Sitting of 14 November 1918

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): I hope the House will be good enough to give assent to the four Motions on the Paper in my name. They refer to Private Bills which have been delayed not by any fault of the promoters, but by the action of the House itself, and I think it is only fair, therefore, that they should be given a chance of completion in another place.
Brentford Gas Bill,
Ordered, That, in the case of the Brentford Gas Bill, Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill, as amended, accordingly considered.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.
South Shields Gas Bill,
Ordered, That, in the case of the South Shields Gas Bill, Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill, as amended, accordingly considered.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.
Clyde Valley Electrical Power Order Confirmation Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Cowdenbeath Water Order Confirmation Bill,
Read a second time; and ordered to be considered To-morrow.

POLICE (METROPOLIS).
Copy presented of Report of the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis for the year 1917 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Papers laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

1. Adjournment Motions under Standing Order No. 10,—Return relative thereto [ordered 13th November; The Deputy-Chairman]; to be printed. [No. 133.]

2. Business of the House,—Return relative thereto [ordered 13th November; The Deputy-Chairman]; to be printed. [No. 134.]

3. Closure of Debate (Standing Order No. 26),—Return relative thereto [ordered 13th November; The Deputy-Chairman]; to be printed. [No. 135].

4. Private Bills and Private Business,—Return relative thereto [ordered 13th November; The Deputy-Chairman]; to be printed.

5. Public Bills,—Return relative thereto [ordered 13th November; The Deputy-Chairman]; to be printed.

6. Public Petitions,—Return relative thereto [ordered 13th November; The Deputy-Chairman]; to be printed.

7. Select Committees,—Return relative thereto [ordered 13th November; The Deputy-Chairman]; to be printed.

8. Sittings of the House,—Return relative thereto [ordered 13th November; The Deputy-Chairman].

9. Standing Committees,—Return relative thereto [ordered 13th November; The Deputy-Chairman]; to be printed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TURKEY.

    SUBJECT RACES.
    Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in considering the future of the subject races

    2849
    of Turkey and the changes of government and readjustments of territory necessary for their free development, His Majesty's Government will safeguard the interests, not only of the Armenians, Syrians, and Arabs, but of the two and a half million Greeks who are now under Turkish rule?
    The ASSISTANT-SECRETARY Of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord R. Cecil): We are most anxious to do all that is possible, in co-operation with our Allies, to safeguard the interests of all the nationalities mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

  PEACE TERMS.

    DARDANELLES.
    Major NEWMANasked the Secre- of State for Foreign Affairs whether the peace conditions with Turkey will ensure to the British Empire the effective custody of that portion of the Gallipoli Peninsula where so many of the Dardanelles Expeditionary Force lie buried?
    Lord R. CECIL: I am grateful for the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion which will be carefully borne in mind.

  IRELAND.

    SANITATION, KILLARNEY.
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will inquire into the neglect of the Killarney Board of Guardians in carrying out the sanitary laws within their district; and whether, seeing that this has been going on for years, that the public who are suffering have complained without any result on scores of occasions, and that several deaths have recently taken place, he will disband this Board and appoint some competent persons who will carry out the law with some regard for the welfare of the poor?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Shortt): On the 12th March last the Local Government Board sanctioned the loan required for the improvement of the Killorglin water supply and the tender for the execution of the necessary works was accepted by the Killarney Rural District Council on the 27th July. A permit, however, had to be obtained by the contractors to obtain the necessary materials, and the Board urged
    2850
    the Ministry of Munitions on the 7th September to give the permit. Some further information, however, was required by the Ministry, which has since been furnished, the Board understand, by the Rural District Council, and doubtless the permit will be issued without delay. With regard to the latter part of the question the Board have no power under existing laws to dissolve a Rural District Council.

    WATER SUPPLY, CULLENSTOWN.
    Mr. FFRENCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has received a petition from the ratepayers of the village of Cullenstown, South Wexford, asking for the erection of a public pump whether he is aware that the doctor for the district states that their present supply of water is highly dangerous for human use and to the public health generally; that the doctor has made several reports on this matter urging the necessity for a supply of pure water; and if he can say if the local authority is prepared to erect a public pump?
    Mr. SHORTT: The answer to the first, second, and third parts of the question is in the affirmative. I am informed that at the last meeting of the rural district council the matter was referred to the local councillors and the clerk of works for consideration and report.

    ARREST (DR. KATHLEEN LYNN).
    Mr. KINGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has ordered the arrest of Dr. Kathleen Lynn, a fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, in Dublin; whether she was arrested while attending to influenza patients; and whether the Lord Mayor of Dublin has obtained her unconditional release?
    Mr. SHORTT: I signed an Order under Regulation 14B of the Defence of the Realm Regulations on the 17th May last directing the internment of Dr. Kathleen Lynn. She evaded the observation of the police and was not arrested until the morning of the 31st October. Representations were made by the Lord Mayor of Dublin and Sir Charles A. Cameron, executive health officer for Dublin, that Dr. Lynn was engaged on her professional work in connection with the influenza epidemic, and both suggested that she should be allowed to continue at her medical work in Dublin, subject to an undertaking to abstain from political work. Dr. Lynn signed an undