happens. I would like him, if he could, to say that both as regards the policy underlying any question of afforestation and as regards the form in which that new Vote is to be applied that there shall be a free hand. Anybody who has read that Report must be convinced that there are at the root of it two very conflicting principles from the point of view from which one should regard afforestation in the future. There is one which may be called the war policy, and the other which is called the commercial policy. I am not going to discuss them now, but we want to discuss them before we finally decide on what lines we are going to set up our new Afforestry Department in the different units of the Empire. What I am most anxious about—and I share this feeling with my other colleagues in Scotland—and I do not wish a conflicting authority set up in Scotland, first of all against the only Minister we have here,

    2811
    in a matter in which land settlement and all the questions of land are so intimately connected. Afforestry is bound to give rise to all those questions which in Scotland are bound up with that problem to which I have referred. In my view—I state it frankly now—do not believe you can solve the question of afforestry in Scotland unless it is controlled by somebody that deals with land settlement. If you are going to have another outside body coining in, it will conflict with the Ministry and with the Department under that Ministry. Animadversions have been given vent to in the past, and they have been referred to by the hon. Member for Glasgow about the Board of Agriculture in Scotland not having performed its duties in regard to afforestry. I regard that as a wholy unjustifiable and unfounded accusation. Anybody who has studied the question must come to this conclusion, that the Act which set up that Board—now only five or six years old—provided a certain Grant for afforestation and other matters, but at the request of the Scottish Members, and under pressure from them, and with the general consent of the people in Scotland, the energies of that Board were directed not to afforestation, but to the question of land settlement. It is not true to say, also, that the Hoard has done nothing. It has set up testing stations, it has set up nurseries, it has trained men in the technique of forestry, and has made a beginning. If this Vote will encourage that and foster in the interim what has been done, nothing can be better than that it should be passed, and that this should go on. I do wish the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to-night will tell us definitely the basis of the Report, whether we are to adopt a war policy or a commercial policy; and, secondly, whether there is to be a separate institution in Scotland. I believe the Board of Agriculture to be the right one, but we do not wish Scotland to be controlled in this matter which so intimately affects us locally.
    Mr. HOGGE: I wish, in the first place, to protest as strongly as possible against the action of the Government last night in taking the preliminary stages of this Vote without consultation with any of the Members from Scotland who are concerned with this subject. I have now been a long time in this House, but I do not remember any other occasion on which
    2812
    the Government have ventured to take that course without consultation with the Members concerned. I very much regret that my Noble Friend (Lord E. Talbot), who used to make these arrangements, is unable to be in the House owing to an accident. But for that I am sure this discourtesy would not have been shown to the Scottish Members. I can assure the Government that they feel very keenly this attempt to rush business. In the declining days of a declining Government, when Parliament is absolutely moribund, we object to having these matters, which greatly concern our country, rushed through. I am afraid that to-night those of us who have been able to remain in the House until this time will require to take this matter to a Division. With us this is a matter of principle, and there is no other method of showing what we think about it. Therefore, unless the Government are prepared to withdraw the Vote altogether, we shall have to take the drastic action I am suggesting. In order to try to get other Members of the House—who, whatever their political views may be, will agree that the matter concerns our country very much more largely than any other country—to lend us their support in defeating the Government on this Vote, let me remind hon. Members that there is in Scotland from three to four times the area of land for the purposes of afforestation than there is in the rest of the United Kingdom. If that fact is true, and I have not yet heard it disputed by anybody on the Government Bench, it is perfectly obvious that the question of afforestation is peculiar to the country of Scotland. It is because of the geographical conditions of the subject of afforestation, and because of the fact that in Scotland you have practically all the area that can be afforested in this country, that we, as Scottish Members, whatever our political views are, insist that this arrangement which is suggested by the Treasury should be withdrawn.
    If hon. Members will take the trouble to look at the White Paper showing Class 2 of the Supplementary Estimates, they will find that this is an interim forestry authority. Why should we, within some four days, if not less, of the demise of this Parliament, be asked to pass £100,000 as a Grant towards an interim forestry authority? The footnote reads:
    "In view of the urgent necessity of increasing certain preliminary expenditure for afforestation an interim authority has been set up to carry

    2813
    out the necessary work pending the passing of legislation setting up permanent machinery for this purpose."
    I do not dispute, because I do not at present know the facts, as to whether there are any preliminary works to be done, but it all that is involved is a question of certain preliminary expenditure which may reach the sum of £100,000, let me ask my hon. Friend (Mr. Baldwin), who has a large business experience, what difficulty is there in spending such portion of that money as is required for these preliminary purposes in Scotland through the regular and authorised Board of Agriculture? If I could have an answer to that question it would perhaps shorten my remarks. I cannot for the life of me understand why, with that organisation in existence, and with a certain amount of this work—the larger amount—obviously requiring to be done in Scotland, such money as is required cannot be spent in this businesslike way. If there is no answer from that question, I assume it cannot be spent in chat way because the Government does not want it spent in that way. That is the only assumption we can make from the silence which greets that question.
    We are promised, as the result of this, a Bill next Parliament. What guarantee have we that this Government is coming back after the General Election? I should not mind if they were, but no Government which is going to the country, and coming back can guarantee that they are going to introduce a Bill on the Supplementary Estimate which is put before us to-night. I do not think we have a right to assume in a financial transaction of this kind, that the Government can implement the promise they are making, that a Bill should be introduced to carry into effect the suggestions of this Supplementary Estimate. But even if and when that Bill is introduced it will receive the strenuous opposition of the Scottish Members. We do not want this Bill. We do not want our afforestation to be controlled from Whitehall. We make the claim, and we shall emphasise it at every stage of the proceedings of the Bill, to control our own schemes of afforestation and we do that out of respect to the only Minister who represents Scotland in this Government. Scotland is represented by the Secretary for Scotland, and at the present moment the Board of Agriculture in Scotland is subject to his authority and speaks through him to this House and to the people whom we represent. This Committee
    2814
    which is suggested under this Supplementary Estimate can go to the War Cabinet, if it exists then. We have no guarantee that it will continue to exist. It certainly cannot continue to exist as a War Cabinet. It may be reformed as a Reconstruction Cabinet if we are going to have in the new Government a smaller and a larger Cabinet. If so, this new Interim Committee on Forestry can go to that Cabinet. I am glad to see that the Secretary for Scotland is in his place. It is not often that the Members on these benches spend the bulk of their time supporting his position in the Government. We are rather inclined to criticise him. On this occasion we object very strongly that he should be passed over by this Committee, which can go to the War Cabinet, and that their decisions will be put into force in Scotland probably against the will of the Board of Agriculture. I am not giving my own opinion, but the opinion of people who know. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh. I suppose it is not the first time that Members of this House have given expression to the opinions of their constituents, even though they do not know them. It is one of the privileges of a Member of Parliament to put the arguments of those he represents in this House. Therefore, I cannot understand why that should be a subject of laughter. Let every hon. Member who is laughing do the same thing himself. I was not expressing my own opinion, but the opinion of a Treasury expert. I have very strong opinions on forestry, and if hon. Members wait they will hear my own views as well as the views of one who sat on this Reconstruction Committee. In regard to this Reconstruction Committee I make a protest. I have in my hands a Report toy this Reconstruction Committee on Forestry, running to 105 pages, and I do not know any Scottish Member who was consulted on the subject.
    Mr. ACLAND: The forestry representative of the Scottish Board was a member.
    Mr. HOGGE: I said a Scottish Member, as the right hon. Gentleman would know if he would listen to the criticism and not interrupt. I know he is chairman. That is why he knows so little about the respective people on this Committee. [Laughter.] This is no laughing matter so far as the Members for Scotland are concerned, as the right hon. Gentleman will learn before he has done with the

    2815
    chairmanship of this Committee and before he gets this money, and before he gets his Bill. After all the Scottish Members stand for something. They know their own views, and the opinions of the people they represent, and they are not going to be laughed at or interrupted by English Members who do not know.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member address himself to the matter before the House? He is talking at large now. He has said over and over again during the last five minutes that he was going to quote something. Will he quote it?
    Mr. HOGGE: As you know, Mr. Speaker, I usually follow any suggestion from the Chair with great alacrity. I was going to quote, but I was prevented from quoting by the irrelevant interruptions of hon. Members opposite.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not agree that the hon. Member was interrupted. He was prevented by his own interruptions.
    Mr. HOGGE: I respectfully differ from you on that point. If it had been a point of Order, I would not have questioned your ruling, but I do differ from you upon your interpretation. My point is whether or not we should have this separate authority, and I would remind the Committee of the reservations which are appended to this Report; in the Report itself you find reservations made by a very eminent authority who certainly knows something about the subject. He points out the evil of creating an entirely new central authority to control afforestation in the United Kingdom. Is any weight given to reservations of that kind, especially when they are backed up by the majority opinion of the Scottish Members from an area of country in the United Kingdom which is far and away the largest area concerned with forestry? This Report goes on to say that the difficulty of controlling operations in Scotland from London is going to be very great. That is the crux of the position, so far as we are concerned.
    Other Bills have been introduced during the past few days in which arrangements are made for controlling in Scotland other matters of as great public importance as this. For instance, in connection with the Ministry of Health it is proposed to set up a separate Department for Scotland and to provide it with a new secretary, which is an absolute innovation, so far as Bills in
    2816
    this House are concerned, and at the very moment when the Government, with a commonsense which is not always a feature of what they do, are proposing, with reference to the Ministry of Health, to give my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland the help of a new Department and a new Minister they are taking away from him under this Supplementary Estimate the control of one of the greatest national features in Scotland. Afforestation in Scotland is linked up with the question of small holdings. We are at present in Scotland, under an Act of Parliament administered through the Secretary for Scotland, attempting to establish small holdings in Scotland, and one reason more than any other why the effort has not been fully successful is that we have not been able to associate small holdings with schemes of afforestation. Every Scottish Member agrees that the one thing necessary for the successful establishment of small holdings is to associate them with afforestation. Where are we going to be if we get this Board of Control Committee in London presided over by a right hon. Gentleman who does not know Scotland and does not understand Scottish opinion, which will have the power not only to buy land for small holdings but to have schemes of afforestation in Scotland, while in the same breath the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House tell us that after the War they are going to give us a scheme by which Scotland, along with other nations, will have control of its own affairs, and you are proposing to set up in the last week of this Parliament an interim Committee, to be followed by a Bill in the new Parliament, which nobody can guarantee, under an authority centralised in Whitehall. If the Government think that the scheme is going through in this Parliament without the strenuous and consistent opposition of every Scotsman who loves his country they are mistaken. We are going to have our own scheme of afforestation in Scotland, and to have it associated with our schemes of small holdings. We are going to re-people our own country under the exercise of our own powers, and, in order to show that we mean that from the beginning, we shall divide on this Report if the necessity should arise.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I do not know whether, as a Scottish Member, I dare venture to support the Estimate before the House. That is what I wish to do. After all the thing which in Scotland

    2817
    really matters is to see the trees planted, and to see that done at the earliest possible moment. [An HON. MEMBER: "When the Department is created."] Even before the Department is created. This is not the first time I have taken an interest in this subject. Ever since I came to the House, year by year I have raised this subject of afforestation, recognising that it is one which is vital to any land settlement in Scotland, and vital to any real development of the latent resources of Scotland. Moreover this question, though it is one that interests the United Kingdom as a whole, is peculiarly a Scottish question. There is land which is suitable for afforestation in England and Wales, and there is more in Ireland, but there is infinitely more in Scotland. As one Royal Commission has estimated, I do not pin myself to the accuracy of the estimate, one-fourth of the surface of Scotland can be more profitably used for afforestation than it could be for any other purpose, and if it is used for afforestation it will not double the population or treble it, but in many cases multiply it by ten. This question is also intimately linked up with the whole question of the further development of small holdings in Scotland, as the hon. Member for East Edinburgh has just said. You cannot have a vast development of small holdings in Scotland without an auxiliary industry, and you cannot have economic holdings without the development of this great industry, which in Continental countries has led to such extensive and widespread development of small holdings. Seeing that this is so peculiarly a Scottish question, I should naturally prefer that it was developed by a Scottish Department, but as a Scottish Member, I am sorry to have to confess that the chief obstacle which we have had to the development of afforestation in Scotland has not been any central authority, and has not been the Imperial Government, but has been the Scottish Board of Agriculture which has resolutely, during the four years before the War, set itself against any development of agriculture on Scottish lines by Scottish resources. I do not blame my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland at the present time for the delay. He has shown himself most sympathetic with the development of afforestation in Scotland. Unfortunately, owing to war conditions, he was not able to put his sympathy into practice. What is the reason for this opposition
    2818
    to the development of agriculture in Scotland coming chiefly from the Scottish Department? The reason is that which was given by my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Colonel Greig). There was a superstition on the part of the Scottish Board of Agriculture, and, I am sorry to say, on the part of many Scottish members, that afforestation was merely a means of shelving small holdings, and that it was not an auxiliary policy, but was an opposition policy—a policy of those opposed to small holdings.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Landlords.
    Mr. SCOTT: And when the Scottish Small Holdings Bill was passed, including as it did a grant of £200,000 a year for the purposes, among others, of afforestation and small holdings, the Scottish Board of Agriculture resolutely, and by determined policy, refused to spend a single penny of that money upon afforestation. It said this money must all be spent upon the direct creation of small holdings. But it could not spend the money upon small holdings. It found the machinery too cumbersome. It found the cost of acquiring the land too cumbersome, and, instead of spending money on afforestation, it deliberately accumulated money year after year in the bank, until it had accumulated large reserves, and then when war came the Treasury said, "You are getting a Grant of £200,000 a year for purposes of Scottish agriculture which you are not spending, and you have a good bank balance. In view of the economic necessities of the War, we will suspend your £200,000 a year, and you can live upon your bank balance." That is what the Scottish Board of Agriculture has been doing since the beginning of the War, and I am sorry to say I see little chance of substantial progress being made in afforestation if left entirely to the Scottish Office.
    There is another matter which influences me just now. Before the War this was peculiarly a Scottish question, but since the War a new development has taken place. It is no longer a purely Scottish question. It is an Imperial question, limber has become an Imperial question, and it is necessary for Imperial purposes to have all the land, wherever it is, afforested. In view of the Imperial necessity, I see some chance of getting the trees planted in Scotland—and that is really the thing that matters—at the earliest possible moment. What does it matter if we get a separate Department for Scotland just

    2819
    now? We have not got Scottish Home Rule just now. This separate Department would be responsible to this House, which consists of 670 Members, out of whom only 70 are Scottish. Let us get a move on as quickly as we can. Let us support any means whereby we can get the trees planted and the land developed. Later on Scottish Home Rule is coming. That is inevitable, and, when it does come, then we can settle what share we in Scotland are going to take in the development of the resources of our country. In the interests of Scotland, as a Scottish Member and as a Scottish Home Ruler, I urge that we support whatever measures will secure the planting of trees at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I think everybody in the House will recognise the sincere desire of my hon. Friend who has just spoken to promote afforestation in Scotland. He has made many speeches in this House on this subject, and I think we will all agree he has been, with the present Governor-General of Australia, one of the pioneers in promoting afforestation in our country. Naturally all of us who have listened to him are inclined to give the greatest weight to all the considerations he has put before the House. I regret, however, very much that on this occasion I find myself at variance with him in the practical conclusions which he has drawn. What is the situation in regard to afforestation so far as Scotland is concerned? We as Scottish Members are bound to look at this matter from the Scottish point of view. We know, as a matter of fact, that there is already existing in Scotland a Department which has power to deal with this very important problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. MacCallum Scott) has reminded this Committee that when the Small Holdings Act and the Board of Agriculture for Scotland were set up special provision was made for afforestation in Scotland. I agree with my hon. Friend that certain hindrances have been placed in the way and that there have not been shown, in respect of that Department in Scotland, that activity which we would all have liked to see. Undoubtedly we have to face the fact that there is at the present moment in existence with Scottish administration a Department which has by legislation had thrown upon it the function of dealing with this question of afforestation in
    2820
    Scotland. It may be true, as my hon. Friend suggests, that up to the present it has not acted as it ought to have acted, but even admitting that that is so, we are now called upon to say whether having a Department absolutely in existence in Scotland we should by a vote of this House in Committee of Supply supersede that Department. It is a very extraordinary proceeding on the strength of an interim Report dealing with the whole of the United Kingdom, to propose to interfere with a Department which relates exclusively to Scotland. Before doing that we ought to know exactly what is the position of the Secretary for Scotland in the matter. We should like to know whether he is in agreement with this proposal. Up to the present moment he has not enlightened his Scottish colleagues in this Debate. It is true my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire, who is private secretary to the right hon. Gentleman, has made a very interesting speech.
    Colonel GREIG: I have spoken entirely for myself and from my own point of view. Anything I have said to-night is entirely on my own account, and has nothing whatever to do with the Scottish Office.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I expected that that was the position of my hon. and learned Friend. I only alluded to his speech by way of illustration. He has made a very interesting and valuable contribution to the Debate. I expected that after his speech we should have some guidance from the Secretary for Scotland as to the attitude of the Scottish Office towards this matter. As Scottish Members, we may be excused for taking so special an interest in afforestation, for Scotland, in proportion to area, has more land available for that purpose than any other part of the United Kingdom. The urgency of the problem in Scotland has been recognised by having a representative on the Board of Agriculture who is specially charged with the question of afforestation. In these circumstances we naturally want to know why in this, almost the fifty-ninth minute of the eleventh hour of the thirty-first day of the twelfth month of the last year of an expiring Parliament, we should have a Vote put down as a
    "Supplementary Estimate of a further sum required to be paid for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1919—£100,000—for an Interim Forestry Department."
    I can understand why there should be some desire for the first time to deal with

    2821
    this question in regard to England, but why should there be a desire to set up an interim authority in regard to Scotland, where you already have a permanent statutory authority? I doubt very much whether it is competent for this House on a Supplementary Estimate in Supply to supersede a statutory authority by an interim authority. I do not know whether the Government has really considered that point, or whether the Secretary for Scotland has considered it. Undoubtedly the whole problem of afforestation was under the consideration of the Government in 1914, when the Small Holdings (Scotland) Act was passed. It was in view of the importance of afforestation and the closeness of its relation to the extension of small holdings in Scotland that a special Small Holdings Committee was set up under that Act for Scotland. Why should we now have this supplementary Estimate? I have great respect for my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland), who has held some very important posts in the Government at various times and who has shown great administrative ability in all those offices. But I remember that his recommendations in regard to the Luxury Tax have now been thrown on the scrap heap. That is by way of illustration. He is now put up as the chairman of the interim forestry authority and he has to deal with problems of afforestation in Scotland with which he has had, up to the present, absolutely no acquaintance whatever. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I do not wish to disparage the knowledge of my right hon. Friend, but so far as the country which I represent is concerned I think it is quite clear to us that he has had no special experience. We must remember that the representative appointed by the Treasury on the special Reconstruction Committee which deals with forestry has made a very strong recommendation against the course which the Government is now adopting. I do not know whether the Financial Secretary is going to reply, but I should be very much surprised if he, as a representative of the Treasury, were to throw over the recommendations of the very distinguished gentleman appointed by his Department to look after the interests of the Treasury on this special Sub-committee on Reconstruction. Up to the present we have heard nothing from the Secretary for Scotland as to his own view, and I think we are entitled to hear
    2822
    from him what is the view of the Scottish Office on this question. We want to know whether, before this Report was promulgated, his Department had considered this problem or not, and, if so, whether they had any schemes in view and had taken any practical steps towards putting their proposals into operation. These are most relevant considerations for the House to have in mind before assenting to this Vote.
    12.0 M.
    I do not wish to go into details as to the special aspects of this question as it relates to Scotland, but we all know that the whole problem has been revolutionised by the special committees arising out of the War. It is true that many of the areas which were capable of being afforestated in Scotland are areas in which the kind of timber which can be grown is timber which could not be profitably grown on an economic basis before the War; but this has now been altered. The whole question of the importation of timber is fundamentally altered by the rate of freights which prevail, and which are likely to continue for a considerable time under the shortage of tonnage, which affects not only this country but every other country in the world. Under these circumstances, the areas capable of afforestation in Scotland have an importance which in the past could not possibly be assigned to them altogether out of relation to the importance of afforest-able areas in other parts of the Kingdom. We have a Department in Scotland in existence with a Commissioner whose special duty it is to deal with this question. Why, therefore, should there be this Vote now put before this House? It is a Vote of £100,000 for afforestation, and we have this footnote:
    "In view of the urgent necessity of incurring certain preliminary expenditure for afforestation purposes an interim authority has been set up to carry out the necessary work pending the passage of legislation to establish permanent machinery for this purpose."
    I should like to know why we are to have this interim authority dealing with the situation in Scotland at all. There is an authority in Scotland at present and you are paying for it, and why should we pay for an authority to supersede it? If there is any money to be spent it should not be expended on officials so far as Scotland is concerned, but on the actual work of getting seeds, selecting areas, and the planting of trees. You have

    2823
    officials already in Scotland, and why should you supersede them by a new authority? To that no answer has been given up to the present in the course of this discussion, and I think it is due to the House that the Secretary for Scotland should make a statement now and tell us what the Department is doing for which he is responsible, whether it is inadequate, and to what extent, and why it is necessary that it should be superseded by a central authority. The Secretary for Scotland has been associated with me in many schemes for the decentralisation of control in Scotland, and I once drafted a Bill along with him for Home Rule for Scotland, and it is not only with surprise but with sorrow and regret, that I now find him allowing an interim afforestation authority to take over powers which are conferred on a Department subordinate to him. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to-night to assert the rights of Scotland, to vindicate the Department for which he is responsible, and decline to allow any interim authority to interfere with the work of afforestation in Scotland.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: As the Secretary for Scotland shows no indication that he proposes to respond to what I think was a very powerful appeal addressed to him by my hon. Friend and colleague opposite (Mr. Pringle), I rise to say a word or two with regard to this Estimate. I wish to enter my protest against the course which the Government has followed in connection with this Estimate. The Committee stage of the Estimate was taken last night at a moment when Members who are deeply interested in the question were absent. It was taken without notice. I want also to point out something much more remarkable. Finding that the members who had not had notice that it was going to be taken were absent, the Government took the Committee stage without one word of explanation, so that when we received the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings of this House to-day, we find no explanation whatever, such as would have enabled us to criticise from the basis of knowledge the proposal which the Government have to make. In making this protest I am not accusing the Secretary for Scotland of any intentional discourtesy to his colleagues. I am sure that he, like the House, had been rushed by the Government. It is an action for which I am sure the Secretary for Scotland is in no way responsible. It is so alien to all his
    2824
    traditions. It is a proposal of a most preposterous character. If the Secretary for Scotland is going to get up to defend his colleagues—I can quite understand his extreme reluctance to perform such a repugnant task—he will find it difficult to point to any parallel where such an amount of money is voted for a scheme which has not been defined and which depends upon subsequent legislation to be passed in a subsequent House of Commons before it can be carried out.
    What is the legislation that we are promised? I desire to express my agreement with the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) who pointed out that this Government cannot claim successive immortality. It may be dissolved, and it may not return. I am one of those who hope it will not return. Is it not trifling with the country and with this House to ask for this blank cheque in order to carry out, through an authority not yet constituted, powers which depend upon an Act of Parliament which cannot be brought forward or will not be brought forward in this Parliament, but is relegated to the unknown future. This action on this important question is without any parallel even in the extraordinary records of the present Government. Let me summarise what it is we ask the Secretary for Scotland to secure for us. We do not want the Government of the day, above all, this Government, to nominate for us in Scotland an authority to deal with this question, over which we have no control. This question which is most intimately connected with the local government of Scotland, should be controlled by Scotland. This proposal by the Government, and the form in which it is introduced, is alien to that for which we stand. It is the negation of all that we strive for in connection with self-government in Scotland. Therefore, as a Scottish Member, I make my protest against the action of the Government. I make my protest, also, because I believe it to be an infringement of the privileges of this House, and also because of the conduct of the Government, which has been marked not by straightforward action in the way this Estimate has been brought forward, and the way the preliminary stages were yesterday rushed through Committee. I am very glad indeed that we shall have the opportunity in the Division Lobby of showing how strongly we feel about the way we have been treated.
    Sir J. BARRAN: I rise to make very briefly, not a protest, but what I hope will be even more useful, a suggestion. Listening to the latter part of this Debate I very fully realise the difficulty and embarrassment in which in this matter we are placed. I quite see that the Government are pledged to take prompt action, and I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow that prompt action should be taken. I am only sorry that action has not been taken more promptly. At the same time the arguments used by the hon. Member for Lanark have a weight which, I am sure, has not been lost upon the Government Bench. My suggestion would be: would it not be possible for the Secretary for Scotland to consider the advisability of not pressing this Vote at present? The objections to taking it in this form are manifest. We expect that, at any rate, within the next few months a new Parliament will be sitting. Why should my right hon. Friend not agree, without any prejudice to the discussion on this matter on its merits at the earliest possible moment in the new Parliament, to refrain from pressing the Vote now? Such a course would be meeting in an honourable and practical spirit the difficulty which is felt, and felt strongly, by many who have spoken, and who represent various constituencies in Scotland. If my right hon. Friend will consider that suggestion in a friendly spirit it will, I think, have the effect of not retarding in any sensible degree the carrying out of the scheme, which we all recognise is of urgent importance, and at the same time it will meet the practical difficulties which have been impressed upon him with so much cogency by hon. Members on the opposite side of the House. I hope my right hon. Friend may be disposed to give my suggestion favourable consideration.
    Mr. ACLAND: My right hon. Friend has asked me to say a few words as he is not able to speak again, and the Secretary of Scotland has just intimated, too, that he would like me to do so, I take the opportunity, therefore, of intervening to say a word or two as to my own position in this matter. I happen to have the honour of being chairman of the Reconstruction Committee that went into the question some time ago. We were appointed, I think, in the summer of 1916. We reported in the spring of 1917. The Government made up its mind in the summer of 1918. When I was informed of the decision of the War Cabinet on the
    2826
    matter, part of that decision, I found, was that I should be asked to do my best by advice to assist in the steps which the War Cabinet had decided it was necessary to take. I was, unfortunately, only graded B2 during the War: therefore, I thought it right to do anything which the Government asked me to do during the War period—and this came within the War period—and there was, therefore, no question at all but that this being a matter which, as chairman of this Committee, I had gone into very, very carefully, I should do my best to follow out the request of the Government.
    There really is some urgency for action to be taken to co-ordinate the efforts of existing authorities, and I am sorry we have got on to questions concerning Scotland so much, because there is a great deal more to be said on the general merits of the question. But there are one or two questions which have been asked on which I could remove misconceptions. For instance, there has been a misconception as to the position of the Secretary for Scotland. It had certainly never come into my mind in the discussions I had with him, and they have been numerous, or with other members of the Government, that his position and opinions were going to be ignored or given the go by. He told me the other day that the Cabinet, in deciding on the matter, had very properly decided that the interim authority should work in close touch with all existing authorities, and I took it for granted that when we worked in co-operation with and with a desire to help the efforts of the Scottish Board of Agriculture if any difference of opinion of any kind arises the matter would be considered by the Secretary for Scotland, and it would be only after he had expressed his views that there would be any question at all of this appeal to the War Cabinet which has been decided upon. I do not conceive that under the procedure which has been laid down for the operations of the interim authority there can be any possibility of ignoring the perfectly right and proper position in this matter of the Secretary for Scotland. I certainly look forward to working with him in every possible way. We have had some preliminary meetings of the body which has been appointed—
    Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present—
    Mr. ACLAND: We decided, as our first act, to go to Scotland and ask the Board to see us, and to see, so that we might consult with them, whether in any way we could really help them with regard to this difficult matter of forestry. With regard to Ireland, the question has been asked as to the Irish representation. I consulted the Board of Agriculture in Ireland and the Chief Secretary, and naturally the suggestion they made was accepted. I believe Mr. Ponsonby is a very useful member of the Agricultural Wages Board in Ireland, and has done very good work there. He is interested in agriculture, and certainly knows a great deal of forestry. He is a colleague anyone would be proud to work with.
    The only other point I want to make clear is this: I do not think it would be right for us to regard the authority under which we now work as in any way committing the House to a final decision as to how the general final policy of the Government with regard to afforestation ought to be carried out. I can say that when the Bill comes forward the matter will be as open for their decision as it is now. I place as axiomatic only two things—first, that the State in the future in one way or another is going to take the question of planting on big lines really seriously, and in tackling it they want to avoid big mistakes. There has always been a suspicion that State action in afforestry has been misguided, and if tackled by the State in a big way it is very important that mistakes should be avoided. Starting from this assumption, that land is to be secured, if land is to be secured, it is very necessary to look into the question of where those areas ought to be. If this matter is regarded as a matter for Scotland alone, undoubtedly there will be far less chance of securing large areas in Scotland than if the matter was considered from the point of view of the United Kingdom. Scotland can do far more than provide timber for its own needs. It can provide timber for the greater part of the needs of the United Kingdom as well; and there is undoubtedly more chance for Scotland providing for the needs of the United Kingdom if the representatives of the United Kingdom have, at any rate, some say in the survey and selection of those areas.
    One word as to the argument put forward that we might as well postpone this matter for two or three months. There is
    2828
    no certainty that legislation will be passed in two or three months. The latest time for seeds to be planted is the end of May.
    Mr. HOGGE: Next year?
    Mr. ACLAND: Yes; the latest stage at which seeds can be planted is the end of May next year. I did not think I had been talking about May this year. Seeds must be collected now. Every effort should be made to obtain stocks of the most necessary seeds of this country. The Douglas fir and the spruce have already shed their seeds, as far as this country is concerned. If a supply of these seeds is to be obtained for planting before the end of May, we have to take advantage of foreign supplies, and get to work to collect supplies in foreign countries. It is the same with larch. The only hope of using this planting period of next spring is to start at once, with very large measures of seed collection. As I see that my hon. Friends, to whom I did my best to listen with quietness and courtesy, are engaged entirely in conversation, I shall not continue the argument, which does not seem to interest them. But I can only say, with regard to that matter, with regard to collecting seeds and planting, with regard to starting schemes for the training of forest officers and foresters, with regard to schemes of research, and in very many other matters, there is a great deal that a central authority can do to help the efforts of existing authorities, which is all we are going to do, and what we hope to do. And I believe that those very authorities themselves, the Boards of Agriculture in England and Scotland, and the Department of Agriculture in Ireland, with whom we have entered already into the most friendly relations, will be the very first to appreciate the efforts which we hope to be able to make, and forward these efforts in this extremely important matter.
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I had no intention of taking part in this Debate, but after the invitations to do so, which I have received from my Scottish colleagues, I agree that it would be only courteous that I should say a few words in explanation of my views with regard to the questions before the House. I quite recognise the strength of the opposition which has been shown by my colleagues with regard to this Vote. I think that they will bear me out when I say that on all occasions I have endeavoured, so far as I can, to meet their views,

    2829
    not only with regard to this, but on all other questions. I fully recognise also that this question is a very important question for the Scottish people, for, in respect of the afforestable area, Scotland is larger than England or Ireland. Therefore, the Scottish interest in this question is not only justifiable, but perfectly natural. There has been no question whatever of rushing this Vote through. It has been suggested that the Vote was taken last night at a time when most Members were not in the House—
    Mr. HOGGE: Without notice.
    Mr. MUNRO: It was taken with full notice. The Vote was on the Order Paper. If my hon. Friends were not present that cannot be said to be the fault of the Government. Full notice was given that the Vote was to be taken. My hon. Friends knew that it was to be taken. They had the fullest opportunity of discussing the matter at length—I do not say at too great length.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: We had no Government statement last night.
    Mr. MUNRO: There was no one here to ask for a Government statement last night, but a full Government statement has been made to-night, and it has been dealt with fully in Debate. This question has not been brought before the House without the very fullest consideration. In the first place, there was the Committee of which my right hon. Friend opposite is Chairman which explored the question with fulness and with care. I have their Report which has been presented. It was considered, first, by a Cabinet Committee at considerable length, as I know, because I had the privilege of attending the Cabinet Committee and discussing the matter very fully, and after it had been discussed by the Cabinet Committee the matter came before the War Cabinet, which, after giving the matter full consideration, authorised the setting up of this interim authority. It was recognised by the War Cabinet that what was done was done for the purpose of making certain preliminary arrangements for the development of afforestation. There was no question before the War Cabinet, nor is there before the House to-night, of a permanent forestry authority in this country. The minute of the War Cabinet, which I have before me, expressly bears out that what was sanctioned was the setting up of an interim authority to make certain necessary
    2830
    preliminary arrangements with regard to afforestation in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. WATT: Do you agree with that?
    Mr. MUNRO: I was not present at the War Cabinet, and I am not a member of the War Cabinet, as my hon. Friend knows. The second point which the War Cabinet decided was that until legislation was passed the interim authority should work through the existing agencies in touch with the various Departments concerned—that is to say, with the three Boards of Agriculture in the three parts of the United Kingdom—and in order to meet the point which has been made by several of my hon. Friends tonight that a policy might be adopted by the interim authority which was not approved, say, in Scotland, it was expressly provided that in the event of difference of opinion between the interim authority and the existing Boards of Agriculture there should be a right of appeal to the War Cabinet. But apart from that provision altogether, I do not anticipate, knowing my right hon. Friend opposite as I do, that in a conference between us any such difference of opinion would really arise and I do not think that the right of appeal which has been provided by the decision of the War Cabinet will have to be invoked because, after many conferences with my right hon. Friend, I am really assured that his point of view and mine with regard to afforestation in Scotland will not differ.
    I would like to mention to the House this further point, that, so far as the personnel of the authority which is being set up is concerned, Scotland comes out of it uncommonly well. In the first place, we have upon the interim authority Lord Lovat, who has more knowledge of afforestation in Scotland than almost any other Scot with whom I am acquainted. I do not think anyone will doubt his expert knowledge and his enthusiasm for the development of afforestation in Scotland. Further, upon the Committee is Colonel Fotheringham, of Murthly Castle, who lately provided the equipment of the forestry school which I had hoped to open in Scotland last Saturday, but which I was prevented from doing by urgent business in London. He is also a member of the Committee, and, as if that were not enough, my hon. Friend the Member for the Bridgeton Division (Mr. MacCallum Scott) is another representative from Scotland. I think, therefore, that my

    2831
    hon. Friends who come from Scotland, and whose views I share, may rest assured that the Scottish point of view in the determination of these matters will be fully represented upon the interim authority—
    Mr. HOGGE: But that is not what we want.
    Mr. MUNRO:—upon the authority which will act in consultation with myself, and if, contrary to my expectation, there should be any difference of opinion in policy, then, as I say, an appeal to the War Cabinet lies. I should like to point out, if I may, to my hon. Friends from Scotland, that the Debate to-night has very largely proceeded upon what I think I may describe as a mistaken view that we are deciding a permanent question or setting up a permanent authority for afforestation in Scotland. The Debate, in other words, would have been entirely appropriate to a Second Reading Debate upon the Bill, which will, in the next Parliament, I assume, be brought in to set up a permanent authority. That is not the case now, and the Debate is largely a misrepresentation of the circumstances in which we find our-selves to-night, because the only proposal now is that an interim authority should be set up for certain preliminary arrangements. The House will have the fullest opportunity of discussing, of debating, and of turning down, if they think fit, any Bill which may be introduced in a future Parliament for the purpose of setting up permanent arrangements.
    Mr. WATT: Some of us will not be here.
    Mr. MUNRO: That may of course be, though I sincerely hope my hon. Friend will be here or I shall miss him very much. If he is not, however that may be, there will still be an hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow.
    Mr. PRINGLE: It will be a sad story if he is not here.
    Mr. MUNRO: At any rate you must remember that you will have the fullest opportunity of debating and discussing the Bill if and when it is introduced, and of impressing your views regarding it. The only question to-night is whether in the meantime, for the purpose of carrying through certain necessary preliminary arrangements, this Vote should be passed. I will appeal, if I may, to my Scottish colleagues to let this Vote pass on this assurance that there will be no prejudice
    2832
    to the fullest discussion and determination of the important topic which will then arise, namely, whether or no there shall be a permanent authority of this nature set up for the purpose of administering afforestation in Scotland and England and Ireland. Having in view that the Vote does not prejudice that great and important question, I hope this Vote will now be allowed to pass.
    Mr. GULLAND: I confess I am rather at a loss to understand the position of my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland. I understood that he took quite a different line. I find that in the House, on Scottish Estimates on 4th July of this year on this very important topic, he made this important statement—
    "I may say that every recommendation which the Board has made during the last eighteen months or so, I think without exception, has received effect at the hands of the Development Commission. I am really at a loss to suggest any better arrangement that can be made at this time than the system under which we are working at the Board of Agriculture and the Development Commission."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th July, 1918, col. 1946, Vol. 107.]
    Now the Secretary for Scotland comes down, throws over what he said so recently as July, and says that the ideal scheme is one of a temporary Committee presided over by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. MUNRO: My right hon. Friend must not misrepresent me. I did not say this was an ideal scheme; I said it was a temporary working arrangement.
    Mr. HOGGE: You have said the other thing as well.
    Mr. GULLAND: I do not want to labour the point, but I say that in July the right hon. Gentleman could not suggest any better arrangement, and now he talks about this temporary arrangement which he commends to the House, of a Committee presided over by my right hon. Friend. I have the greatest faith and confidence in my right hon. Friend, and the greatest praise for all the splendid work he has done during the war. But Scotland wants her own body—that is the whole point, and I really must remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are getting rather tired of all this timidity, of having reports to the War Cabinet and reports back again. We want this thing done in Scotland, and I really would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to divest himself of any authority that has been put upon the shoulders of the Secretary for

    2833
    Scotland. I beg of him that he should not be content with a temporary Committee. The right hon. Gentleman talked about this temporary Committee to make preliminary arrangements, and the case of the right hon. Gentleman here appears to be that he has bought a large number of seeds which he wants to plant. If you are going to plant these seeds in a specially selected place, I suggest that you have initiated your policy. Before you plant the seed you must have fixed the ground where it is to be put in. I want to say, too, that one hears all the time about a planting scheme in the North of Scotland and in the Highlands. I suggest that full consideration should be given to the South of Scotland, where there are large tracts of country just as suitable for planting as there are in the North. I rise to join in the appeal which has been made to the Secretary for Scotland to withdraw this Vote, and let us, or at any rate those of us who return here, discuss the matter when the Bill is produced. We have had to wait years when these Committees have been reporting and reporting; let us wait a little longer and get the thing put on a proper basis instead of having this temporary arrangement which apparently pleases no one.
    Mr. KING: This Debate has now gone on for two hours and a quarter, and at this late hour it is certain that many of the important speeches will not be reported in to-morrow's papers. I would also like to observe that though in the Vote apparently there is no reason why Scotland should be singled out for special favour in the money allocated, yet there have been ten speeches from Scottish Members, only one from an Irishman, and so far only two from English Members. I hope that the money for afforestation is not going to be given in that proportion. I certainly think that there is in some way more need for afforestation in England than in Scotland, partly because Scotland has already an authority and has already done, or ought to have done, a good deal in this direction, and also because I think there are more districts available in England and accessible for afforestation—areas that are yet unopened for afforestation. I was very disappointed with the speech of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Acland). He seemed to be addressing his remarks to two or three Scottish Members, and when he observed that they did not attend he desisted. He did not look around him or he would have
    2834
    observed myself and many other Members waiting most anxiously upon his remarks, and I assure him that it was a great disappointment and a great disadvantage to us that we had not the benefit of his enlightenment upon this subject. In the few remarks that he made, and which he cut short so unfortunately, he spoke about gathering seeds.
    I would suggest that a real systematic effort be made to gather seeds. I believe it could be done; in fact, I have done a little in that way myself sometimes, because I have been planting seeds of trees. There is nothing more easy than to organise children in any village to gather any amount of seeds that would be available for a certain class of trees. Another thing I should like to suggest in this connection is that seedlings be collected. I walked through the wood the other day for about two miles and must have seen hundreds, and probably thousands, of young seedlings, one or two years old, that could be taken up and collected and planted again in places where such trees would eventually have grown. I want to know whether all the organising power and opportunity which is being made in so many Departments—in gathering things suitable for munitions, in collecting animal food, and so forth—cannot be used here. Why cannot these efforts which have been admirably organised in certain districts be organised in the interests of afforestation? There is nothing, I think, that so feeds the imagination of the young and is so attractive as the planting of trees, more especially of trees that the youth who has been engaged in collecting and planting will in years to come see as great and splendid timber. These are ideas that may be followed out to a considerable extent, but at this late hour I shall not attempt to do it. I will only conclude by saying that these Scottish Members have practically monopolised this Debate, but that they are not going to monopolise the money. I hope that will be clearly understood. Scotland is not going to occupy all the efforts of this authority. I am sure that a great deal of work can be done, and if taken up in the right spirit and the right way possibly something will be achieved.
    Mr. BYRNE: I join with my Friends from Scotland in protesting against this matter being rushed through to-night. One of my hon. Friends on the Front Opposition Bench said that Scotland wants

    2835
    its own body to deal with this matter. I agree that Scotland should have its own body to deal with this matter, but so should Ireland. I cannot understand why Ireland should only have one representative on this Committee. In all matters affecting Ireland you always give the least possible representation. I think the Chief Secretary will agree with me that on any Committee dealing with any matter affecting Ireland one man is regarded as sufficient. I ask the right hon. Gentleman

  NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1916–17.
  [For Text of Resolutions see OFFICIAL REPORT, Tuesday, 12th November, cols. 2628–30.]

  WAYS AND MEANS [12th NOVEMBER].
  Resolutions reported.
  "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."
  "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."
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Baldwin.
  2836
  in charge of this matter to give Ireland proper representation. Ireland would like three members at least. This gentleman, Mr. Ponsonby, may be an expert as they say he is, but he is not capable of looking after all Ireland in this matter. I would ask the Chief Secretary to impress on the Government to give Ireland more representation.
  Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 44; Noes, 11.

  Division No. 93.]

  AYES.

  [12.47 a.m.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

  Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

  Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter)

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Greig, Col. J. W.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Anderson, G. K. (Canterbury)

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

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Pratt, J. W.

  Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, South)

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

  Pryce-Jones, Col. Sir E.

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Jodrell, Neville Paul

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Samuels, Arthur W.

  Brace, Rt. Hon. William

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

  Shortt, Edward

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  McCalmont, Colonel Robert C. A.

  Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Maden, Sir John Henry

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

  Cotton, H. E. A.

  Marshall, Sir Arthur Harold

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Colonel

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Sanders and Mr. Dudley Ward.

  Foxcroft, Capt. Charles Talbot

  Newman, Major John R. P. (Enfield)

  NOES.

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  King, Joseph

  Byrne, Alfred

  Nugent, J. D. (College Green)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Mr. Duncan Millar and Mr. Hogge.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Resolutions agreed to.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL,—"to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and seventeen and one thousand nine hundred and nineteen, and to appropriate the Supplies granted in this Session of Parliament," presented accordingly; read the first time; to be read a second time this day, and to be printed. [Bill 114.]

  WAYS AND MEANS [12th NOVEMBER].

    CONSTABULARY AND POLICE (IRELAND) [MONEY].
    Resolution reported,
    "That it is expedient to authorise further provision, out of moneys provided by Parliament, for the pay of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary 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.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    1.0 A.M.
    Mr. BRADY: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who

    2837
    is responsible for this Resolution, to give the House some idea of its purport. For that reason I rise immediately, and as the right hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to do that, perhaps I may, even at this late hour, occupy the time of the House for a very few moments to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question or two. In consequence of the indefiniteness and vagueness of the Resolution which is put from the Chair, it is rather difficult for us to know at this stage what the ambit of its intended payments will be. The Money Resolution which has been read gives no indication of the specific sum which it is proposed to allocate for the purposes of this Bill, and certainly, as far as I am concerned, I should like to know whether, in addition to those who might be described as the active serving members of the two police forces in Ireland, namely, the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police, the pensioners of both forces are intended to be included in the measure which the Chief Secretary hopes to introduce to the House. I have no authority to speak for the service members as I shall call them, but certainly I have a very full authority to speak for the pensioners of both forces. During the early part of the evening a great deal of criticism was offered from these benches on the action from time to time of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police. Unfortunately such are the conditions in Ireland that certainly Nationalist Members, and I think my hon. Friends above the Gangway, find that the police force in Ireland occupies a very different position from that occupied by the police in this country. But I do not propose to go into these controversial matters to-night, beyond saying that, even if we Nationalist Members find ourselves in complete disagreement with police methods, we, at the same time, hope we are fair enough to recognise that a man, whether he be a policeman or a civilian, ought to be paid for his work. I think I shall satisfy the House in a few moments that the pensioners of neither force are adequately remunerated, considering the very valuable work which they have done in Ireland. When I tell the House that the pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police are fixed by an Act of Parliament passed in the year 1883, thirty-five years ago, I think I have said
    2838
    enough to satisfy the House that the pensions should be adjusted and considerably increased. At the present moment some 8,000 pensioners come within the scope of the pension scheme, and I am informed that the full pension paid to retired policemen of either force in Ireland is £48. I have reason to-think that the Chief Secretary would not be opposed to these pensions being revised, but that the difficulty rather lies with the Treasury. I have gone into the matter with some care, and I find that if the entire demands of these pensioners were conceded it would not amount to more than £120,000 a year at the very-start, and that in a very short time that sum would be very materially decreased by deaths.
    It is not unprofitable to contrast the treatment that police pensioners receive in this country with that which obtains in Ireland. I have here a Return, which I believe is accurate, and I find that a head constable of the Royal Irish Constabulary is entitled to a pension of £69 6s. 8d. I may mention that a head constable of the Royal Irish Constabulary is of the same rank as an inspector in the English police force. An inspector in Liverpool—a city which I take as being closely analogous to the city of Dublin—draws a pension, or drew a pension in the year 1913, of £113 6s. 8d. Similarly, a sergeant in the Irish force draws a pension to-day of £53 14s. 8d., whilst a sergeant of equal rank in the Liverpool police force, in 1913—I will show the House why I emphasise that year—drew £79 13s. 8d. Lastly, an ordinary constable in Ireland draws a pension of £46 16s., whilst a constable of similar rank in the city of Liverpool drew a pension of £67 12s. in the year 1913. But the point I want to make is that these English 1913 pensions have been very materially increased from time to time and have been increased as recently as a few weeks ago. It will be within the recollection of the House that, on the 24th of last month, the Home Secretary (Sir George Cave) introduced a Supplementary Vote in this House for the London police. He went into the figures somewhat in greater detail than I hope to do to-night, and pointed out that, in addition to the fixed pensions they were paid, which range from 30s. upwards and amounted on the average to 37s. 2d.—and the pension rates are estimated at 25 per cent. of the pay—constables are now receiving an average weekly pay and allowance of £3 13s. 4d. a week,

    2839
    or, with the value of increased pension rights, £4 6s. 10d. The only other reference I will make to the Home Secretary's speech is to read this one short sentence from it. He said:
    "With regard to the Vote now before the House, I can only add that the police authorities outside London have been encouraged to raise their scale of pay so as to bring it, where necessary, into accord with the present circumstances."
    If that was the advice tendered by a very responsible Minister of the Government to outside police forces in this country, when the police pensions are being applied by the Government in Ireland they ought to practice what they preach. I certainly think that an unanswerable case has been made out. I do not wish to weary the House at this late hour, but I do think that from the knowledge which the Chief Secretary possesses of the pension status of these unfortunate men, he will agree that an unanswerable case has been made out for a revision of the Irish pensions and for a very substantial increase. We all know that the sovereign is worth only about 9s. to-day, and to suggest seriously, as I take it he means to do, if he does not accede to the proposal to-day, which is to make a material increases in these pensions—to suggest that a man in this year 1918 ought to live or should be expected to live on a pension fixed in 1883 is nothing short of a scandal. For the Government to come down here and avail themselves of this opportunity of passing a Bill to raise the pay of constables and to refuse at the same time to avail themselves of the occasion to revise the obviously insufficient pensions is nothing short of a scandal. Of course I shall be told, as we have been told at several deputations on this matter, that it would be creating a precedent if these men should get these increases of pensions, and that other pensionable officers would look for them. But I do not see any good reason in that. If an injustice has been done to one man I do not see why that should go unremedied because another man had had an injustice done to him. As a matter of fact I believe there are precedents for such an increase. There was an increase, if I am correctly informed, of pensions payable to Scottish ex-teachers last year, and we all know, of course, that the sums payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act have been recently increased as a war measure. I do not
    2840
    see how the case of these pensioners is to be differentiated from either of those cases. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman very strongly about this matter. I believe that his sympathies are with the pensioners' demands, and surely he ought to be strong enough. The right hon. Gentleman claims for himself great strength in the administration of his office, and he now has an opportunity of proving his strength in meeting the just demands made.
    Mr. NUGENT: There are one or two points to which I should like to draw the attention of the House. In supporting the hon. Member for St. Stephen's Green, I do not want to travel the ground he has already covered so fully, because really it comes down to this. These pensions were fixed in 1883, when things were half their present cost, and the then cost of living was taken into consideration. You might put it another way, and say you have reduced the pensions by about 50 per cent. We all feel that whatever opinions there may be amongst parties, it is the desire of everyone, I think, that every officer of the Government should be treated fairly and justly, whether he is Unionist or Nationalist, and that there should not be discontent caused among them owing to their treatment. The second point I have is the case of the widows of the men who have died in the service. These people are receiving—I am sure it will surprise the House to hear it—the large sum of £10 a year. Surely that is a scandal! My hon. Friend reminds me that the English Bill provides for £26 a year. But if this Bill is intended to remedy a grievance, and if it is not intended merely to create discontent, why are the men who have gone out of the force not receiving the same treatment as the men in it? There has been a serious grievance in the case of the widows. I think this is one which, if there is a spark of humanity within us, should appeal to us. I should like to put that question before the Chief Secretary, because, not having the Bill, we do not know what it contains. I have received a number of letters. I will give you a case in point. This man says, "I was deprived of my lodging allowance of 13s., and I had to pay 4s. 4d. a month until I had paid off what was overdrawn." What was overdrawn was this: that he was given the ordinary allowance until they discovered—the man was living outside

    2841
    the barracks and having to support a family—that he had a child of 16 years of age. Under some regulation he is to be deprived of lodging allowance.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see how this can be relevant to this proposal on which a Bill is to be founded for giving pensions to the Police. The point which the hon. Member is raising is some point of a policeman having been improperly fined. That is a question of administration.
    Mr. NUGENT: This is no question of a fine. This is a question of a regulation. This proposal is going to increase the salary of policemen, and one of the matters to which I am referring is interfering with the salary of the policemen. This is not a question of a fine, but of a regulation already in existence. I respectfully submit that this is a question which the Chief Secretary should deal with and take into consideration when he is dealing with the Bill.
    Colonel McCALMONT: We have often been told from the Front Bench—at least I have been told quite recently—that there is one subject upon which all Irish parties agree, that is, without giving examination to the question, extracting money from the British taxpayers. I do not think this is an instance of that. Whether we are going to get more or less money, or whether people who more or less deserve it are going to get it or not, I really rose to support what has been said from below the Gangway with regard more especially to the claims of the old pensioner—that is, the man who has already left the force. Listening to the figures quoted by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, I could not help being struck by the fact that, although the policeman in England carries out far less onerous and certainly far less dangerous duties than does the policeman in Ireland, whether of the Dublin Police or of the Royal Irish Constabulary, yet the pensions paid to them seem to be in entirely inverse ratio to the services they perform. I do not think this is an occasion on which we can go into details. I think if my right hon. Friend would give us some indication of how this money is to be spent he would facilitate the passing of the Resolution and enable us to get to bed.
    Major NEWMAN: I should like to back up the remarks made by my hon. Friend below me and below the Gangway. I have taken a great deal of interest in the question
    2842
    of these pensioners, and I cannot understand why we cannot get this Bill. Day after day I have tried to get a copy.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Bill cannot be brought in until this Resolution is passed.
    Major NEWMAN: I understand that these old pensioners will not be within the scope of this Bill, and when the Money Resolution is passed we shall not be able to raise their case. As one who has lived in the South of Ireland I consider that the demands of these men should be allowed to be brought within the scope of the Bill.
    Mr. BYRNE: The Members on this Bench are very much in the dark as to the meaning of the Bill, and to show you how very much in the dark we are, the hon. Member for College Green had to be called to order on one very important point which he raised, which the Chief Secretary mentioned at the beginning of the Bill was supposed to contain. I wish to state that there was a Bill passed giving increased pensions and pay for men who are going out on pensions in 1914, and I am informed that the old pensioners would be well satisfied to go under the new scale of pensions.
    The fact that the pensions of the Dublin Police and of the Royal Irish Constabulary are such that members of it go out after thirty years' service with a miserable pension of only £48 a year is really sufficient for me to get the support of the House for my case. I may also mention another point, which is, and I have no hesitation in saying it, that there is a prejudice in Ireland against giving employment to any man holding a pension. There is that prejudice, and I am afraid I share it myself, against the man receiving a pension, and I suppose it is due to the fact that we have not enough employment for our ordinary civilians, who have large families to keep and have no pensions. Thus, when there is a small position going, prejudice comes in to prevent any pensioner getting it where it is a police pension. I myself would not support a pensioner getting a position as against a man who had no pension. If there was-sufficient employment for them all, I would certainly give it to a pensioner; but until all our civilians who have no pensions at all are properly employed in Dublin you will find that the prejudice of which I tell you exists, and it will continue to exist. After twenty-eight or

    2843
    thirty years' service, representing the best years of a man's life, the Government ought to see that these men get a decent living.
    Mr. SHORTT: The Resolution as it appears speaks for itself. It is one upon which a Bill will be based providing for the pay of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police, and for pensions allowances and gratuities to members of these forces, their widows and children, and for other purposes in connection therewith. This is by way of amendments of the existing Acts and administration. The question of the widows has been raised. The pensions provided by the Bill with regard to them will approximate to those appertaining in England.
    Mr. BYRNE: Will they be retrospective?
    Mr. SHORTT: I will deal with that in a moment. The pay which it is proposed should be given in future is also approximately that which appertains in England. You cannot take the English pay by itself and compare it with the Irish pay, because conditions differ in that there are allowances in Ireland which do not exist in England and that there is in England a provision for reduction for pensions which does not exist in Ireland, but speaking generally the proposal is that the pay should approximate in Ireland to the pay in England. With regard to pensioners, it is a more difficult question. It is true that most of the existing pensioners are under the 1883 Act. Whether they are all or not, one may be sure at all events that a lot of them are; and it is equally true that they have a very strong case for recognition and for relief. But to go into the question of the pensioners or even into the case of the widows of men who have died is to open a very large question which would very likely jeopardise the whole Bill if it were pressed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] It is very important that the police should receive this increase of pay. There is in England or Scotland no necessity to proceed in this way because there you can by administrative act increase the pay, and therefore Parliament does not matter; but in the case of Ireland you can only deal with it by an Act of Parliament—that is the only way by which the pay of the police can be increased. This Bill must
    2844
    be got through this week or the Bill goes, and the police do not get their extra pay. Is it advisable to prejudice it by opening up the bigger subject as you would do, I suggest, by opening up the subject of the pensions. We regret it because I realise that the case made on behalf of the pensioners is a strong case, but it is quite impossible to put anything appertaining to that subject into this Bill. With that explanation, and having regard to the lateness of the hour, I would ask the House to pass this Resolution.
    Captain CHARLES CRAIG: The right hon. Gentleman has not explained to us what is the difficulty in his way in bringing in these pensioners. Is it a Treasury difficulty, an administrative difficulty, or what? We are all very anxious that this Bill should be passed because it is undoubtedly a grievance that the policeman in the matter of pay and pension in Ireland should be receiving less than policemen in this country, or in Scotland. This question of the pensioners is quite as important as the question of pay. I must confess that I do not see that the Chief Secretary has given us any reason in the world or any explanation of the difficulties which he experiences in this matter. I think it is a very unsatisfactory condition of affairs. I do not suppose anyone will vote against the Resolution to-night, but I warn the right hon. Gentleman, in spite of the fact that he wants to get the Bill through this week, that we shall want to raise these points at a later stage.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Mr. Shortt and the Attorney-General for Ireland.
    CONSTABULARY AND POLICE (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL,—"to amend the Law relating to the pay and pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police; and for other purposes in connection with those forces," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time this day, and to be printed. [Bill 113.]

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION.
  Resolved, "That the Statement of the estimated income and expenditure of

  2845
  Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation for the year 1918–19 be approved."—[Colonel Sanders.]
  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
  It being after half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twenty-nine minutes after One o'clock.

INFLUENZA EPIDEMIC.
  BRITISH ARMY (FRANCE AND ENGLAND).
  BRITISH ARMY (FRANCE AND ENGLAND).
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  ADMIRALTY (STAFF).
  ADMIRALTY (STAFF).
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  ARMY SCHOOLMASTERS.
  ARMY SCHOOLMASTERS.
  TERRITORIAL FORCE (EFFICIENCY MEDAL).
  TERRITORIAL FORCE (EFFICIENCY MEDAL).
PRISONERS OF WAR.
  CHEVRONS.
  CHEVRONS.
  INJURED SEAMEN (COMPENSATION, ETC.).
  INJURED SEAMEN (COMPENSATION, ETC.).
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF MEDICAL SERVICES.
  DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF MEDICAL SERVICES.
  SCHOOL CHILDREN (DENTAL TREATMENT).
  SCHOOL CHILDREN (DENTAL TREATMENT).
  SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
  SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
INDIA
  DEPARTMENTAL OFFICERS (PENSIONS).
  DEPARTMENTAL OFFICERS (PENSIONS).
  BENGAL (INTERNMENTS).
  BENGAL (INTERNMENTS).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  UNINTERNED GERMAN SUBJECTS.
  UNINTERNED GERMAN SUBJECTS.
  COAL SUPPLIES.
  COAL SUPPLIES.
  PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY (INCREASED CHARGES).
  PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY (INCREASED CHARGES).
  PRISON TREATMENT (JOHN MACLEAN).
  PRISON TREATMENT (JOHN MACLEAN).
  MEDICAL ACT, 1886 (BRITISH COLUMBIA).
  MEDICAL ACT, 1886 (BRITISH COLUMBIA).
SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.

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. Your Lordships will remember that yesterday I withdrew this Motion, which then stood in my name, in order to satisfy myself that it was a reasonable proposal to make within the precedents of your Lordships' House. I have satisfied myself that a good precedent exists, and I accordingly submit that the Motion can be carried.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended for the remainder of the session.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I am not quite satisfied that the precedents bear out the interpretation which apparently the noble Earl puts upon them. I have done my best to look into them with the assistance of the Clerk at the Table. Taking the last three occasions I find upon the second—in 1914—that Standing Order No. XXXIX was suspended for the remainder of the session on January 26, and Parliament was prorogued the following day. In 1917 notice was given on January 31, the Standing Order was suspended on February 4, and Parliament was prorogued on February 6, so there were only two days between. In the session of 1916 the Standing Order was suspended from day to day, and had been on three particular days—December 12, 18, and 19. I do not think that there is any precedent for suspending the Standing Order for an unlimited time unless the date of the Prorogation is actually announced. That is not the case, as I understand it, to-day. Therefore to put myself in order I move that the Standing Order be suspended for the remainder of this week.
Amendment moved
Leave out from the Motion the words "for the remainder of the session," in order to insert" for the remainder of this week."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I shall not oppose that Amendment if the noble Lord desires it to be done in that form.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I desire to say one word on this Amendment. My noble friend is very courteous in the management of the House, and he has said that he accepts the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Balfour. But I think it only right to point out how very necessary it is to proceed cautiously in this matter. The noble Earl yesterday, no doubt speaking from information supplied to him, told us that the proposal to suspend this Standing Order for the remainder of the session was well within the precedents of the House. He, of course, has been convinced by my noble friend that that is not the case, and that it is very unusual indeed to move the suspension of the Standing Order except when the Prorogation is quite immediately in prospect—within two days—and had we done as he suggested last night, we should have created a new precedent of a very far-reaching character. I think it only right to point that out. Not that I comment in any way upon my noble friend's action, because he only did what he was instructed to do, and what he thought was within the precedents. This just shows how cautiously your Lordships should proceed in matters of this kind before agreeing to a novel form of Resolution.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: In justice to myself I think I ought to tell your Lordships that I consider the precedent is adequate for the Motion; but rather than occupy your Lordships time when there is so much business to be done, I preferred, as being the most courteous course to pursue, to accept Lord Balfour's Amendment, though I should have been quite prepared to argue my case.
On Question, Amendment agreed to, and Motion as so amended agreed to.

GAS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).

THE BESTOWAL OF HONOURS.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE had the following Notice on the Paper—
To move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty submitting that, whilst the Prime Minister is constitutionally responsible to the Crown for recommendations for the bestowal of honours, it is manifestly impossible for him to give his personal attention to an examination of the merits of all the cases which are brought to his notice; and humbly praying His Majesty to appoint a special Committee of the Privy Council to report to His Majesty on all recommendations in respect of such classes of honours as His Majesty may be pleased to refer to it, and to direct that the Report of this Committee on each case should be sent to the Prime Minister, and, when an honour which has been so reported upon has been conferred by His Majesty, that the Report of the Committee upon it should be laid before Parliament at the same time as the Gazette is published in which the grant of the honour is announced.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am glad to have one more opportunity before this Parliament comes to an end, of bringing to your Lordships' attention the question of honours, and I hope that I shall persuade you to accept the Motion which I have put upon the Paper, and thus make a definite suggestion for applying a remedy to a grievance which has already been proved, and which I can show is to-day becoming larger. Your Lordships' House has taken the lead of public opinion in this matter, as distinguished from the other place, which has shown a great indifference to a growing scandal.
On previous occasions I, and those with whom I have been acting, have endeavoured especially to draw attention to that particular form of danger which we believe to exist in the sale of honours mainly for the purpose of enlarging Party funds; and in that connection I think it may be said that we proved our case and achieved a certain measure of success, because, although my noble friend who leads this House never was willing to admit that the evil was quite so great as we think we have proved it to be, yet I do not be-

5
lieve, if he was here, that he would correct me when I say that he admitted that there was an evil, and within certain limits he was prepared to do what he could to help us in mitigating it. Consequently he agreed, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, to do two things which had never been done before. The first was that all honours of every kind should be inserted in a supplement to the Gazette; secondly, that on each occasion there should be a statement of the public service in respect of which the honour had been recommended to His Majesty. I think that both those steps were important, and since that pledge was given all honours have appeared in the Gazette, and there has been a statement on each occasion of the reason for which those honours were given.
I do not say that those statements are all equally full or equally satisfactory. They are not. But at any rate they are a commencement of a definite explanation of what the public service is supposed to be in respect to which the honour has been granted. I am not going to deal with that aspect of the case to-day, though I am in a position to say that the danger of the sale of honours for the purposes of Party funds still exists. And, although I have no fresh case in respect of which I am authorised to give facts publicly, I could give facts privately either to my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal or my noble friend the Leader of the House, which would show that that danger, although possibly scotched, is not killed.
I want to draw your Lordships' attention to the fresh danger of abuse which arises from the fact of the great recent multiplication of honours. It is quite natural, after all the excellent service rendered by so many men and women in connection with this war, that there should be more honours granted than there were More, and I wish again to make the public fully understand that I and those with whom I am acting take the action we do because we want to preserve the system of honours for those who have deserved them by genuine public service. What we are afraid of is that if the honours are bought and sold in the market, or if they are given with such profusion and carelessness that the undeserving receive them, then the inevitable consequence will be that the deserving will reject them. They will become a by-word and a scandal, and the system will finally have to disappear. Therefore, in our judgment the only
6
possible method of preserving the system of honours as a real reward for genuine public service is that it should be hedged round with such safeguards against abuse and such precautions against misapplication as to maintain and enhance the value of honours as a reward for public service.
The first of the fresh dangers to which I wish to draw your attention is lest all the proper forms, procedure, and precautions which are essential in this matter should be neglected and consequently that wholly unworthy persons should receive honours; and also lest His Majesty's Prerogative should also in this matter cease to be treated with the great respect due to it; and, finally that, as a result, the persons worthy of honour should come to regard an honour as dishonour. I want to exhibit to you this document. It is the third Supplement of the London Gazette of June 4. It consists of over sixty closely-printed pages, and this is only one Honours List. As far as I can make out, there are somewhere between forty-five and fifty names on each page. Though a good specimen, it is only one specimen of other lists. In the circumstances the Prime Minister's responsibility becomes a farce. The whole of this system rests on the Prime Minister's responsibility; he is responsible to the Sovereign for the recommendations made, and the honours are conferred on the subject by the Sovereign as a mark of his favour for the public service rendered. Now, who suggests that the Prime Minister in the middle of the war could have any real responsibility for the names contained in this Gazette? He would have been neglecting his work, he would have been doing very wrong, had he attempted to fulfill that responsibility. But it would be almost equally impossible in time of peace.
Therefore we have to find some other method of ensuring that the advice tendered to His Majesty is the result of due thought after the exercise of proper precautions, and that the proper forms and formalities have not been ignored. I do not doubt—I do not think my friends doubt—that the great majority of the names in this Gazette are the names of people who have earned their honour by faithful public service. Nor do I doubt that a great many of them have been recommended to the Prime Minister either by his colleagues or by some other responsible person whom he can fully trust—such, for instance, as the head of the

7
Red Cross; and therefore, as regards the great number of these names, I do not doubt that the rewards are for real public service, or that the Prime Minister has had his responsibility covered by recommendations, either from colleagues or from people whom he can trust. But I assert quite definitely that that is not quite true of all these names.
On the several occasions when I have brought this subject forward I have been extremely careful never to make a statement that I was not in a position to verify. I have only given names when I was authorised to state those names, and I have only stated cases of another nature when I had the proof by me on the Table in such a form that I could make good at once what I stated. Now to-day, unfortunately, I have not been entrusted with any confidences which I can make public, but I have been entrusted with knowledge which I am allowed to state to my noble friends the Lord Privy Seal or my noble friend the Leader of the House privately, and I think I have sufficient credit with your Lordships that when I tell you the nature of the cases of which I can speak privately you will believe that I am not speaking in vain. In the first place, I can prove that great carelessness and impropriety and constitutional slackness have occurred in dealing with these honours. I will give you two cases. I have been informed of one case of a recipient of a high honour to whom no kind of communication was made before it was gazetted, and who had received no communication for a month after it was gazetted. I do not know whether he has received any communication since. But this honour was conferred on him without any kind of previous communication with him—a thing, I should think, absolutely and utterly unknown in other days. A corresponding case was where another gentleman had a high honour also conferred on him, and a notification was sent to him, but when he made inquiries he found that His Majesty's pleasure had not been taken, and therefore he declined it. Now, both those are in my judgment instances of great slackness, carelessness, and want of knowledge of constitutional practice, and show that the thing has not been done in the right way.
Then I can show that some very unworthy people have received honours.
8
By "unworthy," I mean persons stigmatised in the public Courts for highly dishonourable conduct; and another form of unworthy person is a common, low, vulgar adventurer of the very worst type who has received an honour. Both these cases, again, indicate most extraordinary carelessness and slackness on the part of those dealing with this subject. Lastly, I can show that in some cases at any rate the real dispensers of the Prerogative have been not the Prime Minister or the Minister but the private secretaries; and if you think of it, when you come to deal with lists like these, unless the utmost care is taken and a real procedure is provided for dealing carefully with this important matter, it is sure to fall into the patronage of the private secretary; and if honours in this country are to be in the last resort, to whatever degree, conferred by private secretaries, then I think the time has come when honours should become a relic of the past. With such carelessness, with such utter want of responsibility—because private secretaries are people who are wholly irresponsible, people unknown to the Constitution, and with no responsibility—it is quite certain that the door will be open one day to corruption. I am making, of course, no suggestion of corruption against any existing private secretary. So far as I know there has been no taint of corruption in this matter. But what I say is that if honours are given on this scale, and if the whole system is left uncared for and slack, corruption one day is perfectly certain to supervene. All experience shows that; and it does not require any particular spirit of prophecy on my part to suggest it.
I think, therefore, I have shown that, in addition to the old dangers, there is a fresh batch of dangers; and I come now to the definite suggestion which I and my friends make to your Lordships' House and which we hope you will respectfully submit to His Majesty. Our suggestion is that a small Standing Committee of the Privy Council should be set up, consisting of, say, five or six members, with a secretary. That Standing Committee, of course, would be appointed by His Majesty on the advice of the Prime Minister.
The first question is, In respect of what honours should this Committee exercise any function? My answer is that only His Majesty and the Prime Minister can decide that question. It is quite

9
clear that the Prime Minister can exercise his responsibility personally, and ought to, as regards the most important honours; therefore about them the intervention of no Committee of the Privy Council is required. It is also clear that in respect of other honours—I have particularly in mind the naval and military and the Civil Service honours, about which there has never been any question of improper bestowal—the Prime Minister can reckon in the future, as he has reckoned in the past, on the advice of his colleagues. Consequently, there are some honours with which he can clearly deal himself, and there are others in respect of which he can trust his colleagues; and it, is for him to decide and to advise His Majesty in regard to what honours he should utilise the services of this Committee of the Privy Council.
I do not attempt to define what those honours are; but in respect of them I can describe the kind of function that we think the Committee of the Privy Council could perform. As regards such honours as were submitted to this Committee, we think that it should examine each case carefully and report the public record of the person in respect of whom it was proposed to confer the honour. There would be no difficulty in our opinion in the Committee of the Privy Council doing this with a little care, with a little time, and with the assistance of a secretary. It would report, in regard to every name put before it, what the public record of that person was—honourable and dishonourable; and, when it had completed that report, there the function of the Committee would terminate. The sole responsibility for the decision to advise His Majesty to confer an honour would remain with the Prime Minister. But the Prime Minister would have before him the report of the Committee of the Privy Council as to these persons, and if he advised His Majesty to confer an honour on any one of these, and that honour were granted by His Majesty and gazetted, then at the same time the report of the Committee on that person should be laid or the Table of both Houses of Parliament.
By that plan you would ensure that every case was dealt with properly, and that such cases as I have mentioned—the people stigmatised of dishonourable conduct in the public Courts, or who can be exposed as common, vulgar adventurers—never could get into an Honours List. The Prime Minister, of course, would not have
10
suggested to His Majesty to appoint these people had he known what their record was. He did not know. There was no proper machinery to keep him informed. But with the machinery of the Committee of the Privy Council the whole of a man's public record, honourable and dishonourable, would be before the Prime Minister, and he would recommend the King to confer an honour only in a case where the record was unblemished. Therefore I submit that the safeguard would be real.
It is true that there would be some delay; but what does that matter? What does it matter whether a Gazette like this is published on New Year's Day or two months later? Or, if it is important that it should be published on New Year's Day, then the preliminary steps that are taken on these occasions should be taken a month or two earlier. I cannot admit that delay is an argument of any consequence against the plan. Lastly, for the first time there would be a record. I attach great importance to this. Supposing that private secretaries were as efficient and careful as they very often are, but as I do not think they always have been in the cases I have mentioned, private secretaries come and go. There may be some tradition of record from one private secretary to another of the same Prime Minister, but if the Prime Minister is changed, particularly if he belongs to a different Party, there is no continuation of record at all, and the man of very doubtful reputation who has been well known to the private, secretary of one Prime Minister may be quite unknown to his successor. That is what I suspect certainly has happened in one of the cases I have mentioned to-day. Therefore I say that a permanent record of these matters in the office of the Committee of the Privy Council would be an additional guarantee, and this plan is one that merits the very favourable consideration of His Majesty's Government.
In conclusion I would only again express my conviction that, unless this matter receives more attention from His Majesty's Government than it has ever yet done, the system will not be able to last, because of the dangers and evils in respect of which I have been able to give your Lordships some indication and some specimen, and because the plain man will be inevitably driven to the conclusion that it is better to go without an honour than to share an honour with a man whose record is known to be dishonourable. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty submitting that, whilst the Prime Minister is constitutionally responsible to the Crown for recommendations for the bestowal of honours, it is manifestly impossible for him to give his personal attention to an examination of the merits of all the cases which are brought to his notice; and humbly praying His Majesty to appoint a special Committee of the Privy Council to report to His Majesty on all recommendations in respect of such classes of honours as His Majesty may be pleased to refer to it, and to direct that the Report of this Committee on each case should be sent to the Prime Minister, and, when an honour which has been so reported upon has been conferred by His Majesty, that the Report of the Committee upon it should be laid before Parliament at the same time as the Gazette is published in which the grant of the honour is announced.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I do not propose to contest the fact stated by Lord Selborne, that there may have been mistakes made such as those to which he has referred. I myself came across a mistake of that character six or eight years ago in which two members of your Lordships' House were concerned, and which produced very singular results. I also came across a case quite recently in which two persons of identical names, not only living in the identical street but living actually in the same great block of buildings, were confused through a mistake which perhaps was not quite inexcusable. Mistakes I have no doubt do occur. Mistakes perhaps will go on, but I propose to devote myself to the remedy proposed by Lord Selborne, which in my opinion is not likely to improve matters, but rather, as I shall attempt to show your Lordships, may, by diffusing responsibility, do more harm than good. I will, if I may, deal with the remedy proposed by Lord Selborne. He suggests that a special Committee of the Privy Council should be set up, consisting of half a dozen members, who are in effect in certain particulars to replace the Prime Minister. I was surprised to hear from Lord. Selborne that the Prime Minister is to choose what cases are to be sent to this Committee.
THE EARL OF SELBORNEWhat class of case.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Quite so. What class of case shall be referred to this committee. Some classes evidently can be reserved to the Prime Minister, and those are classes which Lord Selborne indicated, in a parenthetical remark, the Prime Minister himself, owing apparently to ample time, is capable of giving personal attention to; and by inference the larger honours, such as those referred to in this Gazette here, are to be referred to the Privy Council Committee. I would point out to your Lordships at once that the gravamen of the charge has always been that great personages of great wealth receive honours at the hands of His Majesty, and at the instance of the politicians, in return for money.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: That is one of the charges.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It is the gravamen, I think, of the charges. You are not going to get rid of that difficulty in this way. The great people are going to be reserved to the Prime Minister; the humble people against whom such charges of money corruption are not brought, I presume, are to be referred to this Committee. It is quite clear, therefore, that if Baronetcies, Garters, Stars, and Peerages are to be reserved to the Prime Minister, the danger to which Lord Selborne alluded in his last speech, although he did not refer to it much to-night, will not be in any way eliminated. I want to say a word, not quite so much in reference to what Lord Selborne has said to-day, but in relation to this Gazette; and he inferred that this enormous Gazette—and he and others have written it in the public Press—is a recognition of honour at the expense of the soldiers.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I did not say so. Nobody suggested it.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am reading a letter which appeared a month or two ago from a number of well-known public men, in which they are dealing with this very point, of the number of honours conferred, and one of the phrases is—
"The men who most deserve honours are nearly all under arms, and at the present time it is the names of these men the country would prefer to see in the Honours List."
The inference is that the honours are being given to the civilians in undue numbers,

13
and that the soldiers are not being duly rewarded. I want to deal with that point, because I think it is based on a complete misapprehension. The Order of the British Empire was instituted in order for the Sovereign to give recognition to persons, men or women, who were not fighting, but who none the less were contributing much towards war service. But the number of decorations given under the Order of the British Empire is quite insignificant in contrast to the numbers given to soldiers. That, of course, is natural, but people do not realise that a considerable number of decorations, quite apart from the ordinary service medal, which has not been allotted, are special recognitions and given to the troops. I will not trouble your Lordships with complete figures, but I will give you three or four.
There have been 1,500 C.M.G.'s, 7,500 D.S.O.'s, 28,000 M.C.'s, 1,600 bars to the M.C. of the first class, 18,000 D.C.M.'s, 8,800 Military Service Medals, and 80,000 Military Medals. That will show your Lordships that in point of fact, when numbers are compared, the difference between the two is significant. For every decoration given to a civilian I suppose twenty, fifty—I do not know how many, but a very much larger number—have been given to the soldiers, and it is sot quite right to assume that when civilian work is rewarded it is done at the expense of the soldiers. Apparently, as the important recommendations to His Majesty are to be in the hands of the Prime Minister, this Motion only applies to subordinate categories of honour. To my mind, that is a very grave objection to Lord Selborne's scheme. Let me outline what the procedure will be.
TEE EARL OF SELBORNE: I never said where I would draw the line. I said a line must be drawn, but I left the Prime Minister to draw it. I never said I would draw it.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: No, my noble friend was very cautious not to tell us what his scheme really was, but he said that those personages with whom the Prime Minister and his colleagues were likely to be familiar would be excluded from reference to this Committee. That I roughly interpret to be a baronetcy or knighthood or—
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: No, that is not my view.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: At any rate, there is to be some division.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Some will go, and some will not go. That, I say, seems to me to be open to very grave objection. How will the actual procedure work? As the Motion puts it, the King will have to settle what categories of honours are to referred to this Committee, but it is quite clear that this means that some are not going to be referred to it. Some will be referred, and some will not. Certain classes of honour—those which are subject to this special inquiry—therefore become suspect at once. It is a kind of black list that is being formed which has to be purged before this Committee of the Privy Council. I think that that is an objectionable thing. It would be most difficult to settle what special class of honour has to be submitted to this special kind of scrutiny. Of course, if there are to be half a dozen members of the Privy Council upon whom these duties are to devolve, they must be impeccable. The politicians who are blamed in this matter are all, or most of them, I presume, Privy Councillors. They must therefore be excluded from this Committee clearly. They are, rightly or wrongly, supposed to be very susceptible to lobbying, and I dare say this Committee will be thoroughly well canvassed. Take it a stage further. The Ambassador and the Foreign Minister, of course, must be excluded. I presume that the high Civil Servants will be excluded. I presume also that Dominion and Overseas members must be excluded. Clearly they must. Finally, the Lord Chancellor, I doubt not, would take steps to prevent Judges from serving. You rather reduce your panel to which this enormous responsibility is going to be handed over, and it is not going to be quite so easy as some people seem to think to find a panel of active and leisured men who will take charge of a task which may really be very onerous indeed. For my part I am not at all sure that they would perform their function with any particular success.
I gather from the Motion that this Committee has no initiative. Yes; I am right in that. The Prime Minister therefore recommends an honour, but he does not

15
recommend it to the Sovereign; he recommends it to this Committee. They will examine the man's claim. They report upon it. The report goes to the Prime Minister. If it is favourable, presumably the Prime Minister sends that report to His Majesty. But if it is unfavourable? Suppose the Prime Minister takes a strong view on the subject; suppose he differs from the view taken by this Committee, is the Prime Minister to be bound by the decision of these six gentlemen? And if His Majesty desires, as he is often bound to do, to discuss the question of an honour, or, if you like, a promotion in the Peerage of one of your Lordships, I take it that the Sovereign is not expected to call in these six gentlemen with whom to discuss a matter which, so far as I can see, rests entirely within his Majesty's Prerogative. I do not see how the Prime Minister can be bound by the decision of these gentlemen. At least it seems to me most improbable that he would be, and in many cases—I do not say in all—the Prime Minister would certainly be in a position to know infinitely more about the candidates than this Committee. The Ministers of State are living amongst the active and influential minds of the day. If they went to suggest an honour for a Member of Parliament or for an Overseas Minister or Ambassador, they have means at their disposal better than those which this Commitee will possess.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I do not want to interrupt my noble friend, but has a little misunderstood what I said. I never suggested—it is not my idea—that this Committee should express any opinion whether an honour should be conferred or not. It would simply state what the record of the individual was, leaving it entirely to the Prime Minister whether he was going to recommend that individual or not. If he does recommend him the record, as drawn by the Committee of the Privy Council, must be published at the same time.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Is that business? You set up a Committee to inquire into the man's character and personality. You tell the Committee, "This has nothing to do with honours; we merely want to know what is the man's record. You are a kind of official 'Who's Who.'" They cannot pursue it except in relation to the conferment of a public honour by His
16
Majesty, and therefore it is no use saying that they are not to consider the question of an honour but merely the question of his record. This Committee are going to be appointed; they know that their report is made in relation to a particular honour in respect of a particular man; and that is, I think, where the noble Earl, on reflection, will find that his case is weak. They will not know as much, in many cases, as the Ministers who are responsible. There are no politicians on the panel, there are no Ambassadors, there are no Overseas Ministers. If it is proposed to confer an honour upon a Member of Parliament, upon an Ambassador, upon an Overseas Minister, the people who can get the good advice are the Prime Minister, who knows the Members of Parliament, who is in touch with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the case of an Ambassador, and who can be in communication with a Governor in the case of Overseas statesmen. And if a Prime Minister has to advise His Majesty on matters of vastly greater importance and moment than the Order of the British Empire, is it wise to disperse the responsibility and share it with a Committee of this kind?
On these matters, especially where the Prerogative of the Crown is so very closely concerned, one cannot be too careful in examining the routine with precision. What happens next? The Prime Minister reports the name to the Committee; the Committee report it back to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister recommends to the Sovereign, who graciously confers an honour if he thinks such a course suitable. Meanwhile, the notice of appointment is gazetted. But simultaneously with the publication in the Gazette, the report of the Committee is to be published as a Parliamentary Paper. This seems to me to be open to the very gravest criticism. In making their reports to the Prime Minister this Committee will know that publication has got to, or may, ensue. Take an ordinary case, any commonplace case. We will take that of a man who has received knighthood, and who is recommended by the Prime Minister for a baronetcy. The Committee, I think, considering the object for which they are set up, would be perfectly entitled—you could not stop them—to say that they quite approved of this, that the man was unexceptionable in character, but that they recommended the step with reluctance.

17
They could say that perfectly well. Or else they might equally well justify the recommendation of an honour to a man who, according to Biblical precedent, at some time or other before that date had been bereft of style and title; and they would be entitled to explain why they did so. In fact, I think they would be obliged to explain why they did so, knowing that their reports are to be printed. Can anybody expect that the dossiers issued by these six gentlemen—could anybody expect under these conditions that these reports would be free, or candid, or unreserved? Lord Selborne says they are to publish what is honourable or dishonourable in a man's career. I do not think you will find a Committee which will be prepared to make what may be just but none the less very grave charges against a man, unless that Committee is invested with very much stronger powers and receives statutory authority rather than a mere recommendation of this kind.
And let me, finally, refer to the position of the candidates themselves. Will they consent to this procedure? Of course, there is going to be publicity about it. These six gentlemen, in nine cases out of ten, will not know anything of the existence of these kind of people who are receiving rewards at the hands of His Majesty. And here let me say one personal word about the Order of the British Empire. It so happens that throughout the war I have found myself in touch with humble people who are getting small credit, who are working unobserved, but who are doing, and have been doing, the great work of the war. Those are the people who are receiving the Order of the British Empire. It has been my duty on more than one occasion to make recommendations for that Order. I know the kind of man and the kind of woman who is receiving recognition from the Sovereign under that Order, and I cannot say how bitterly I resent reading this kind of thing in a paper written by persons of high standing and full of honours about the humble people who are receiving well-earned and hard-earned recognition for work which has been of incalculable value.
I read this kind of thing—
"It has become obvious that a Minister overwhelmed by public duties of the most arduous kind cannot possibly supervise the distribution of honours or prevent the monetary corruption and debasement of standards which will assuredly ensue. He would be obliged to neglect other vital duties."
18
And in the next line one reads—
"A new Order of the British Empire has been instituted. In a recent Gazette the names cover no less than 60 quarto pages… We make no suggestion of corruption—
and so on. But it is a suggestion of corruption. It refers to the danger of a peculiarly mean kind of pecuniary corruption, and so on. I cannot express to your Lordships the indignation I feel when, knowing as I do the kind of people who are getting this recognition under this new Order of the British Empire, I read that it is alleged that there is monetary corruption or debasement of interests, or anything of that kind.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There is no such allegation whatever in that letter.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It says "We make no suggestion of corruption," but it is there, for what did I read three lines before? "A new Order of the British Empire has been instituted," and so on. I know it is read in that way; I read it in that way and I know other people have so read it. I also know that many people resented it as bitterly as I do myself. I say it is impossible that these five or six gentlemen can know all about the candidates. There will have, therefore, to be publicity. They will have to have an office, they will require a secretariat, very likely a large one; they will have to conduct correspondence, and I think in all probability they will have to have personal interviews. At the present moment recommendations are made by Ministers with personal knowledge of candidates. If this Committee do not know anything about the candidates they will have to pursue their inquiries as best they can, and it will perfectly well be known, of course, that So and So's case is to come up for discussion on such and such a day. And that will be the thing which I should imagine many people would resent. I do not suppose I exaggerate in saying that many people would refuse to submit themselves to a cross-examination of that kind, perhaps with the knowledge that they had been graded as B2 or B3, perhaps blackballed altogether. Now, if he is successful he knows that he has to have a report about his character and his personality published as a Parliamentary Paper. Either the report will be a conventional panegyric which will be a farce, or it will be a confidential and intimate report, the

19
publication of which would, I think, be an impropriety. I cannot imagine any more distressing ordeal for an honest man to go through who is recommended for an honour which he has well deserved at the hands of the State.
I therefore think that the scheme, which must be judged upon its technical merits and how it will work, is open to objection from many points of view. In many ways, of course, it is a censure upon the Prime Minister. Lord Selborne says that the House of Commons is lax in this matter, but that really is the proper place to bring these charges against the Prime Minister. There must be at any rate one righteous man in the House of Commons. Perhaps even a Privy Councillor could be found. But this is a direct charge against the Prime Minister, and I should have thought that it is a criticism which should have been directed to his personal attention in the House of Commons itself.
I have read this Motion with the very greatest care, and I cannot help thinking that sufficient heed has not been given to the actual scheme, to the scope or to the capacity of the Committee, to the objection I have referred to on the score of publicity, and to the position of the man whose services are to be recognised, nor to the exclusion of certain grades of honour from the purview of this Committee. Altogether this question has been discussed in your Lordships' House three, or perhaps four, times. My noble friend Lord Curzon, who is still detained abroad and cannot therefore attend here to-day, has already given to the House and the public a pledge that the greatest care shall be exercised in view of the increased number of honours conferred owing to the war, and that the most careful scrutiny and examination shall take place. Great care has been exercised. I daresay mistakes have been made. I think that I have referred already to one or two cases with which I am familiar. But I am convinced that this Committee is not the right way to remove the danger of such mistakes as have been referred to.
It is quite possible that mistakes will be made. The Prime Minister is the last person to claim infallibility on his own behalf. As one knows, sometimes the wrong man is appointed to a colonelcy or governorship, or to the management of a railway or business, or indeed to Ministerial rank, and to the end of time mistakes I daresay of this kind must occur; but of this I am
20
convinced, that mistakes are much less probable where responsibility is concentrated upon one man, aided as he is and must be by really well qualified colleagues. Such responsibility should not be diffused amongst a Committee. It will be unversed in ninety-nine cases out of 100 in the direct problem at issue. The Committee will be answerable to Parliament, and it will not be, I imagine, appointed by the Sovereign. I think a Committee of this kind is quite unfitted for duties which relate to the Public Service, and also to the Prerogative of the Crown. These duties of recommending honours to His Majesty are of such far-reaching importance that by tradition, by long custom, and I think also by propriety, they are entrusted by the Sovereign to the care of his First Minister of State.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will all have recognised the sincerity and conviction with which the noble Earl behind me brought forward this Motion, and we all honour him for the strong desire which has been evident to-day and on former occasions to remove all that seems to act against the purity and dignity of public life, and of the grant of honours; but at the same time I cannot help hoping that your Lordships will think twice before you adopt the remedy which the noble Earl suggests, for some of the reasons which have been made by the noble Earl who has just sat down. This is an age when Advisory Committees are greatly in the air. There is a tendency to fortify, or sometimes possibly to hamper, all responsible persons by surrounding them with an Advisory Committee, but the essence of an Advisory Committee and of its value must be the expert knowledge which it possesses. Such an expert Committee as the Advisory Council on Industrial Research, composed of the first scientific men of the day, advises the Lord President of the Council and the other Ministers who form that. Committee of Council, but it cannot be, I think, stated by my noble friend that this particular Committee can claim, or indeed acquire, the particular kind of expert knowledge which is needed for the grant of honours, because, quite rightly, my noble friend eliminates from his suggestion those cases in which expert knowledge is required, simply because that expert knowledge is forthcoming already.

21
When it is a question as to which Colonel should receive the Companionship of the Bath, which Indian Civil Servant should receive the K. C. I. E., the Prime Minister naturally relies upon his colleagues who are the heads of the Department concerned, and therefore it may be assumed that all those classes would not come under the notice of this Committee at all. It therefore would appear that, leaving aside the special case of the Order of which the noble Earl opposite spoke in some detail—namely, the Order of the British Empire, which stands on a somewhat different footing, although even there I take it the great bulk of the recommendations are made by and on the responsibility of the heads of the Departments—the conferment of Peerages (including steps in the Peerage), of baronetcies, of Knight bachelorships, and of membership of the Privy Council, are the only kind of honours which could fall within the purview of this Committee. And, as the noble Earl has pointed out, it would seem likely that a considerable number of these would be withdrawn by the Prime Minister himself from the inspection of the Committee on the ground that he preferred—and was highly competent, to do the work—to examine into the claims of those who might be put forward from one source or another for the conferment of such an honour.
I think it rather interesting to consider what the opinions of Prime Ministers would be in a matter of this kind. My noble friend Lord Selborne and I have the honour of knowing no less than eight Prime Ministers. Of those eight, four, I am happy to say, are still with us, and if my noble friend would invite the opinion of any of those four as to the appointment of an Advisory Committee of this kind to report upon the past history of gentlemen who are put forward for honours of the kind I have mentioned, I think he would not find much agreement with his view from any of the four. I also see, as the noble Earl opposite did, some difficulty in the selection of the personnel of such a Committee. It must obviously be composed of people who are themselves not likely to be the recipients of honours, and therefore I think it would have to be composed entirely of noble Dukes who are also Privy Councillors, and who have also received the honour of the Order of the Garter. Such men, I think we may suppose, may be taken to have reached the highest summit of earthly bliss and
22
eminence, and they therefore would be in a position to look down from the mountain heights on all possible aspirants for honours of every kind. But, as the noble Earl pointed out quite seriously, it is not exactly easy to see what class of Privy Councillors would be selected for this particular function.
But my real objection to the proposal of the noble Earl is the one which was alluded to by the noble Earl opposite—namely, that it takes away the responsibility of the Prime Minister in this matter. The present system of government, whatever its merits, has to my mind one, unhappy demerit—, namely, that of the destruction of the collective responsibility of Ministers, and if to this is to be added the destruction of their individual responsibility to the Crown it seems to me that there is not very much left. I do not agree with the statement of the noble Earl that it is manifestly impossible for the Prime Minister to give his personal attention to the merits of all the cases that are brought to his notice. In a sense, of course, it is true, all promotions in the Army are made by the Army Council, but nobody supposes that the actual members of the Army Council inquire personally into the promotion of every officer who gets his company. It is done by a system of inquiry and devolution, and even in war time I think it is quite possible for the Prime Minister to establish a system of inquiry by persons upon whose judgment he could rely, which would make it possible for him to take the responsibility of laying the name before the Sovereign.
The noble Earl has said with great frankness that in his opinion this has not been done, and that proper inquiries have not been made. That is a charge, as the noble Earl pointed out, if not against the Prime Minister himself, at any rate against his entourage and those whose opinion he is able to take. It is no business of mine to put up a defence for the Prime Minister in such a matter. He is as competent as anybody is to put up a defence of that kind for himself. But even if it were so—which personally I do not admit, and upon which I express no opinion—it does not follow that the particular remedy which the noble Earl suggests is the proper one to apply. A more simple and obvious remedy would be to ask the Prime Minister to appoint some gentleman—whether called a private secretary or not does not matter—upon whose opinion he can rely for the

23
special function of examining into all these cases in the light of the information that he is able to obtain from the different Departments. But, as I said, my main objection is the abstraction from the Prime Minister of his proper responsibility in this matter, and the consequent effect upon the Prerogative of the Crown. I trust therefore that, although recognising to the utmost the admirable intentions of my noble friend, your Lordships will not agree with his Motion.
LORD LEE: My Lords, may I express my warm agreement with the strong and spirited protest which was made by the acting Leader of your Lordships' House with regard, not to those high honours to which reference has been made, but to the very humblest class of honours referred to by Lord Selborne when he produced a copy of a recent Gazette. Your Lordships are aware that in that Gazette there are possibly 2,000 names. But those names, as has been shown, are mainly of people who would necessarily be utterly unknown to members of the Privy Council, but who none the less have deserved as well of their country during this war as any member of the Privy Council or of your Lordships' House.
If we consider that the whole population of these islands has been mobilised for war, even if we assume that only one-quarter of those who are not serving in the Army or Navy have done some work in connection with the war, that Gazette does not represent one name in a thousand of those war-workers. Every one of those names have been submitted by some responsible official under the Government, or a body like the Red Cross; they have been most anxiously considered and weighed before being recommended; and they represent, I believe, in 999 cases out of 1,000, individuals who have perhaps not only given their time, but have worked without remuneration day and night during the years of this war. These small rewards, while they may seem a contemptible thing to some very distinguished people, mean a very great deal to them—not merely the conferment of the small honour itself, but the fact that it is given personally by the hand of the Sovereign. As the head of a subordinate Department I have had to recommend a small number of those persons for the British Empire Order. I know how numerous have been the names of deserving people,
24
how anxiously their claims have been weighed one against the other, and how in the end the recommendation put forward has in all cases been put forward solely on merit.
I think it is time that a protest were made against this attempt—I will not say conscious attempt, but the effect is the same—to depreciate the value of these small rewards; because it can have no other effect but to poison the pleasure and the pride that these humble individuals must naturally feel at the recognition of their services at the hand of their Sovereign. I hope, whatever attacks may be made upon the system of conferment of high honours, there will be no more of this brandishing of large Gazettes, and suggesting that in some way or other the honours are not real or are not a credit to their recipients.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, there have been several discussions upon this subject in your Lordships' House, and I have always been impressed by the earnestness with which my noble friend Lord Selborne has urged the necessity for greater caution in the distribution of honours. I am prepared to go a certain length with him. I am quite ready to admit that the suspicion which undoubtedly prevails in regard to this question would not exist unless there was a certain amount of foundation for it. I am quite prepared to believe that there have been cases where the Crown has not been well advised in the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. I am quite prepared to believe also that there have been indiscretions—blunders—perpetrated very often by people who are not in the front of the scene, but who are rather in the position of the subordinate agents of the Government. I am quite prepared to believe all that; and if my noble friend could really show me a way of preventing the possibility of abuses, or even of mistakes, I should certainly be inclined to follow him.
But while I make these admissions, I have always felt that it would be a grievous injustice to the community of which we are members to allow the impression to go abroad that there was anything like general venality or corruption in the matter of the distribution of honours. I believe, on the contrary, that our public life here is as clean in this respect as that of any other country—probably much cleaner; and that it would be a libel to

25
suggest that the whole system of our public patronage was permeated by the kind of motives which are sometimes imputed. Where mistakes have been made, by all means let us point them out; and let us ascertain who is responsible for them, and let us visit those who are guilty. But the complaint that I make of the particular proposal which my noble friend has put forward is that, far from fixing responsibility more distinctly where it ought to be fixed, it tends to transfer responsibility, and to transfer it to a wrong set of shoulders.
This question came before your Lordships' House last year and your Lordships then took action upon the subject. You refused, indeed, to agree to the preamble of a Resolution moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Loreburn—a preamble which seemed to many of your Lordships to amount to a plea of guilty where no such plea ought to be entered. But you agreed to two Resolutions—one of them requiring the publication, in every case where an honour was conferred, of a full statement of the reasons for which that honour was given; and the other fixing upon the Prime Minister the responsibility—and it is a very remarkable responsibility—of satisfying himself that "no payment or expectation of payment to any Party or political fund is directly or indirectly associated with the grant or promise of such honour or dignity." Those Resolutions were accepted by my noble friend Lord Curzon on behalf of the Government. He explicitly told the House that, speaking for the Government, he accepted those Resolutions; and we have a right to assume that since they were passed those Resolutions have been observed not only in the letter but in the spirit. Those Resolutions surely were a not unsubstantial achievement on the part of my noble friend Lord Selborne and those who think with him.
What has passed, I would ask, since those Resolutions were carried to make a new departure necessary? My noble friend told the House that the danger was far greater now than it was then, mainly because of the immense increase in the number of distinctions which are being conferred owing to the war. But, my Lords, I cannot believe that if there has been anything like—corruption is too strong a word—but anything like an improper reward of Party services, it can be supposed to have
26
taken place in connection with these war honours. The cases that your Lordships were asked to consider specially last year were cases where Peerages and high honours of that kind has beer given as a reward for political services associated with large contributions to the political war chests. No suspicion of that kind arises in connection with this great host of honours which are being conferred in connection with the war.
I confess that I should very much prefer to leave the responsibility where it is now—with the Prime Minister. I recall the words which were used in the debate of last year by my noble and learned friend Lord Loreburn, than whom no Peer was more anxious to put an end to any abuse in connection with the conferring of honours. Let me read Lord Loreburn's words. He said—
"I am quite content if the Prime Minister insists on being told the whole of the facts, and then settles the matter with the honest determination, with which we justly and naturally credit every Prime Minister, that he will put down corruption."
I think we have, a right to ask His Majesty's Government whether that condition is now fulfilled. I hope, since the Resolution of last year, that we may take it that the Prime Minister does insist, I do not say in going personally into every one of these thousands of minor honours to which reference has been made, but in satisfying himself, either by himself or through the heads of Departments who are responsible to him, that no impropriety has taken place.
My noble friend proceeded to give the House illustrations of the still greater scandals which he thought had taken place since the Resolution of last year. Will my noble friend forgive me when I tell him that I really was not greatly impressed by the two or three cases which he cited. There was a case where there had been a failure to notify the honour to the individual upon whom it was conferred—a blunder which might very well be committed in the middle of the stress and strain that are inseparable from the war. The second case I did not note, but it seemed to me to be a case of that kind.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The case of vulgarity.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Oh, yes; the case of the vulgar adventurer. That might lead to all sorts of enquiries as to what constituted vulgarity and what was an adventurer. At any rate, my noble friend's indictment at that point did not seem to me to be a very formidable one. Then I will take my noble friend's plan. I think it was rather mercilessly dissected by my noble friend Lord Crawford, but I am bound to say that it seems to me to be a plan which would not be at all likely to work well or produce the desired result. You are to set up a small Committee of the Privy Council. The Committee is not to have individual cases referred to it, but certain classes of honours are to be marked off and within those classes particular cases may be referred to the Committee. I think this would work very badly indeed. How are you going to draw the line between the class of cases which ought to go to the Committee and the class which ought not? That seems to me to be full of difficulty. Then what is the Committee to do? The Committee is to inquire into the honourable or dishonourable antecedents—
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The record.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The honourable or dishonourable record of the person whom it is proposed to honour. How is the Committee to adjudicate upon the honourable side of the record? Will your Committee really be in a position to deal intelligently with the merits of each individual whose services it is desired to reward? The Minister can get from his official chief full particulars, and particulars of a reliable character; but this Committee would have no particular knowledge of the case at all. It would be turned on to investigate from the beginning the career of people with whom it had nothing to do, and whom it was quite incompetent to criticise. I do not think the Committee would do its work nearly as well as the responsible head of a Department, who would be able to say what he thought of the man who had served under him. But, then, how will it work when you come to the dishonourable side of the record? That seems to me to be a very serious task to impose upon any Committee. It means turning this Committee into a sort of private inquiry office, who are to rake up—
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I used the word "record." Record is conviction in public Court, or something of that kind.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: How would you catch your "vulgar adventurer" on a point of that kind? I doubt extremely whether a Committee of the Privy Council would be a very useful detective for such purposes. With every desire, and I have a sincere desire, to support my noble friend, I feel that he is putting upon this Committee a task which would be a very odious one, and which it would not be at all likely to perform to the satisfaction of anybody. Above all I feel, as I said at first, that by putting responsibility upon the shoulders of a Committee you take that responsibility off the shoulders of the men who ought to bear it, and they are the Prime Minister and his colleagues.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not think that my noble friend Lord Selborne is open to any censure, as the Lord Privy Seal seemed to think, because he has brought forward this question in your Lordships' House. The noble Earl seems to think that no Motion of this kind, supported by a very moderate speech such as my noble friend Lord Selborne delivered, ought to have been made except in the presence of the Prime Minister in the House of Commons.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: No! I did not say that. If the case was as serious as alleged I rather indicated that it was surprising that the Minister responsible—namely, the Prime Minister—had never been faced on the subject himself. I did not attempt to censure Lord Selborne for making the Motion. That is the last thing in the world that I would wish to do.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I thought the noble Earl did, but I will not dwell any more upon that point. Having listened to the speeches of the three noble Lords who preceded me, I felt that the way of a reformer was very hard. Nobody denies the existence of these mischiefs. Nobody in the debates before has denied that these evils exist. Everybody has admitted them. My noble friend Lord Lansdowne, speaking with all the great weight of his authority in your Lordship's House, never denied in the former debates the existence of these mischiefs. On the contrary, he assisted Lord Selborne in carry-

29
ing in a modified form the Resolution which stands on the records of the House. Yet what sort of language does the noble Earl use, and the noble Marquess behind me use, in regard to these occurrences? They say mistakes may have been made—blunders, indiscretions. Those are the words.
Does any noble Lord believe in his heart that there are nothing but blunders and mistakes and indiscretions. I mean, of course, that we are used to very moderate language in your Lordships' House, I am glad to say, and many of these phrases are euphemisms, because we do not like, and think it better manners not, to call things by their proper names. None of us believe in our hearts for a moment that there is not ground for charges of something much worse than blunders or mistakes or indiscretions. I am not, of course, denying what my noble friend Lord Lansdowne said just now, that on the whole the administration of honours is not corrupt. I entirely agree with him; but there ought to be no exceptions. Honours are not things which ought to be conferred generally purely, generally without corruption. There ought to be no possibility in this country of anything like a charge that honours are and have been sold for money, directly or indirectly, or that they have been granted without all that care and all that sense of responsibility which honours, if they are to be honours at all, ought to receive. That is why I say that the ways of the reformer are hard.
The task which some of us have undertaken to try and produce a remedy is very difficult. You always can find objections. Great constitutional authorities, like my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition or my noble friend Lord Lansdowne, will always be able to say, "Oh, but you are doing a very serious thing; you are interfering with the Prerogative," or "You are depriving those of responsibility who ought to bear it." It is perfectly true, we are changing a little bit, or trying to change a little bit, the burden of responsibility. I earnestly hope that we are not interfering with the Prerogative, but it seems to me that there can be no deeper injury to the Prerogative in this country than that there should be a well-founded suspicion that some of the honours which His Majesty is called upon to confer are conferred for unworthy motives.
It is not possible, if I may say so with great earnestness to your Lordships, to
30
meet a case of this kind with merely, may I call it—my noble friend will forgive me—constitutional pedantry? We require to look the thing in the face, and to say, "Are we doing all that we can do to prevent any of these evil practices?" My noble friend the Lord Privy Seal was apparently in great doubt as to the kind of honours which we have in view. In one part of his speech he seemed to think they were only the very small honours of which we were thinking; in another part his mind was evidently on a different plane, because he spoke of honours with which he thought Overseas Ministers and Ambassadors would be better qualified to deal than anybody else. I do not quite know what was in his mind. But the only honours which I think we desire to exclude are honours of such a very special kind that it may be quite obvious it is a matter for the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister alone to deal with them. These are not honours as we hope that are or could be the subject of any corrupt or improper use. But, broadly speaking, we are thinking of all the honours which have been under discussion so often in your Lordships' House—knighthoods, baronetcies, even membership of your Lordships' House. We are thinking of all those, and if the matter is to be dealt with at all we ought to deal with those.
Now I come to the British Empire Order. I confess I did interrupt the noble Earl rather warmly just now, because I felt very deeply the way in which he put it to us. I yield to none in my admiration of the great services which many of these humble people have conferred upon the country. I have had the honour of standing by His Majesty when he has conferred these distinctions, and I have felt and reflected how much more deeply they deserve many of these honours than some more highly-placed individuals. I confess I resent the sort of implication which, in the heat of the moment, the noble Earl seemed to throw out, that we who are more fortunately placed, and those of us who, no doubt unworthily, bear honours on our breasts, are critics of those humble individuals. Of course, the noble Earl almost makes it impossible for us to say a word if he really thinks, which I am sue he dyes not, that we ignore the humbler folk in the pride of our hearts in our own position. No, My Lords, all honour to these humble people. All honour to them for what they have done during this great war. But

31
is it not right that we should seek to keep at their highest value the honours which these men have had conferred upon them? Are we to be shamed by the noble Earl opposite, the acting Leader of the House, because we humbly are doing our best to see that these honours shall be maintained at their high standard? Surely not. Surely we are only doing our duty, and are not susceptible to the sort of shameful innuendo of my noble friend's observation. What is it that we are afraid of in respect of that Order? My noble friend who moved this Resolution to-night said that he was convinced that the Prime Minister was not able himself to exercise any kind of check upon the selection of these honours. My noble friend spoke with knowledge. He knows that in certain cases the Prime Minister has not exercised any check. I put it to my noble friend, Are they satisfied that these honours should be conferred practically upon the advice of private secretaries?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Which honours—the O.B.E.?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I would rather not say.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I will tell you.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I will answer if I know.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I would rather not say, because, if I can avoid it, I do not want to say anything more about the British Empire Order after what has passed. I take it that there are a large number of honours—I will not put it too high, but a considerable number of honours—practically conferred by private secretaries. Is the House satisfied with such a system? Is that really a good system? Does anybody believe it is a good system? Of course not. I am not speaking of cases where the Prime Minister relies on the advice of one of his colleagues or relies on the advice, let us say, of the head of the Red Cross or the local heads of the Red Cross, all of whom, as far as I know, are ladies and gentlemen of high standing in every way. But is it satisfactory that the other system should prevail? If it is not, then surely we ought to try to find a remedy, and the fact that it is unprecedented, and that it interferes
32
to some extent with the hitherto accepted responsibility of the Prime Minister, ought not to be used as an answer to us unless some other plan can be devised.
Let me say one word about the plan which is suggested in my noble friend's Motion. The noble Marquess behind me, I think, and other noble Lords, have said that the institution of a Committee like this of the Privy Council, to advise, is an unprecedented affair, and that is not likely to produce good results, that it dilutes responsibility, and so forth. But let me quote from a humble precedent. I have the honour to be a member of the Advisory Committee in my county for the appointment of magistrates. That was instituted a certain number of years ago in order to advise the Lord Lieutenant in his recommendations. It was said in the counties that certain evils had grown up, not precisely the kind of evils we are now talking of, but other evils had grown up in regard to appointments to the Bench; and it was said that if Advisory Committees were appointed to advise the Lord Lieutenant, these evils would be largely avoided. They were appointed. As far as I know, the system has worked admirably. None of the difficulties which are foreseen by my noble friend behind me, or by the noble Marquess, have arisen. The Advisory Committees have worked admirably; there has been no difficulty about them whatever. What does happen? Somebody with knowledge of a proposed magistrate brings his name before the Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee are able to discuss amongst themselves whether they think he is a suitable person for the Bench. There are representatives, I need not say, of the different political parties, but that is nothing to the purpose in this particular question. There is no difficulty about it and it works very well. And the appointments of magistrates have, as I believe, been more satisfactory in the public mind than they were before, and no difficulty arises. If that can be done in the appointing of justices of the peace in counties, should it not be equally successful in the appointment to honours on a larger scale in the matter of the Honours Lists in this country? I suggest to your Lordships that this ought not to present any difficulties.
But I do not desire to dwell any longer upon that side of the matter. It seems to be a simple remedy, a remedy indicated

33
by obvious considerations. I will just say this. My noble friend seemed to have some difficulty as to how these Privy Councillors would be appointed. He has only to read the Motion. They are to be appointed by His Majesty. He thinks there would be no Privy Councillors who would be exempt from a position which laid them open to all sorts of suspicions. I do not think so. I see no difficulties on that head. There are many gentlemen, noble Lords and others, holding the office of Privy Councillor, who are abundantly to be trusted in this matter, and if they had direct responsibility thrown upon them there is no reason to suppose for a moment that they would not, exercise it under every proper care and feeling. After all, is it true that they are open to the same kind of difficulties as the Prime Minister himself? They are not overworked, as he is; they have not got the care of a great Empire, as he has; they would not be the leaders of a political Party, as he is; they would not have all sorts of persons round them who are not governed by the highest motives, as he is. In every way they would be in a far better position, and being many and not one, if one of them found himself the object of pressure he would always be able to fall back upon his colleagues and so avoid the impact.
Lastly, I would make an appeal to your Lordships. You do not approve of this particular remedy. That is possible. The objections of the Lord Privy Seal, Lord Lansdowne, and the noble Marquess (Lord Crewe) may convince you or may not convince you—I do not know how it is with regard to that that the remedy is not the best remedy. Well then, my Lords, for goodness sake propose some remedy. Do remember that we are standing before the country at a time when everything of this kind is being called in question. There is no question whatever that the great mass of the people are intensely suspicious. They believe that there are many matters in respect of politics and politicians and the by-ways of politics which will not bear the light. I earnestly hope we may do everything that is possible to eliminate all these suspicions. We have an immense responsibility. There is going to be an Election, probably one of the most momentous Elections which have ever taken place in English history, and I should have liked for it to have been possible to say that at the last moment, before that Election, at any rate the House of Lords showed itself fully
34
alive to its responsibility as the guardian, above all other bodies in this country, of all that appertains to honourable distinction; that it had stepped forward and said that, in so far as it could manage it, it would prevent any of these evils from taking place in the future, and so we might go with clean hands and clean hearts before the people of this country.
On Question, Motion negatived.

ARMENIA AND CILICIA.
VISCOUNT BRYCE VISCOUNT BRYCE rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will consider the expediency of occupying, for the purpose of preserving order, the districts of Armenia and Cilicia, in which disorders are most likely to arise, or at least of sending detachments of troops into such districts having regard to the following facts—

1. That the demobilisation of the Turkish army under the provisions of the recent armistice is setting loose a large number of armed men likely to be a source of danger to peaceful inhabitants, especially as food is now very scarce in the countries aforesaid.

2. That the Christian refugees from the recent massacres who desire to return to their homes and to sow their fields for the next harvest, cannot de so in the present, disorderly condition of these countries.

3. That a large number of Christian women who were during the massacres seized or publicly sold by the Turkish officers into slavery in Turkish harems cannot be liberated from this slavery except under the authority and by the action of European officers.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I do not propose on this occasion to call attention in any way to the ultimate disposal of the territories in Asia Minor which have hitherto belonged to the Turkish Empire. I desire rather to call your Lordships' attention to a question of immediate urgency, and upon the general question of the future destiny of these territories I shall not enlarge further than to say this. His Majesty's Government have given us assurances, and those assurances or similar ones have been given by the Governments of the Allied Nations, that the rule of the Turk shall be altogether removed from and extinguished in those

35
districts where the population is largely Christian, so that this detestable Government which has been the curse of Western Asia for six centuries shall no longer have any opportunity of oppressing or massacring its Christian subjects. Those declarations made by His Majesty's Government have been so explicit, and so often repeated, that I do not think it is necessary to do more than say that we have taken note of them with the greatest satisfaction; indeed, His Majesty's Government could not have declared their purpose in any other sense, as they know, and we all know, how strong is the popular feeling in this country, and how strong also is the similar feeling in the United States of America, a country which has done more for the Eastern Christians than any other people has ever done.
I come then, my Lords, to the questions which are raised in the Notice of Motion that I have given. I have made this Notice somewhat full in order that I may spare time by not going into so many details as I should otherwise have to do. I will therefore merely comment upon the points that are raised in my Notice, and ask His Majesty's Government to consider the extreme urgency which the question has, the reasons for the urgency being suggested in the words that I have used. In the first part of the Question I ask whether His Majesty's Government will consider the expediency of occupying, for the purpose of preserving order, the districts of Armenia and Cilicia in which disorders are most likely to arise. There is a provision in the Armistice which was concluded with the Turks that if disorders arise the Allied Powers may send in troops to occupy those districts. It has given great surprise that the terms which were granted by the Allied Governments to Turkey should have been so lenient—so much more lenient than those which were granted, for instance, to Austria—and I think this surprise was not unnatural, because the Turks were absolutely at the mercy of the Allies. They were perfectly helpless. Most of their Army had surrendered, and it would have been easy for the Allied Powers to impose upon them any terms whatever that they thought fit.
As your Lordships are aware, the present Government of Turkey contains a number of men who were partners in the guilt of those appalling massacres which took place in 1915. Those of your Lordships who wish to refresh your recollection may turn
36
to the Blue Book which was published by the Foreign Office in 1916, in which you will find an account of the most awful massacres that are anywhere reported in history—an account which no attempt whatever has been made to disprove or to explain away. Not only Talaat Pasha, the most conspicuous among the ruffians who then formed the Committee of Union and Progress, but also several other persons who are still members of the existing Turkish Government, have to bear the guilt of those massacres. That being so, one is surprised that anything whatever except unconditional surrender was required from such a Government.
I pass from that to the question of what ought to be done now. Disorder is the chronic condition of these countries. When the Armistice said that if disorders arose the Allied Powers should be at liberty to send in their troops, it seems to have been forgotten that those countries are always in disorder, and that if anything exceptional arose it might be some considerable time. and serious evils might have resulted before news would have reached the Allied Commanders, so as to enable them to send in the troops which would be required to suppress those disorders. I submit to His Majesty's Government that there is a very strong case for sending troops in at the earliest possible moment. But I can quite understand that even the Army in Mesopotamia, which no longer is occupied in active operations against the Turks, might be unable for reasons of transport, or other reasons of that kind, to spare at the moment all the troops that would be needed to occupy the large regions included in Armenia (the six vilayets) and Cilicia. Should that be so, then at any rate it would surely be possible for sufficient forces to be detached from the Army in Mesopotamia and perhaps also from the force which is now occupying Northern Syria, and sent in under British officers to the points which either were most likely to be the seat of trouble, or which commanded the main lines of communication through those countries.
I venture to suggest that disorder is always chronic in these regions. Those of your Lordships who have followed their history for the last twenty or thirty years know that to be the case. But at present the situation is exceptionally dangerous and difficult. The Turkish Army has just been demobilised. The Turkish Army had been

37
occupied during the last four years in massacring and plundering Christians wherever it could find them. That army is now removed even from such feeble control as its officers exercised, and the troops, probably with their arms, are let loose to wander over these countries and to rob and murder wherever they please. Further, the temptation, it must be admitted, is greater than usual, because there is a very great scarcity of food, and it is only natural that hungry soldiers with arms in their hands should endeavour to take whatever they can get from the unfortunate peasantry by whom they may be passing. Therefore there is every reason to believe that at present this immense area, stretching from the South-eastern corner of the Black Sea as far as the North-eastern corner of the Levant, is in the hands of disorderly bands who are perpetrating outrages wherever they may find people upon whom they may be perpetrated, and robbing every one who has any food or anything else left.
Any one who knows those countries knows what happens when an army is suddenly disbanded, especially such an army as this. I may mention that I have only just received from Paris a copy of a Despatch which has been received from the Transcaucasian region which states that two Turkish divisions,—the 5th and 15th of the Turkish Army—have discarded their Turkish uniforms, and have joined with the Tartar forces which were in existence there, and which were acting at Baku, and in conjunction with those Tartar forces they are bombarding the villages of the Christians, and generally carrying on that sort of guerilla warfare which naturally arises when soldiers are relieved from discipline and still have an enemy on whom they would wreak their will. I do not, of course, venture to authenticate this despatch—perhaps something similar has already been received by His Majesty's Government—but I do desire to call their attention to the statement, because there is nothing improbable about it, and it supplies a further reason why troops should as soon as possible be detached to occupy the district in question. That district, as far as I can gather from the telegram, would appear to be the region south of Baku—between Baku and Enzeli on the coast of the Caspian.
The second point I desire to make is that the Christian refugees who escaped
38
from the recent massacres and desire to return to their homes and to sow their fields for the next harvest cannot do so in the present disorderly condition of those countries. When the Turks were driven out of Van by the rising of the Armenians about the middle of 1915 the Russians joined them, and a large number of refugees returned. Subsequently the Turkish Army was greatly strengthened. The Armenians, who had fought with the greatest valour against the Turks, were driven with the Russians out of Van and obliged to return into Russian territory, and the refugees fled with them. This shows the danger of endeavouring to reoccupy a country when it is still in a condition of disorder. But these refugees exist in very large numbers in what were the Russian territories of the Caucasus. Many thousands of them have been supported by the contributions of charitable persons in this country and in the United States. There is nothing that they so much desire as to be able to return at once to their desolated homes, to rebuild their houses, and to sow their fields once more. The necessity is very great, for there has been grave famine in those countries for the last two or three years, and the famine will be worse and worse if the fields are not allowed to be sown now. There is a comparetively scanty population to carry on the operations of agriculture, and it is therefore of the greatest importance for everybody's welfare, the Moslem population as well as the Christian, that order should be as soon as possible restored, and that the fields should begin to be cultivated. The matter is really urgent, because unless the people can return in time for the early sowing there will be no crops next year, and a terrible famine must supervene.
Thirdly, a large number of Christians who during the massacres were seized or publicly sold by the Turkish officers into slavery in Turkish harems, cannot be liberated from this slavery except under the authority and by the action of European officers. When the great massacres were going on in 1915, and while the men were being taken out of the towns and slaughtered, so that some of the ravines in the mountains are still full of their skeletons, the young women were either seized and appropriated by Turkish officials and Turkish military officers or else were brought into the market and sold to the highest bidder. The older women were driven out along the roads and

39
nearly all perished from hardship and want of food before they reached their destination in the distant Syrian desert. These young women, who were seized to be carried off and consigned to the most odious kind of slavery in the Turkish harems, are still wearing out their miserable existence there. They are numbered probably by thousands. They cannot be released except by the presence of European officers and European troops. And surely there is no one among your Lordships who will not sympathise with these unfortunate women, taken from their parents and their husbands, forced into a faith that they detest, obliged to call themselves Moslems, and subjected to the tyranny of their oppressors. Surely it is an obligation of humanity of the highest order that we should at once endeavour to liberate them before it becomes more difficult, as it does become more difficult with every year and every month.
I may add that a similar fate befel a large number of young boys. The older ones above the age of twelve or thirteen, those who could be caught, were all killed, without exception. The younger ones were handed over to dervishes and carried away to be brought up in Moslem monasteries as Moslems, taught to detest the faith of their parents, taught to detest the parents themselves, and without any hope of seeing their parents again. Many of those unfortunate boys might also still be rescued, but with them, as in the case of the women, every month that passes makes the process of rescue more difficult. I hope, therefore, that you will think that a very strong case exists for immediate action in these matters, and that it becomes an obligation and duty of humanity upon the Allied Powers to do what they can to rescue the people who are held in slavery and provide safety for thee refugees who wish to go back and try to rebuild their homes and bring some sort of faint first tinge of prosperity to countries that have been devastated.
I have only to-day received a telegram upon a matter which, although it does not directly concern my Question, is of so much interest that I will mention it and ask the attention of His Majesty's Government to it. I have just received it from a Committee at Geneva which has been, for the last three years, collecting subscriptions from charitable Swiss citizens and sending them out to the relief of Armenian
40
refugees. It is authenticated by a Genevese gentleman of great distinction belonging to one of the highest families in the city and by an American missionary who served for a long time in the city of Adana. The telegram reads—
"I beg to call your attention to the fact that many Armenian orphans and deported women have been during the past three years devotedly cared for by German missionaries in several places—"
They name the places, but the names have been so much distorted in the telegram that all I could do is to guess that one of them is Kharput—
"We fear it would cause terrible distress if such missionaries should be compelled to withdraw before a new relief force could arrive and take over the work. We would express the hope that some delay might be granted until arrangements could be made."
Your Lordships will be glad to hear, I think, not only that the American missionaries in Asiatic Turkey have done their very best to relieve all the distress they could find, but that these German missionaries made the strongest possible representations to the German Government begging them to force the Turks to stop the maasscre, representing to them that the name and fame of Germany would be for ever sullied and disgraced if the German Government were to stand by and appear to give its acquiescence to the massacres which the Turks were committing.
Those appeals fell upon deaf ears. The late German Government—one is glad to call it the late German Government—not only refused to take any action to stop the massacres, but they forbade any information to be published regarding them in Germany. They suppressed the report of the missionaries, and they did their very best to keep the whole thing from the knowledge of the German people, or to invent false stories representing the Christians as having been the aggressors. I hope His Majesty's Government will feel that it would be proper that these German missionaries should not be disturbed in their charitable work, and that instructions should be given to any troops who may occupy the country that the missionaries should be allowed to carry on that work which is guaranteed in the way I have described until a relief force can come. I am glad to hear that the American Relief Committee, which has done so much to alleviate the sufferings of the Eastern

41
Christians during the last three years, is preparing to send out a large relief force with ample funds for the benefit of the refugees. It would not be safe, of course, for them to traverse the country, or to attempt to distribute these funds, unless they could have such protection as the entry of British troops would afford.
I know that it may be difficult for His Majesty's Government to answer in detail the points which I have put to them. They would probably require to communicate with the military authorities abroad, and they might find it difficult to do more than to undertake to give careful and sympathetic consideration to the facts which I have endeavoured to lay before your Lordships and them. I hope, however, that they will do that, recognising the gravity of the matter, and I therefore leave the subject with confidence in their hands.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I should like to be allowed to say a few words about this matter, because circumstances have led me to be in close touch with some of the Christians of the regions to which the noble Viscount has referred, though perhaps my relations have been closer with those who lie a little to the south and east of the region which Lord Bryce has mentioned. I speak of the Christians on the borderland between Persia and Turkey—Van, Urumiah, and so on; mainly Nestorian Christians, and a certain number of Armenians with them. I am constantly in touch with those people, and, strange to say, even during the war, with that determination and perseverance to overcome difficulties which has characterised their whole story, they have got not only communications but emissaries through where other emissaries have failed to pass.
No terms can be used which would be too strong in describing the horrors which have been narrated to me by Christians from these regions—namely, those to which the noble Viscount had referred; the frequent putting up of women and girls to public auction as he troops passed, the old women driven away and the girls sold as cattle. A great many of the men were massacred, but those that were left succeeded with great courage in routing the Turkish and Kurdish forces which were trying to overcome them. I understand, as every one must, the extreme difficulty the Government would have in giving detailed replies or promises about I he matter
42
at present; but the thing which always surprised me about that region is that the fact of some utterances being made, some assurance being given that we are not forgetting them, and that help will come to them where possible, does find its way to these people in a way which one would have thought impossible and makes a great difference to them. One would not imagine that meetings held in this country, arguments used in this House, or utterances made by the Government, would get through to these people. But they do get through. One has found again and again that they know more about these things than one would have thought possible; and anything we can say to them to assure them that they are not forgotten may be of inestimable value to people who have been suffering untold outrages and horrors of every kind, and who are now exposed to the outrages of soldiers, disbanded, reckless, and in search of food.
We owe a great debt of gratitude to the American missionaries who have remained at their posts through difficulties such as would have driven away almost anybody else. The same applies to the English missionaries, and, we are bound to admit it, to the German missionaries. There can be no question of the difficulties which they have all had to face. I felt that I could not remain silent, but that I must endorse every word Lord Bryce has said as to the gain that would come directly or indirectly from anything that could be said, still more from anything that could be done, to show that we have not forgotten these people.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I cannot reply in detail to the Questions put by Lord Bryce, but I can give the noble Viscount an assurance in general terms which I think he will find satisfactory. The subject he has raised is one which is at this moment engaging the serious attention of His Majesty's Government in consultation with their Allies. I regret that a statement of the precise action which it may become necessary or desirable to take, in view of the situation described by the noble Viscount, cannot at this moment be made; but I gladly take this opportunity of assuring him that His Majesty's Government are fully alive to the gravity of the national and humanitarian interests involved, and are determined to spare no efforts to secure full satisfaction for the rightful claims of the Armenians.

OFFICERS AND MEN ON LEAVE.
LORD DENMAN LORD DENMAN rose to ask His Majesty's Government what provision is being made for the accommodation of officers and men of the British and American Forces when on leave in London.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, from correspondence and paragraphs that have lately appeared in the Press, there appears to be some uncertainty as to the amount of accommodation available for officers and men of His Majesty's Forces when on leave in London, and I think it would be well—it would certainly be for their convenience—if an authoritative statement could be made here this afternoon as to how the matter stands.
In asking this Question, I should like to say that I am well aware of the excellent work that has been done recently in the difficult months and years through which we have passed. His Majesty the King, for instance, has found accommodation for about 100 men every night at Buckingham Palace since the war began. Other good work in organisation has been done by General Sir Francis Lloyd, lately commanding the London District; by General Feilding, who has succeeded him in that command; by the Dominion and American authorities, by various organisations, and by private individuals. So the last thing I should wish would be to be interpreted as casting any reflection on the excellent work which has been performed in this direction.
But the point I desire to make and to urge upon the Government is this. I assume that within a short time—it may be a few weeks—there will be a more widely extended scale of leave given in France and elsewhere. I take it—at least I hope it will be the case—that more leave boats will be placed on the Channel service, and that a much wider allotment of leave will be given to the Armies in France, and to the lines of communication. I also hope it will be the case that a similar extension of leave will be given to the officers and men of the Grand Fleet, to the officers and men serving at the great naval stations and at the military centres in this country, and possibly also to the Armies which are serving in what were lately the more distant theatres of war.
If I am right in any of these suppositions, I think it is obvious that there will be a great influx of officers and men into this
44
city, and that the existing accommodation will be severely taxed in order to meet requirements in this matter. With regard to our own men, I think your Lordships will agree that everything possible should be done for them to meet their convenience in this matter, especially when we think of the strenuous months and years of campaigning that they have undergone, and the great victories that they have won on land, by sea, and in the air. I think the same thing applies to the American and Dominion Troops, with this added consideration. In a good many instances, in the case of these forces, it may be the only occasion in their lives when they will visit this city and this country, and the impression thus formed will perhaps last for a life time. Therefore I think it is desirable, on every ground, that they should take away pleasant recollections of their stay here, and that everything that is possible should be done for their accommodation, and let me add, for their entertainment while they are with us. I do not want to take up the time of the House in making any detailed suggestions, but it seems to me that General Fielding and the American and Dominion authorities are the proper people to deal with them.
I desire, however, to touch upon two points. First of all, the question of accommodation for officers. That presents some difficulty, because His Majesty's Government have been obliged to commandeer so many hotels in this city, and in the few remaining hotels—some of them at all events—prices have been very largely raised and are higher than perhaps some of the officers are able or willing to afford. I was glad to see a letter in this morning's paper from General Fielding, appealing to householders in this city to find accommodation for individual officers, and I hope that this appeal may meet with a wide and generous response; but I think that something more might be done in this direction. I hope the Government may be able to take over one or two large buildings and administer them for the convenience of officers who are visiting or passing through London.
The second point which I desire to touch upon is the question of the meeting of leave trains. I know that a great deal of really excellent work has been done in this connection by the Motor Transport Volunteers, whose members have met leave trains at all hours of the night for many months

45
past. I think I am right in saying that the resources of this corps have already been strained in order to meet the demands made upon it, and I would like to suggest to the Government that, as the supply of petrol increases and becomes available for owners of private cars, priority should be given to those people who are willing to place their cars for a certain number of days in the week at the disposal of the Motor Transport Volunteers, to be used for meeting leave trains, for hospital work, possibly for driving convalescents, and for similar purposes.
I naturally do not expect a definite answer from the Parliamentary Secretary, but I hope he may be able to consider the suggestion which I have made. I repeat that I have asked this Question in no spirit of criticism, but I am sure that the noble Earl is quite as keenly desirous as I or any member of your Lordships' House can be that everything possible shall be done for the convenience of officers and men when visiting the metropolis on leave.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE WAR OFFICE (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, the situation at present is as follows. There are sixteen hostels or clubs in London providing accommodation for 882 officers. There are ninety-one other hostels or clubs for the accommodation of 11,309 other ranks. These figures, I think, will show to your Lordships that the question is by no means a small one, and, as my noble friend said, a great deal has already been done in order to meet the requirements of the large number of troops who visit the metropolis. I frankly confess that at one time the accommodation was inadequate, and the War Office have found it necessary to stop leave to London of home troops quartered in the Home Command. A large number of officers and a certain number of other ranks used to visit London when given leave from the provinces, and since we have stopped this leave we find that as a whole the accommodation in London is sufficient for those coming from overseas, by which I mean coming from service at the Front. Of course, the stopping of leave to London does not apply to troops of the Dominions or of the American Forces.
The War Office realise fully that additional accommodation will be required in the near future. When demobilisation begins, it is true that demobilisation will
46
take place in the neighbourhood of the homes of both officers and men, but I think it is to be expected that at any rate a large number of officers, some of them accompanied by their families, are likely to visit London. Therefore we are endeavouring to get additional accommodation, and the whole question is under consideration by a Committee on which representatives of the Dominions and of the American Army have been asked to attend. The problem is not an easy one of solution. It is quite useless to commandeer hotels, for the simple reason that, if you do, it merely means that those who at present are living there will have to find accommodation elsewhere, and so the problem remains as before. The real difficulty is to find out for individuals where accommodation is available, and it is under consideration whether it is possible to institute something rather like a theatre booking agency, by which it would be possible for officers and other ranks to go to a central place and there purchase a ticket for a bed. The trouble at present is that they go to places which are already full, or overfull, whereas not far off there may be accommodation available which they fail to find. Therefore if we can get some organisation of that kind obviously it would be an advantage, but I trust that, my noble friend having brought this question forward, it will get still further publicity, and that the appeal made by General Feilding, Commanding the London District, will receive a very wide response.
I do not pretend that this will meet the whole case, because it is possible that we may have to undertake either some building, or possibly get possession of some houses, so that we may have centres where we can put up great numbers of people, ratherthan a largenumber of centre where we can put up a few. The whole question, as I have said, is under consideration by a Committee of the War Office, and I have every hope that it will be able to find a solution which will be satisfactory to all concerned.

THE MINISTRY OF FOOD.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had the following Notice on the Paper—
To call attention to the shifting policy of the Ministry of Food; and to move to resolve, "That in the opinion of this

47
House the regulation of imports and exports and the system of administration of the feeding, grading, and sale of cattle, sheep, and pigs are vitally affecting the flocks and herds of the country and require immediate attention."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion which stands in my name has been put down in consultation with and with the approval of Mr. Cautley, who till lately was the Pig Controller appointed by the President of the Board of Agriculture. As your Lordships are aware he has resigned. A, similar Motion, having the approval of 150 Members of Parliament, was also put down in another place. That, I think, shows your Lordships that there is a good deal of backing behind it. Owing to the forms of another place, and the fact that the Government have complete control of the time of the House, it was impossible for that Motion to be brought forward, and the only means of bringing it to the notice of the House was by referring to it, as I understand is being done to-day; on the Vote of Credit.
Your Lordships will see that it is a Motion which requires some attention. It may be said that the Ministry of Food have at the last moment, as a sort of deathbed repentance, made a considerable number of concessions, not, it is true, to the House of Commons or to your Lordships' House, but to the Royal Agricultural Society. I understand they have announced that they will do away with the prohibition against the slaughter of pigs under 112 lbs. Your Lordships will see that that is a very considerable concession, because the prohibition grossly embarrassed unfortunate cottagers and small-holders who had no means of feeding these pigs except by purchased stuff. As they were unable to purchase any stuff, certainly after the end of this year, and probably not at the present moment, it was unfair they they should be obliged to keep the pigs alive and not slaughter them. I am glad to think that that concession has been made.
But why is it that these difficulties always have to be pointed out? It always seems that the Ministry of Food can never look forward more than a week or two, and that they are constantly altering their arrangements and Orders. It has been very hard indeed upon the cottagers and small-holders, who were appealed to by the President of the Board of Agriculture last
48
year and at the beginning of this year when he reversed his policy. Previously he said that bacon was not wanted and that nobody should keep pigs. That policy was reversed and pig clubs were started to encourage everyone in town and country to keep a pig. Then they made all these contradictory Orders. To a certain extent, I think the pig question has been met, but that is not the case so far as I am aware with regard to the question of cattle.
There it seems to me a most peculiar state of things has arisen. Cattle were sent to market in large quantities in the autumn, as is always the case, coming off the grass in good condition and fit for the butcher. What was done? These cattle were sent back from the markets and farmers were told that they must keep them. I heard the statement made at a meeting of the Council of the Royal Agricultural Society that one area, which had 12,000 cattle fit for slaughter, was told that the farmers would only be allowed to slaughter 1,000 per week, so that in some cases farmers would have to keep the cattle for twelve weeks. Practical agriculturists know what would be the result of keeping them at home when there was no grass in the pastures, no feeding stuffs, little hay and in some cases very bad hay.
This behaviour of the Ministry of Food is all the more extraordinary when one remembers that they made a promise to the farmers and graziers that there should be two ways of disposing of their cattle. One was that if there was not sufficient demand in the local market the cattle should be sent to distributing markets further away, and the other that if there was any over-supply in the local market the Government would at once buy and, at the option of the farmer, send the cattle back to his farm for a week at the risk of the Government. That promise—which of course was a very reasonable one and one which farmers thought would be carried out—has been broken, and I do not think that my noble friend who is going to reply will say that that is not the case.
I should like to ask my noble friend why it is that at this time, when there is an actual glut of cattle in the country and cattle are being sent back to the farmers, more cattle are allowed to be imported from Ireland into this country? I was told that instead of an average of something like 4,000 cattle per week being brought over, at one time 13,000 cattle

49
were brought. At the same time we are aware that the meat ration had been reduced during the autumn. It seems curious that this should happen, although there was more cattle for slaughter and less meat was allowed to be consumed in this country.
I would also ask my noble friend as regards the American Meat Trust. No doubt he has made himself acquainted with the report of the American Commission. I gave him notice of the various questions that I am putting to him, because I recognise the difficulty of my noble friend in answering for a Department with which he is not connected, and also the difficulty which arises from the fact that he is not even a Minister of the Crown. If the Leader of the House the Lord President of the Council had been here I should ventured to remind him how, when he sat on this Bench, he used to protest even against Court officials representing Departments instead of Under-Secretaries. I do not know what he would have said, if he had been sitting here now, of a great Department like the Ministry of Food being represented by a noble Lord who, however efficient—and we know how efficiently he can speak for it—is not speaking as a Minister of the Crown, as we should like to see him speaking.
I would further ask the noble Lord what arrangements were made with Mr. Hoover regarding the meat and grain in Great Britain; whether any agreement was reached as to the supply of concentrated food-stuffs; whether any supplies were promised, and if so, what such supplies were forthcoming; and if not, why they were not forthcoming afterwards. I would also ask whether it is a fact that flour is being imported in very large quantities and grain in very small quantities indeed. Of course, the House will think that this is very germane to the subject, became if only flour is being imported there are consequently no offals for the feeder in this country. From the American point of view—as good business men (and Mr. Hoover, I suppose is one of the most astute business men in this country or in America)—they naturally wish to send over food and also to keep up a good market not only for now but for the future. That is the reason apparently why we get only the finished article in the form of bacon, or in the form of flour, and not in the form of foodstuffs.
50
We do not get food-stuffs, although we ought to.
Next, I would ask whether it is the case as regards feeding cakes that, while last year there were 350,000 tons in the hands of farmers, there are at present only 70,000 tons? Also, whether he can give us any idea what will be the available supply, for the next three or four months, of cattle cake? The noble Lord is aware it is very important indeed that farmers should have oil cake and also cotton cake. I was surprised to be told the other day that out of the little cotton cake they allowed the Government are making a handsome profit. I was told they are actually making a profit of £4 a ton on all the cotton seed which is brought over and sold to the crushers here. I think the House will agree that this whole question of animals generally and the supply of food for them in this country is not very admirably managed. They have not looked ahead and there have been great difficulties placed in the way of agriculturists in this matter. And, of course, what we have always been met with in the past was the argument "We must break our promises; we admit it is a great muddle, and there are difficulties to the farmers, but you must not mind, because we are at war." Fortunately we are now no longer at war, and I hope the Minister of Food, and certainly the President of the Board of Agriculture, will do what they can and let farmers know exactly where they are.
There would not be such complaints of the Board of Agriculture and of the Ministry of Food if farmers had been kept well informed ahead of what was likely to happen. What they dislike is this constant change and alteration. I wish to point out to your Lordships' House that not only is there a difficulty with regard to food and feeding of cattle, but if you allow to go down our stocks of cattle and sheep in this country, it will be a very serious thing—that is, to reduce our breeding flocks and herds—because the tendency, as we know, under these difficulties is to slaughter both sheep and cattle which ought to be preserved for breeding purposes. Moreover, if you diminish them, you diminish also enormously the fertility of the land, because unless you can have an adequate amount of manure you cannot have proper production. Artificial manures are all very well in their way, but they can never replace the manure of cattle and sheep.

51
While the Government on one hand are urging that more land be ploughed up, they are not giving the farmers the opportunity of treating that land properly.
I do not intend to detain the House any longer, except to ask my noble friend one or two questions of which I have given him notice. One is, whether there has been appointed a new super-grader who controls the decisions of the grading committees; whether the old grading committee consisting of one farmer, one butcher, and one auctioneer, was appointed by an Order in Council which provided that the decision of such Committee was final; by what authority Mr. Clynes's new commissioner overrides the decisions of such Committee. I think the House will see that is a very serious matter, a practical Committee having been set up, that he should appoint somebody else to override the decisions of that Committee.
I also ask another question with regard to freezing plant, because I venture to think one of the great difficulties with regard to bacon and other foods is that the Government did not look ahead and provide freezing plant. Why has the Ministry of Food during the last two years done nothing to set up freezing plant for the purpose of keeping a reserve of meat in the country? I also ask whether, when they did contemplate a little while ago, setting up a cold storage, they abandoned the idea because certain companies interested in cold storage took objection to the Government intervering with their business, as they contended it would do after the war, as the Government storage would be in competition with their own. As regards that statement, I may say it was made by Colonel Stanyforth at a meeting of the Royal Agricultural Society, and appears in their printed Report, as probably my noble friend may have seen. What is the reason that the Foodstuffs Distribution Committee is not under the Board of Agriculture and is under the Ministry of Food, and what was the reason why it was thought that Mr. Renwick, an electrical engineer, was the most fit person to deal with a purely agricultural matter? If it were not that we are accustomed to that kind of thing, it would be very surprising to reflect why an agriculturist was not appointed by the Ministry of Food to look after such an essentially agricultural question as that.
I ask, further, whether it is the case that owing to the representations of the Royal
52
Agricultural Society, barley is to be released to the farmers for feeding stuff purposes, and if so, why there has been this delay in releasing such barley. Will the barley be sold at a controlled price, and will, in their turn, the millers be allowed only to sell it at a small profit on the cost of milling and distribution? That is a question on which farmers take a great interest. Farmers who are not large growers of barley and have to buy, think it is very unfair when there is this fixed price for the finished article, that the millers should be allowed to make a large profit by selling this stuff at a profit in excess of what they would make on ordinary occasions.
I also ask whether it is the case that a thousand tons of feeding stuffs, valued at £l6,000 was stored at Darlington at the cost for putting into storage of 3d. per ton, making a further charge of £12 10 s. a week for keeping it there, and further, whether, from being stored too long, the feeding value of the stuff was practically destroyed I have tried to be as short as possible, and to go in details very little indeed, owing to the late hour of the night, but I think your Lordships will agree that this is a very important matter indeed, the matter with regard to our food stuffs for the stocks in this country, if we are to be self-supporting. Therefore I have ventured, even at this late hour, to go into this question shortly, and move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved to resolve, That in the opinion of this House the regulation of imports and exports and the system of administration of the feeding, grading, and sale of cattle, sheep, and pigs are vitally affecting the flocks and herds of the country, and require immediate attention.—(Lord Strachie.)
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, the noble Lord has moved what is, in effect, a vote of censure upon the Government in respect of its food policy. He has at the same time addressed to me, or rather to the Government for whom it is my business to reply, certain questions, which I propose to reply to, to the best of my ability. I may, perhaps, say it is by no means the first time that the noble Lord and I have crossed swords across the floor of a debating chamber; and on many an occasion in another place, when our positions were reversed and I was the interrogator, I am afraid his replies failed altogether to carry conviction to my mind; and I fear it is just possible that on this occasion my

53
replies may have a similar effect upon his mind. But at least I hope that I may be able to convince your Lordships' House that the alleged shortcomings of the Ministry of Food, if shortcomings they have been, are of a comparatively venial character when contrasted with the acknowledged benefits which that Department has conferred upon the country.
The questions which my noble friend has addressed to me are of a varied character, and I will endeavour to reply to them seriatim. The first I understood to be as to what arrangements His Majesty's Government made with Mr. Hoover regarding the supply of meat and grain for Great Britain. The arrangement was of a very indefinite character, and was, broadly, to the effect that owing to shipping tonnage and the difficulty of carrying food from any distant part of the world, North America, and particularly the United States, should furnish as much meat and as much grain as they possibly could. The noble Lord asks specifically what arrangement was made with regard to concentrated foodstuffs for farm stock. No specific arrangement was made with Mr. Hoover on this subject while he was on a visit to this country, but at a meeting of the Inter-Allied Food Conference, on which America was fully represented after he left, there was an agreement arrived at to allocate no less than 1,700,000 toms of animal food-stuffs, consisting of maize, oats, and cattle cake—maize to the extent of 750,000 tons, oats 500,000 tons, and cake 450,000 tons. I can only observe, when the noble Lord says, and truly says, that these anticipated supplies have not been forthcoming—and in fact they have not—that there was undoubtedly a serious miscalculation made as to what the available resources in animal food-stuffs of the United States were. There is no doubt, also that they very materially underestimated the food requirements of their own Army. Those are the only reasons that I am able to give to your Lordships for the fact that this anticipated food for our animals which was to come from the United States has not come to hand to a greater extent than something like 20,000 tons. I propose, if I may, to revert to that matter later, because I shall be able to give a comparatively reassuring statement to the House on the matter.
The noble Lord asked me as to whether there has been appointed a super-grader
54
who controls the decisions of the grading committees, and whether the old grading committees, consisting of one farmer, one butcher and an auctioneer, were appointed by an Order in Council which provided that the decisions of such committees were final and by what authority the Food Controller's new commissioner overrides the decisions of such committees. The old grading committees undoubtedly did consist of a farmer, a butcher, and an auctioneer, but the constitution of those committees was not part of the Order to which the noble Earl refers. The Order was not an Order in Council but was an ordinary Order of the Food Ministry, and in fact it was so worded as to enable the Food Controller at any time to decide what should be the grading authority; that is to say, what the powers of the grading authority should be, what its constitution should be, and what changes in its constitution should thereafter be made I have in my hand a copy of the Order. I do not know if the noble Lord has studied it, but I think that he will find from it that the Food Controller was fully within his powers under the four corners of that Order in appointing the grading sub-commissioners, as they are called, in order to check the work of these grading committees.
I may say that the losses which resulted from inaccurate grading were becoming very serious and rendered necessary some supervision of the work of the committees. It was therefore decided to attach to the staff of each live-stock commissioner a person experienced in the judging of live-stock, and for that purpose there have been selected what I may call the best class of market dealer, who is fully conversant with the work of both buying and selling live-stock. It is the duty of there men to inspect the records in the different markets, and to intervene only when intervention is necessary under the existing system. If the farmer is dissatisfied with the results of their intervention, the sub-commissioners of grading have power to take over the stock on behalf of the Ministry on a dead weight basis, thus assuring to the farmers the maximum price based on the yield of meat from the animal in question. The result of their work has proved to be so satisfactory that it is in fact intended to add considerably to their numbers, so that the grading at all markets may be subject to systematic supervision.
The noble Lord referred to the question of freezing, and asked why it was that the

55
Ministry during the last two years had done nothing to set up freezing plants for the purpose of keeping a reserve of meat in the country, and stated, in a later part of the question, that it was in fact contemplated, but that the idea was abandoned in deference to the objections of certain persons interested in cold storage. Arrangements have been made to freeze and chill in this country as large quantities of fresh meat as possible, but the existing plant is only capable of dealing with a small amount of meat. About eighteen months ago a freezing plant was set up at Cardiff on rather a large scale, and it has not proved altogether satisfactory. It is extremely difficult to obtain the machinery necessary for starting plant of this kind in this country, and it has been impossible to obtain such machinery from abroad. I think that it is only right to mention, in these days when one does not want to waste coal or power of any kind, that in the view of the experts it is a very wasteful system to adopt to freeze and preserve home-killed meat, because it takes from two to three times as much coal and power to freeze meat as to store meat already frozen. Investigations have been made as to the capacity of the existing freezing and chilling plants in this country, and fresh meat is in fact now being put into, chilling chambers wherever possible in order to postpone its consumption for a few weeks during which this unfortunate glut is likely to obtain. It is anticipated that in this way it may be possible to freeze from 4,000 to 8,000 quarters weekly, and to chill about the same quantity. This would mean that at least 56,000 beasts could be disposed of during the next three months. This will materially assist the general situation, although the shortage of labour also presents considerable difficulties. In this connection I may mention that the Ministry of Food have suffered very much during the last ten months owing to the conscription for the Army of such a large number of slaughter-men. An appeal has been made to release the slaughter-men now in the Army for this purpose, and there is every reason to believe that at an early date a much larger number of slaughter men will be available for carrying on this work.
It should be mentioned that the approximate amount of refrigerating space and cold store space throughout the United Kingdom is at present no less than 36,500,000 cubic feet. The scheme which
56
the noble Lord said was abandoned owing to consideration for the trade interests of a certain company, was for the creation of accommodation in various parts of the country for the storage of refrigerated produce, and not for the actual freezing of the produce itself. This proposal, I can assure the noble Lord, was not abandoned in consequence of any request from the trade, but was solely on account of shortage of labour and materials.
Then the noble Lord asks why the supply and distribution of feeding stuffs are not controlled by the Board of Agriculture, but are controlled by the Ministry of Food. The answer to that is that, in the first place, the domestic edible animals of this country provide a very large proportion of our food supply, and their maintenance, therefore, is of vital concern to the Food Controller in whose hands the administration of the food supply must necessarily rest. Secondly, they compete with human beings for a very large number of feeding stuffs, particularly barley, oats, wheat, and indeed to some extent the offals of these cereals; and, thirdly, the importation of all feeding stuffs is made by the Ministry of Food, and, as the purview of the Ministry extends over the whole of the United Kingdom, it is obviously desirable that the distribution of feeding stuffs should come under the one Department which can control them wherever they are available rather than under a single Department having a very limited control, as any one of the Departments of the Board of Agriculture, of course, has I do not know whether the noble Lord considers that it would be desirable to put the control of animal feeding stuffs under the control of the Board of Agriculture in England, but I am quite sure that, if such a course were taken, the Scottish Board of Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture in Ireland would have a good deal to say.
As regards Mr. Renwick, he is not an electrical engineer; he is a commercial man of very wide business experience as an organiser and administrator. The late Lord Rhondda appointed him to this particular task, not as an expert on feeding stuffs, but owing to his exceptional capacity as an organiser and administrator—and he was well acquainted with his work. It is perfectly true he is connected with the supply of electricity. He holds some very important office in connection with the London electrical supply—I forget which—and he

57
is also chairman of the Provincial Electrical Supply Association of the United Kingdom, and the importance of the work of those two bodies has recently grown to such an extent that he has resigned his position at the Ministry of Food quite recently to resume his former work.
The noble Lord referred to the release of barley for feeding stuffs. I notice that the noble Lord asked a question of me just now as to whether there was a year ago 350,000 tons of cattle cake which has now been reduced to 70,000 tons only. That is perfectly true. There is at the present time about one-fifth of the cattle cake in the country that there was a year ago. But I may add in passing, for his reasurance, that under a scheme to which I am about to refer briefly it is estimated that that amount will shortly be raised to something like one million tons.
LORD STRACHIE: Will there be an assurance that the millers will not be allowed to make an excessive profit on the barley which is released?
LORD BLEDISLOE: I am glad the noble Lord has reminded me of that. The noble Lord is referring to barley specifically. It is not expected that barley will in fact, be passing into the mills for conversion into flour for human consumption. An arrangement has now been made by the Ministry under which farmers will be allowed to retain 20 per cent. of the barley grown on their farms, and the balance they must place at the disposal of the manufacturers—the maltsters and the brewers—and in the hands of certain dealers who will put them upon the market for the purpose of feeding stuffs as animal food. The question of the millers' remuneration will not arise in connection with barley, but in the case of all these middlemen interests through whose hands barley will pass there will, in fact, be a limited amount of profit permitted for them to take. With regard to the other point raised by the noble Lord they will not in future be permitted to mix adulterants with the barley or other grain that passes through their hands. If they attempt to do anything of the sort or sell a worthless product at more than the aggregate value of its constituents they will be prosecuted and severe penalties imposed.
As regards the question about the storing of certain cake at Darlington, the
58
question was as to whether 1,000 tons of feeding stuffs, valued at £16,000, was stored at Darlington, whether the cost of storage was 3d. a ton and a charge of £12 10 s. a week was made for keeping it there, and further whether, from being stored too long, the feeding value of the stuff was practically destroyed. I do not know what basis the noble Lord has for this suggestion, but, at any rate so far as I can obtain any information from the Ministry, there is no ground for his suggestion. Only 100 tons of cake appears, to have been stored by the Ministry at Darlington. Rent at 3d. per ton per week is being paid to the firms who are storing the cake on behalf of the Ministry, and this is the only charge that has been paid. The cake was stored on August 31 and was last inspected on October 15, and the report then made was that the cake was in perfectly good condition. Twenty-six tons of it have since been released, and no complaint has since been received by the Ministry that the cake is out of condition or has deteriorated in any way whatever.
The noble Lord asked a question with regard to the representations made by the Royal Agricultural Society. I should like to say, in passing, that the Ministry is under a debt of considerable gratitude to the Royal Agricultural Society for the very valuable advice which its Emergency Committee has given from time to time with regard to agricultural matters. But I should like to assure the noble Lord that it is not only in consequence of what I may call "ginger" being applied by the Royal Agricultural Society that the Ministry of Food have taken the line—shall I say have mended their ways?—in the direction that the noble Lord would desire.
I may, perhaps, refer in passing to a very important body called the Central Agricultural Advisory Council, composed of representatives of leading agricultural experts from every part of the United Kingdom, a most authoritative body which sits at least once a fortnight and gives advice to the Ministry of Food and to the Board of Agriculture on matters of Government policy relating to farm economy. That body is presided over by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. I am one of its vice-chairmen, and a particularly able and vigilant agriculturist in the person of Dr. Charles Douglas is the other vice-chairman. All of us are appointed not by the Ministry but by the farmers themselves; and I

59
assure your Lordships that a very searching investigation and scrutiny is conducted on the occasion of every one of our meetings into the policy, or proposed policy, of the Ministry as affecting British agriculture.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Hear, hear.
LORD BLEDISLOE: It is perfectly true that very often suggestions have been made at meetings of that Council which the Government have found it impossible to carry out; but I am bound to confess—and I fancy the noble Earl will support me in what I am about to say—that the Ministry of Food have put an extraordinarily good case when such criticisms have been brought forward. Their very able officials have frankly stated the difficulties which the Ministry has to face; and in every case where the farmers on that Committee have not been satisfied with the assurances which the officials of the Ministry have given, I think they would be the first to admit that it is not the isolated policy of the Ministry of which they have to complain, but the fact that, in acting their part in the national administrative machine during a time of extreme emergency, what the Ministry would desire has had to give place to what either other Departments or the interests of the other Allies, render more important from a purely national standpoint.
It would be wrong for me to take up the time of your Lordships' House, but I think I ought to say in connection with this particular Motion that, in view of the extraordinary difficulty during the last three or four months of harmonising all the essential interests of the various Allies in the course of pooling all our resources, agricultural, financial, and shipping, and in order moreover to give priority to those war commodities which were most essential to the early termination of hostilities and the winning of the war, that the charge which the noble Lord brings against the Ministry—that of vacillation—is, so far from being a charge of which we have reason to be ashamed, one on which I think we have reason to pride ourselves. The noble Lord founds his vote of censure upon alleged shifting, or vacillation, in the food policy of the Government. But surely there are conditions in which vaccillation of policy is a positive virtue, in which consistency would be a mere fetish if not an unpardonable crime. If ever these conditions had existed, surely they have existed during
60
the past seven months. Vacillation in policy is the necessary consequence of vacillation—fluctuation if you like—in the fortunes of war.
Seven months ago, in the month of April, the unexpected violence and success of the German advance threatened the occupation by the enemy of the Channel ports. Since that time every effort has been made to bring over American troops, their equipment, their munitions, and their food. To do this no less than 3,000,000 tons of shipping previously allocated to, or earmarked for, food, including animal food-stuffs, for British consumption has been transferred to the carriage of American fighting material. And who, in the light of the experience of the last four week—including the historic occupation of Sedan by American troops—will say that this policy was wrong? The Government shifted its policy—I accept the noble Lord's term—the Government deliberately shifted its policy, When last Spring the ranks of the miners, of the munition workers, of the farm workers, and of the slaughtermen—to whom I have referred—already seriously thinned, were further depleted in order to meet the requirements of the Army. In my own special sphere of food control—that of the direction of the supply and distribution of sugar—I had last Spring after consultation with my Commission, to decide most reluctantly to abandon several hundred thousands tons of cheap sugar of high quality in Java owing to the length of the voyage, and to buy at three times the price sugar of lower quality from Cuba and other Western sources of supply. It was a shifting policy; but there would not be an ounce of sugar in the United Kingdom to-day if it had not been adopted under the shifting circumstances.
Surely the victorious cessation of hostilities has to some extent taken the sting out of the noble Lord's Motion. It has shown the need, if I may say so, for observing a due sense of proportion in this matter of war time requirements, and has emphasised the importance and the true economy of giving priority, amid conflicting claims, to the vital needs of the armed forces of the Allies. But in saying this I should like to be perfectly frank with your Lordships' House on this the first occasion that I have had the honour of addressing it.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I have never disguised from myself, and I will not disguise from this House, the grave risks to the future of British agriculture which might have resulted from the continued serious shortage—throughout the coming winter and the following spring, owing to the exigencies of the war and to the steady curtailment of our shipping—of concentrated animal feeding stuffs. I travel the whole way with the noble Lord when he adumbrates the possible—aye, the probable—dangers which might accrue to British agriculture assuming that this continued shortage were to exist over a prolonged period. The absence of sufficient animal food means necessarily a reduction in our flocks and herds. These have been, we all admit, the sheet anchor and backbone of British agriculture for the last thirty or forty years; and what is more, during the first two years of this war there would have been a meat famine but for that fact. Also this country has been undoubtedly the store-house of animals of the highest quality in order to feed the requirements of the whole world in the matter of the livestock they required, possessing the constitution which for some reason the climate and the soil of this country appear able alone to provide. But the most serious result—and I am glad the noble Lord emphasised it—would have been, as the result of this policy, had it been continued, the undoubted less of fertility to our increased arable area in consequence of the lack of farmyard manure. The noble Lord is perfectly right in saying that you cannot replace with artificial fertilisers—which are all too scarce, and which will be scarce for years to come—farmyard manure; its mechanical value alone is of enormous importance in maintaining the standard of fertility which we must maintain if we are going to justify the increased arable programme which this war has forced upon us.
Having said this, I hope that this House will admit that the Ministry of Food and the Food Controller, who have had an enormously difficult task during the last few months, and who, if I may say so, fully share the standpoint which the noble Lord has put forward and fully sympathise with the interests, both present and future, of the agricultural community—will admit that in face of the call made upon the very limited shipping resources of this country for needs even more paramount than those, for the moment, of the agricultural industry, have come out of this difficult period with
62
credit to themselves and as events have fortunately turned out with no very serious risks to the future of our greatest industry.
LORD STRACHIE: Will the noble Lord answer my question, as to why there was such a large increase of Irish cattle allowed?
LORD BLEDISLOE: I have made inquiries on this subject, and I learn that the Order which was issued keeping back matured cattle from British markets, in order to maintain the present ration of meat, if possible, over the spring months of next year, applied equally to Ireland as to Great Britain, but for some reason or other the shipping companies did not carry out their instructions for something like a fortnight after the Order was issued, with the result that in the interim a certain number of Irish cattle came over and appear to have been given a preference in this country.
LORD ST. LEVAN: My Lords, I wish to ask my noble friend one question about the reply which he has just given. He said that the profits of the middle-men who were furnishing feeding stuffs to the farmers were going to be altered. I have information to the effect that while farmers have been selling their corn—wheat and barley—for £16 and £17 per ton, the feeding stuffs have been sold back to the farmers at £23 and £25 per ton. I do not suppose he is able to give an exact answer to my question, but if he can give some assurance that the profits which the middle-men will make on the corn will be a great deal reduced from that figure, it will be very welcome news to the farmers, who feel very deeply on the subject.
LORD BLEDISLOE: If I understand my noble friend Lord St. Levan aright, he is referring to the same point as was raised by Lord Strachie before, and I think I said, and I should like to repeat it, that an Order is in contemplation which will put a stop to all this profiteering on the part of these middle-men interests, and to the incorporation into mixed foods of worthless ingredients sold as a compound mixture at a far higher price than the value of the constituent.
LORD ST. LEVAN: I understood him to say that, but does he say that they will not be able to charge £23 for corn for which they paid the farmer £16?
LORD BLEDISLOE: I think that necessarily follows.
On Question, Motion negatived.

CULTIVATION IN THE ROYAL PARKS.
LORD STRACHIE: I beg to ask whether we can be furnished with a return on the cultivation of certain areas in the Royal parks in continuation of Command Paper 8996.
LORD STANMORE: The figures relating to this year's cultivation in Richmond and Bushey Park are still incomplete, as the crops of wheat and oats have not been threshed. It seems likely that this will be completed before next Spring, when the Office of Works will be very pleased to give my noble friend the Return for which he asks.
[The sitting was suspended at ten minutes past eight o'clock and resumed at a quarter past nine.]

SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve it self into Committee.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
LORD ROE: My Lords, may I have the pleasure of a word before the House enters upon the Committee stage of this Bill? I desire to be permitted to say, my Lords, how glad I am to support a measure which will have the effect of inducing many deserving people who now stand aloof, to take up teaching as a profession. As this is a question which I have considered for years, I am pleased, on the first occasion of my taking part in the business of this House, to say what a pleasure it is to find this Bill being passed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGRMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
The EARL OF CRAWFORD: I propose to submit to your Lordships four Amendments, all of a purely technical and drafting character, not changing or affecting the substance or policy of the Bill in any degree. The first Amendment is in Clause 1, and the other three in Clause 5.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 2, line 26, leave out ("twenty years") and insert ("such number of years, not being less than twenty, as may be prescribed").—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Amendments moved—
Clause 5, page 3, line 38, after ("employed") insert ("at whatever age")
Clause 5, page 4, line 24, after ("teacher") insert ("of any age")
Clause 5, page 4, line 26, leave out ("a grant-aided school") and insert ("recognised service ").—(The Earl of Crawford.)
In Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Power to make rules.
15.—(1) The Board may, with the consent of the Treasury, make rules for carrying this Act into effect, and those rules may in particular provide—

(a) For the manner in which, and the time within which, an application for a superannuation allowance or a gratuity is to be made;

(b) For the notice to be given to teachers of their option not to accept this Act, and the manner in which and time within which that option is to be exercised;

(c) For the notice to be given to teachers of their right to withdraw from a pensions scheme:

(d) For the manner in which and the time within which any application for the recognition of service as qualifying service is to be made to the Board:

(e) For the refusal or suspension of all or any part of a superannuation allowance or gratuity if the person to whom it is payable is wholly or partly maintained out of any public funds:

(f) For allowing any such service as may be recorded in the case of a certificated teacher by virtue of the provisions of the Elementary School Teachers (War Service Superannuation) Act, 1914, to be treated in the case of any teacher as recognised or qualifying service for the purposes of this Act, and for determining what salary a teacher is for the purpose of computing the average salary to be regarded as receiving during any such service:

65

(g) For determining what salaries teachers are to be treated as receiving for the purposes of this Act during any periods of absence on sick leave, and how far such periods are to be treated as service for the purposes of this Act:

(h) For prescribing anything which under this Act is to be prescribed.

(2) All rules made under this section shall be laid as soon as may be before both Houses of Parliament.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to insert the following proviso at the end of subsection (1): "Provided that in making rules under this Act with respect to teachers serving in non grant-aided schools which are open to inspection and are efficient, no differentiation shall be made by reason of the schools being connected with or not connected with any particular religious denomination."
The noble Marquess said: This Bill underwent, as I think I reminded your Lordships upon the Second Reading, one important change in passing through the House of Commons, and that was that the Government consented to admit under its purview schools which were not grant-aided but which were efficient and open to inspection. That is a very valuable concession, and makes this Bill more acceptable to many of us. I should have welcomed the Bill in any case, but with that addition it is a valuable measure. The effect of the acceptance of that Amendment in another place was to include a large number of schools which are extremely useful from the point of view of secondary education, providing as they do a great variety of type, being popular with a particular section of parents, and in many cases by their old tradition and by the position they occupy in public estimation, being very useful parts of the provision of secondary education. They have one additional advantage that they constitute a considerable saving to the public purse, because if the secondary education which is provided in these schools was not there provided—if they had ceased to exist, which might have been the effect of depriving them of the pensions scheme—then a much heavier charge would have been thrown upon the public in order to provide, at public expense, the necessary number of places which the closing of those schools would have made necessary;
For these reasons the Amendment which was accepted by the President of the Board of Education in another place was a very valuable one. That Amendment was ac-
66
chieved in paragraph 7 of Clause 17, on page 11. The last paragraph on the page sets forth one of the conditions which these non-grant-aided schools must fulfill in order to have the benefit of the Bill. Paragraph (d) says "satisfies such other conditions as may be prescribed as necessary or desirable for securing the public interest." That is a very general power. I am not calling it in question, because think that it is necessary that the Board of Education should reserve to itself the power of making certain regulations in order to satisfy the very necessary demands of public policy and public opinion in these matters. In Clause 15, which is the clause that we are now upon; it is provided that the Board may, with the consent of the Treasury, make rules for carrying this Act into effect. If your Lordships will look at the end of the subsection, line 49, on page 10, you will see that it says, "for prescribing anything which under this Act is to be prescribed," and one of the things which is to be prescribed is the paragraph (d) of Clause 17 to which I have called attention. One of the provisions of Clause 15 is, therefore, to give power to make rules for prescribing what is to be done under paragraph (d) of Clause 17.
Your Lordships may ask what is contemplated in these Regulations which may be prescribed under Clause 15 and 17. In my conviction in the vast majority of cases there are not only likely to be but there are certain to be very salutary rules. But there is one subject in regard to which Parliament has always been jealous lest, by means of an Act of Parliament or by Rules prescribed under the powers of a provision in an Act of Parliament, a school professing particular denominational views, and teaching particular denominational doctrine, should be placed at a disadvantage with other schools because of its particular denominational character—provided only that the teaching which it gives in other respects comes up to the recognised standards of efficiency which the State lays down. It is evidently possible that under this Rules clause there might be prescribed a certain Regulation which a school might be called upon to fulfill which would be inconsistent with its denominational character.
I know I shall be assured by the noble Earl that nothing of that kind is to be feared from the present President of the Board of Education. That may be so but

67
before I discuss that let me call attention to the precedents. First we have the precedent of the celebrated section 97 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870. That did not specifically deal with the difference between denominational and unsectarian under that name, but it did provide that the conditions for a Parliamentary grant to a public elementary school shall not give any preference or advantage to any school on the ground that it is or is not provided by a School Board. As I say, that did not expressly mention unsectarian schools, but of course it involved it, and that was the point of the provision. I take another precedent, the Act of 1902. The last precedent I quoted dealt with elementary education, but this one deals with secondary education. It does not deal, it is true, with grants of money from the Treasury, but it does deal with grants from the rates. This is what Parliament said—
"A Council, in the application of money under this part of this Act, shall not require that any particular form of religious instruction or worship, or religious catechism, or formulary, which is distinctive of any particular denomination shall or shall not be used, taught, or practised in any school, college, or hostel, aided but not provided by the Council—"
It is very parallel, except that it is rate money instead of tax money—
"and no pupil shall on the ground of religious belief be excluded from, or placed in an inferior position in any school or hostel provided by the Council."
That, of course, was dealing with maintenance grants and this is dealing with pensions, but the principle applies to the one as to the other; and that was dealing with rates instead of tax money, but there, again, the principle applies to the one as to the other; and in the Act of 1902 it was expressly laid down that no difference was to be made in respect of the support from public money by reason of the denominational or undenominational character of the school.
When I am told that at present we have the great advantage of Mr. Fisher presiding over the Board of Education, and that, therefore, nothing is to be feared from regulations made by him, I would remind your Lordships that in 1902 the then President of the Board of Education was certainly above suspicion, because he belonged to the Party to which the noble Earl and I belong, yet it was thought necessary, although there was a Con-
68
servative and Unionist Minister of Education, to put in this strong saving clause, lest there should be some kind of possible victimisation (to use a word which is very common in another connection) on account of denominational belief. I do not know, for I have not heard, what particular danger Parliament at that time feared, as there was a Unionist and Conservative Government in power. It may have been a terror lest an undenominational school may have been put at a disadvantage. But you must not. I think, interpret an Act of Parliament in that way; you must not consider who is the President of the Board of Education at the moment. It may be a Unionist President, or it may be a Liberal; or it may have been a Unionist one when it was passed, and Parliament may have passed the regulation lest the Unionist one should become a Liberal, or his successor should be a Liberal.
We have an extremely distinguished, and I am bound to say a most satisfactory, President of the Board of Education, yet he might be succeeded at any moment by another President who is not so acceptable from every point of view. I think your Lordships will observe that I have addressed myself to this subject with every desire to avoid any language which may offend anybody's susceptibilities. I have learned of late to value so highly the contribution which Nonconformist religious bodies make to the religious equipment of the nation, that I should be intensely sorry if I said anything at all in your Lordships' House which would lead people to think that I for a moment looked upon them with anything except the most profound respect. But there is no doubt that upon subjects which men feel very deeply there is always the possibility of injustice. I should be sorry if it were the case that people in our country did not feel deeply on religion. I wish they felt more deeply; but I believe that the mass of the people have a profound respect for religion, and that some members of the nation feel for it most deeply.
You cannot avoid, if you have that very salutary frame of mind, a certain exaggeration. It is the necessary consequence of deep feeling, which leads people, or rather I should say misleads people, meaning to do absolutely right, into using the temporary power of a Parliamentary majority in order to place at a disadvantage those with whom they are not in religious agreement.

69
Let us suppose that at the General Election, which we are informed is about to take place, that contrary to all expectations a very great change was to take place in the complexion of the House of Commons, and that the next new Minister of Education was supported by gentlemen who, perhaps deeply religious themselves, took a view adverse to the teaching of definite denominational doctrine in secondary schools. Then it might be that regulations might be prescribed under this clause which would place the denominational schools at a disadvantage. Consequently, I suggest to your Lordships that in order, even if I put it no higher than this, to prevent any kind of anxiety in the minds of the religious managers of some of these secondary schools, it would be well to introduce a protective clause—not a one-sided clause but a clause to protect, alike, both schools which do teach definite religion and those which do not—that in neither case shall they be put at any disadvantage whatever on account of their denominational or undenominational character. I wish to impress upon your Lordships that this is intended to be an absolutely fair Amendment between the two, that it is supported by substantial precedent, and that it cannot do any harm, while it will allay a certain amount of apprehension, and that it ought according to the settled practice of Parliament to be inserted in respect of the allocation of money in any Education Bill.
Amendment moved—
Clause 15, page 10, after line 20, insert ("Provided that in making rules under this Act with respect to teachers serving in non grant-aided schools which are open to inspection and are efficient, no differentiation shall be made by reason of the schools being connected with or not connected with any particular religious denomination").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am afraid that my noble friend seems to have had some inkling of the reply which I propose to make—namely, that while sympathetic towards what he has said and urged, it is considered by the Board of Education that there are serious administrative objections, and indeed that were the clause, as he outlined it, added to the Bill, it would not necessarily act as he desires—namely, as a protective measure. I will, with your Lordships' permission, state in some detail the attitude of the Board of Education on this subject.
In the first place I would ask your Lordships to remember that this Bill, as intro-
70
duced, was primarily, and indeed was solely, intended for teachers in grant-aided schools. That is the first, and indeed at the outset was the sole, function of this measure. In another place, with the sanction of the Treasury, the Bill was extended to apply to non-aided schools, which are, of course, mainly secondary schools. Teachers in these establishments were admitted to the superannuation benefits laid down for the teachers in the grant-aided schools. It would have been very easy at that stage to have refused altogether to agree to this extension, but it was thought, rightly thought, that it was well to deal with all the teachers synchronously and to extend the benefits to the non-aided school teachers by an Amendment to this Bill, rather than wait for an amending Act at some subsequent date.
Mr. Fisher appreciated the changes and chances of political life and the difficulty which might arise next year, or the year after, of passing an amending measure, and so he seized this opportunity which happily presented itself. He quite appreciated the difficulty in which the teachers in the non-aided schools would be placed owing to the enhanced competition which might be expected to follow the improved status accruing to teachers in grant-aided schools as a result of the superannuation system. The Board of Education, therefore, must not be considered unsympathetic towards helping teachers in the non-aided schools, but I must at the same time point out that this is an accretion to the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It expresses the wishes of the House of Commons. It has that honour.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Yes, of course. I do not depreciate either the teachers in the non-aided school or the wise action taken by the House of Commons. What I want to point out is that in the original Bill, as drafted, there would have been perhaps 160,000 or 170,000 teachers affected, the bulk of whom, of course, are in elementary schools, whereas under the subsequent Amendment dealing with the non-aided schools, probably not more than 2,500 teachers would be affected. Lord Salisbury is afraid that the latter category of teachers will be placed in a disadvantageous position. He said that there might arise a recognised standard of efficiency which might be used against their interests.

71
But I must really point out to the House that, while Mr. Fisher was quite ready to open the door to the admission of these teachers to the superannuation scheme, the Board of Education has no official knowledge whatever of the existence of these schools. The noble Marquess said, If a proper standard of efficiency is maintained in these schools why should not the teachers have the full benefit, and why should not this Amendment be passed? There is no recognised standard of efficiency in these schools. Technically the Board of Education does not know of their existence.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl will forgive me for interrupting him. He himself has provided the standard, because if he will look at Clause 17, to which I called his attention he will find in paragraph (b) of sub-section (vii) the words occur "is open to inspection by the Board and shown to the satisfaction of the Board to be efficient." The Board, therefore, must have in its mind some standard of efficiency; otherwise, this would not be an operative provision at all.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Of course, I am speaking of before this Bill comes into being. The existence of these schools is unknown. When this Act is passed, and when public money is paid to the teachers in these schools, it is, I think, clear to everybody that the Board of Education must have, I do not say some control—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Oh, certainly.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: But some voice in the management—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Certainly.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: And some supervision of the standard in order to ensure that public money is not going to be thrown away. I do not think Lord Salisbury gave sufficient attention in his remarks to the fact that these Rules have to be laid before Parliament for a period of, I think, fourteen days. That is laid down in the fifteenth clause of the Bill, and the procedure of the Statutory Rules Publication Act is followed in this case. It is not only either House of Parliament that is able to object to these rules, or to criticise. Practically anybody is entitled to
72
raise objections, if he desires to do so. That is a great safeguard, and is a safeguard which I think has not had sufficient attention paid to it. If this Act comes into operation early next year, the rules will have to be made pretty soon, and I am sure that Mr. Fisher would not have opened the door to the admission of these teachers unless he had meant that a substantial number of the schools should profit by the conditions permitted under the Bill. Some conditions there have got to be.
In some cases I think it is admitted that certain defects may occur, and a particular case in point would be where there are claims of non-local boarding schools—many of which have high fees and perhaps somewhat exclusive tradition—on state funds, schools which are considerably weaker than the great mass of grant-aided schools. It is hoped that many of these local schools which at present receive no grant-aid will come on the list during the next five years, as is allowed under the seventeenth clause. One hopes that it may be much easier for them to do so than it is at present. That, of course, involves a reconsideration of the grant regulations, which it is understood may be undertaken in the future.
I wish to refer to a point on which Lord Sailsbury laid some emphasis. It was this. Whereas he himself would be quite ready to entrust the interests of these schools and of these teachers to a President of the Board of Education whom he knows and whom he trusts—Mr. Fisher, if you please—he feels sceptical about who Mr. Fisher's successor may be. Well, I understand the argument; I am perfectly familiar with it; I daresay in time gone by I have used the argument myself; but in this case I think there are safeguards which are adequate. Personally, I am interested in denominational schools, but I must say think it is to be deprecated that we should raise what is unquestionably a denominational issue on this particular Bill and on this particular occasion. The President has to frame rules under this clause. I am quite sure that in the present temper of the public the President will be trusted, and must be trusted, so to frame his rules, that he will have the support of public opinion in keeping out of them anything which could be said to savour of intolerance or improper discrimination against a particular class of school or teacher. So far as Mr. Fisher is

73
concerned I have his assurance that is his own personal attitude.
But I wish to point this out to Lord Salisbury who says, "What about Mr. Fisher's successor? When the rules have been once framed and interests created under them, it will be extremely difficult for any future Minister so to stiffen them as to injure those interests, or to create a grievance on the part of the schools concerned, or of the individual teachers. I do not say that Mr. Fisher's successor, if actuated by sinister motives, could not find a hundred ways of circumventing the words which Lord Salisbury proposes, even if we put them in the Bill. I am quite certain that the malignity of man could swim through the protective clause which Lord Salisbury has drafted, and if somebody means determinedly to set out to evade it, the Amendment will be of course quite ineffective. On the other hand, from an administrative point of view, to put this Amendment in the Bill is going to be extremely awkward even for a man like Mr. Fisher, a Minister who is actuated by the most honest regard for the public interest.
In the first place, from a technical point of view, this Amendment would undoubtedly create a position of uncertainty, and uncertainty in itself is to be deprecated. It would also be doubtful under these words, if a rule which in fact operated so as to affect the denominational schools more widely than other schools, was or was not invalid subject to the words of Lord Salisbury's Amendment. I do not say that no rules ought, in the public interest and in consideration of the receipt of public money, to be made affecting in any way the giving of denominational instruction, or the obligations of scholars to receive denominational instructions, or the adherence by teachers to a particular religious denomination. I make no such claim. But, however devoted a man may be to the Church with which he is connected, it must be recognised that the State cannot and must not disclaim all interest in such matters, or leave a school to which it pays a public subsidy to act as it pleases. Some measure of control, therefore, is essential, but under Lord Salisbury's Amendment it would be uncertain whether the State, acting through the Board of Education, could impose any conditions at all in such matters, because the conditions from their very nature could only arise in the case of de-
74
nominational schools, and therefore could be considered to be injurious to their interests compared with those of ordinary grant-aided schools.
I have said on previous occasions and I think from what I gather to-night that Lord Salisbury shares my views—that a better public spirit prevails than used to be the case a few years ago, that anti-denominational prejudices are less acute than formerly, and that we should act wisely in trusting to the responsible Minister of Education a very wide discretion in dealing with these non-aided schools. If that discretion be exercised narrowly or unfairly towards any interests for which Lord Salisbury specially speaks, the procedure under the Bill gives full opportunity for challenging it on the publication of rules either by members of the public who are interested and concerned or by members of both Houses of Parliament. Under these conditions I regret, my Lords, that I do not see my way to accept the first Amendment moved by Lord Salisbury.
LORD SOUTHWARK: I should like to put a question to my noble friend in the interests of the governors of schools which are not rate-aided, but which are inspected by the Board of Education and recognised as efficient, who do not wish their governing bodies added to or interfered with, What length of time, after the Rules under Clause 15 are laid, will be allowed before they are put into operation, and will Parliament have the opportunity of amending them? It is a very important question affecting schools which would like to avail themselves of this superannuation scheme, and where it would really not be in the interests of education to interfere with them. Will the Board of Education have power to say that these schools may continue to be governed in the same way as now without any alteration in the governing body?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I shall have to inquire into that point and on the Third Reading or Report stage of the Bill make a carefully considered statement on the subject. For the moment, I am afraid I must plead guilty to not being able to answer the question without consulting the experts.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I did not hope by my Amendment to control the malignity of a sort of criminal President

75
of the Board of Education. We do not expect such persons in our well governed State. My noble friend had no difficulty in proving (but he really did not require to prove it), that if you once imagine unlimited malignity on the part of a Minister of the Crown he can avoid most statutes. That is perfectly true, but we need not legislate from that point of view. What we really wish is to express the view of Parliament, with the confident conviction that any Minister who would be likely to be at the Board of Education in the life of any of us, or of our grandchildren or great grandchildren, will administer his office bona fide. So I do not think that that argument is of any value. But listening with all my might I tried to find out what the noble Earl's argument really was, and at last I think I did discover it. I think what he is afraid of is that there might be some excessive form of religious observance or eccentricity, which it would be right for the President of the Board of Education to check. I really could not find any other argument of any substance in all that he said. Personally I would take my chance of that extremely improbably event. If that is all that the noble Earl has to say I think it would have been wiser for him to have accepted the Amendment. It would have been clear, if he had done so, that the President of the Board of Education was determined to administer this Act without any kind of discrimination against denominational schools. But I have great confidence in the present President of the Board of Education, and I do admit quite candidly that the first Rules made under this Act are the most important Rules which can be made under it. It is perfectly true that there is a certain difficulty in altering them once they are made—a certain difficulty in public opinion. And therefore, as I have received from the noble Earl assurance of the strong determination of the President of the Board of Education to administer this Act without discrimination against denominational schools I shall not ask your Lordships to divide upon this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not want to detain your Lordships. I have an impression that the noble Earl is going to accept the second Amendment standing in my name. Is that so?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDindicated assent.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In that case I will simply move it.
Amendment moved—
After clause 15, insert as a new clause:
"Power of governing bodies to comply with conditions.
"Notwithstanding any provision regulating the trusts or management of a school, the governing body of the school shall have power to fulfill any conditions which may be required to be fulfilled in order that service in that school may be recognised service for the purpose of this Act"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

TITHE BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Clinton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Consideration for redemption.
3.—(1) The consideration money payable on the redemption of a tithe rentcharge on any land under the Tithe Acts, 1836 to 1891, or this Act, shall, in lieu of the amount authorised or directed by the Tithe Acts, 1836 to 1891, be such an amount as may be agreed by the owners of the land and of the rentcharge, and in default of such agreement as may, on the application of the owner of the rentcharge, or of the owner of the land or any part thereof, be determined by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, in accordance with the provisions contained in the Second Schedule to this Act, to be fair compensation for the redemption.
(2) An agreement made under this section may provide that the consideration money shall be discharged by an annuity payable yearly or half-yearly for such period, not exceeding fifty years, as may be agreed, consisting of interest at the rate of five per centum per annum on the consideration money, and of such sum as would be sufficient if the periodical payments thereof were accumulated at compound interest at the rate of four per centum per annum, to produce an amount equal to the consideration money at the end of the said period, and in any such case the Board shall by order direct the discharge of the con-

77
sideration money by such an annuity as aforesaid and shall charge the land therewith, and the order shall contain such provisions for giving effect to the agreement and for protecting the interests of persons interested in the rentcharge as the Board may think fit, and after payment of the first instalment of the annuity the rentcharge shall cease and be extinguished.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The Amendment which I have on Clause 3, and which is accompanied by various Amendments in the Second Schedule which your Lordships will see on the next page, is one of somewhat greater importance than might appear at first sight, and of rather greater importance, I confess, than I at first sight conceived when it was brought to my notice.
I am asked to move this Amendment on behalf of the London County Council, who are themselves tithe-payers to the extent of £1,200 a year, but it is one which I am informed is also approved by some important bodies, Chambers of Agriculture, and others. The general effect is that, questions of value—that is to say, both of the estimated annual tithe which is to be estimated in the first paragraph of the Schedule, and estimated outgoings, and the capitalisation value—that all these should be estimated by a single arbitrator appointed by the Board of Agriculture rather than by the Board itself. There are various reasons why it is desired to press this Amendment. One is—and I think it is of some importance—that the Board of Agriculture, like other Departments, wisely never states its reasons for doing what it does. That is to say, that, when it arbitrates on a question of value of this kind, the mental process by which the sum is arrived at is never likely or liable to be explained. When these matters are dealt with by an arbitrator, they come under the ordinary practice of the Arbitration Act, and are liable in the last resort, to review, and, in some cases, may finally come before a Court of Law; whereas my noble friend's Board states a sum and there is no appeal from the figure which is mentioned; and it is thought by those who prefer this alternative method, that the ultimate result will be that a certain standard of value will be fixed by the Board of Agriculture, which will be made applicable in practically all cases, instead of the very varying conditions being considered by different arbitrators, appointed in
78
different parts of the country under the Act.
This is rather more important than appears, for this reason, that there, are certain cases, which are probably not very numerous but which do exist, where, as the tithe exceeds two-thirds of the value under Schedule B, the County Court can order the remission of the tithe, as the noble Lord knows, beyond that value; and the effect, of course, of that is that unless expert knowledge is brought to bear upon the actual value of the property, and the future prospects of the property, a sum might be fixed covering a term of years which would prove in the long run to be altogether unfair to the redeemer of the tithe. There is this further point, upon which the noble Lord will no doubt tell me if I am not right, but I am informed that, as the Act stands, once a tithe-payer enters into a scheme of redemption he is compelled to go on with it, however it may work out for him. It may, of course, happen that on discovery of the amount which he would have to pay, he finds that it is was a purely uneconomic thing to do, but I understand that he cannot withdraw but is obliged to continue the required redemption on such terms as may be decided. All these various considerations may not sound so very important taken singly, but taken together they do seem to me to make it desirable, really as much in the interests of the Board as in the interests of the public, that there should be no suspicion that these capitalisation values are being arrived at in anything like a hole-and-corner manner. I venture to think that the burden of proof, as against the appointment of an independent arbitrator of this kind, rests not so much upon myself, in moving the amendment, as upon the Department who by the Bill retain the power for themselves. Of course I do not for a moment suppose, and nobody would imply, that these arbitrations are likely to be unfairly conducted, but as a matter of public confidence, particularly in these days, when Departments are being accused in every quarter of taking too much power in their own hands, I wonder whether the noble Lord would not be wiser, on behalf of the Department, to agree to an Amendment which I cannot think would prejudice the justice of the awards or in any way interfere with the proper duties of the Department which he represents.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 11, after ("by") insert ("a single arbitrator appointed by").—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (LORD CLINTON): The noble Marquess, in moving this Amendment, has put forward three main grounds for the proposal to substitute a single arbitrator appointed by the Board for the Board itself. The first, I think, was this, that the Board would not state their reasons which caused them to arrive at certain conclusions with regard to the subject matter before them, but that an arbitrator would do so. I speak without absolutely certain knowledge on the matter, but I think an arbitrator very seldom gives his reasons; he does so only if he is forced to do it.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My point was that the arbitrator in some circumstances could be called upon to do it, whereas the Board never could be, and would not be subject to review.
LORD CLINTON: He may be called upon to do it if the Court thinks there is a miscarriage of justice or something of that kind. The second reason was that conditions are so varying in different parts of the country that they ought to be represented to an arbitrator. Generally speaking, in the matter upon which the Board will have to come to a decision the conditions vary very slightly. There is the case which the noble Marquess mentioned where possibly the tithe has risen above two-thirds value and it would remain to the County Court to strike off a certain portion of it. I admit there is that case, but, in spite of that, I think that the reasons I am going to give the noble Marquess why it is better to keep this clause as it is without this alteration, are sufficiently strong to get over the very insignificant number of cases where the appointment of an arbitrator might be better.
I am going to object to the proposal not mainly, but firstly, on the ground of expense. The number of redemptions under this measure will, we hope, be very large. It is quite certain that a considerable number of them will be of a very small amount—£2 to £3 perhaps—and it seems exceedingly unwise to add to the cost of redemption what would be a large percentage of the value of the redemption, owing
80
to the appointment of an arbitrator; I do not think you could say that the cost of arbitration would be very small. The noble Marquess himself told the House some of the subjects which would come before the arbitrator; that is that mainly, he would have to estimate the annual sum payable in perpetuity equal to the value of the rentcharge.
It is quite easy to imagine that witnesses might be obtained in considerable numbers from different parts of the country to guess—and they could do no more—as to what is the proper value of a tithe rentcharge in perpetuity, and, even if a very large number were not obtained, they obviously would run up the cost of arbitration to a figure out of all proportion to its value. But it is not on the ground of expense alone that I am going to base my objection. I am going to claim that the Board of Agriculture is the most suitable body for the purpose. They have correspondents in most parts of the country. They are able to get at the value payable in perpetuity, which I admit is guess work, but they are able to get that just as well as the arbitrator can get it from any number of witnesses he may call.
The most important thing is that the Board of Agriculture, from the means at its disposal, will decide what the value payable in perpetuity is for the year. They will publish that value, probably in January in each year, at the same time as they publish the ordinary corn averages. That seems to me to be of the very greatest importance, particularly in view of the noble Marquess's last contention, his fear that when once a tithe-payer had entered into a scheme for redemption he would be bound to go on with it. I think that is the case under the Act. If it is left to the single arbitrator to decide, it is quite clear that the tithe-payer is leaping in the dark. He does not in the least know what these number of witnesses may persuade the arbirator is the proper value of the sum payable in perpetuity. But if left to the Board, he knows actually what is the value for the year in which he proposes to redeem, because that is already published by the Board in January. And I think that is really an outstanding advantage.
The general objection, the objection which is always taken—we have just been debating the subject—of the Department appearing at all in the position of arbitrator,

81
is that the Department has an interest in the case. There can be no suggestion that the Board of Agriculture has any interest at all in a case of this kind. The interests lie entirely between the tithe-owner and the tithe owner, and the only interest that the Board has is to get at a fair value between those two bodies. I hope the noble. Marquess will see that at all events there is good reason for the Government adhering to the proposal which they have in their Bit. I am afraid must object to the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his full and courteous reply, and I shall not press the Amendment, even if it were possible to do so, against his objection. I confess I did not quite follow the point that he made of the superiority of the publication by the Board of Agriculture of the average redemption values for a particular year, because it seemed to me that that could equally well be done by the Board, in fact ought as a matter of propriety to be done by the Board, even if the principle of arbitration by an arbitrator were adopted. But I do not want to press that point, or indeed any other. I wish that the noble Lord had been able to accept the Amendment, because I think on the last point he made it would have inspired more perfect confidence if the Department had stood aside in a matter of this sort. But as he has not done so, I have nothing more to say. I withdraw it, and the consequential Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: I should like to raise the question of the amendment of line 18, on this page, in the same clause. I apologise for not having put it down on the Paper, because in truth we did not, receive this Bill as it left another place until so very late in our proceedings. But I will tell your Lordships, if it is not thought inconvenient, what it is, and I will move this Amendment now. It would be to cut away this fixed rate which is described in lines 18–23 [subsection (2)], the fixed rate at which the money is to be accumulated, and to insert in the first instance, after the words "fifty years," the words "computed in such manner," so as to leave the rate to be arrived at by agreement between the parties. Some consequential words will have to follow, and if the noble Lord in charge of the Bill prefers
82
that it should be left to the Report stage, of course I shall defer to his wishes in order that we may arrive at the exact form the words should take. Still we all know that time presses and it is quite easy to any one who understands financial conditions to realise that there will be nothing left to produce a net yield of 4 per cent. if you say that 4 per cent. shall be a fixed rate at which the fund for redemption should accumulate, so long at all events as income Tax remains at six shillings in the £ and you wish to limit your investments to investments of a class which do not yield more than 5 or a fraction above 5 per cent. Therefore if this fixed rate remains in the Bill no business in the nature of redemption will result.
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, line 18, after the words ("fifty years") insert ("and computed in such manner").—(Lord Stuart of Wortley.)
LORD CLINTON: If the noble Lord puts in the words there, will be not require to make the subsequent sums of 5 per cent. and 4 per cent. more elastic?
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: Certainly, or cut them out altogether.
LORD CLINTON: I would suggest to the noble. Lord that he had better defer this till to-morrow, because I have had notice of a considerable number of Amendments upon this particular clause, and I think that it would be more convenient to consider his Amendment along with the others.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 3, 4 and 5 agreed to.
LORD CLINTON: The new clause that is down on the Paper in my name is little more than a drafting Amendment. Under the Act of 1846 a number of options are given as to the disposal of the redemption money by persons who only have a limited interest in their estates, and people under certain disabilities as to disposal, and certain Corporations who are not allowed to sell except by authority of the Act of 1846. It, is proposed here that if they do not take advantage of those options the consideration money may be paid into Court as provided by the Act.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clauses:
"Payment of consideration money into court in certain circumstances.
"Where any person fails to exercise within such time as the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may direct the options given by section nine of the Tithe Act, 1846, as to the application of consideration money for redemption of a rentcharge, the consideration money may be paid into court in manner provided by that section.
"Statutory declaration for purpose of redemption.
".—(1) For the purposes of the redemption of tithe rentcharge the Board of Agriculture as
nd Fisheries may require the owner of the rentcharge to make a statutory declaration stating—
"(a) the nature and extent of his estate and interest in the rentcharge;
"(b) the date and short particulars of the instrument under which his estate or interest is derived;
"(c) the names and addresses of the trustees, if any, under such instrument; and
"(d) the incumbrances if any affecting the rentcharge;
and the Board may accept a declaration made under this section for the purpose of redemption."—(Lord Clinton.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CLINTON: The next Amendment standing in my name is also of a drafting nature. It deals with the lay owners of tithe who may possibly put difficulties in the way of the ascertainment of their titles. This clause makes it clear that the Board can obtain a proper declaration of title if it is required.
Amendment moved—
Insert the following new clause:
"(2) If the owner of a rentcharge fails to make a declaration as required in pursuance of this section the Board may direct the redemption money for t he rentcharge to be paid into court as in a case where the owner is only entitled thereto for a limited estate."—(Lord Clinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
LORD CLINTON: The next Amendment is a drafting one to make it possible to leave out of the Schedule the fourth subsection. It does not alter the sense of the Bill in any way.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, lines 13 and 14, leave out ("shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by this Act") and insert ("except the Second Schedule shall").—(Lord Clinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
First Schedule:
LORD CLINTON: The next is a drafting Amendment consequent on the Second Schedule, which gives power to the Board to fix the consideration money for redemption.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 22, at end insert:

48 & 49 Vict. c. 32.

The Tithe Rentcharge Recharge Redemption Act, 1885.

In section three from "Provided always" to the end of the section.

—(Lord Clinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule:
LORD CLINTON: The next is also a drafting Amendment, consequent on the Amendment which I have just moved.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 10, leave out paragraph 4.—(Lord Clinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

LICENSED STOCKBROKERS (IRELAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

PARLIAMENT (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL.
Debate upon the Motion of Viscount Chaplin—viz., to resolve that the Bill be read 2a this day three months—resumed (according to Order).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The original Motion last night was that this Bill be now read a second time. An Amendment was moved to leave out the word "now" for the purpose of substituting "this day three months." A division was claimed, and in consequence of there not being thirty Peers present the debate stood adjourned.
On Question, that the word "now" stand part, Motion agreed to, and Bill read 2a accordingly.

A FRIDAY SITTING.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I beg to move that the House do now adjourn. I am afraid it will be advisable that the House should meet on Friday, and I suggest that it should be at the usual hour. The House will meet to-morrow, of course, at the usual time.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of November 12.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certi-
86
ficates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Gas Provisional Orders

Gas and Water Provisional Orders.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.
Reported, without Amendment.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before eleven o'clock.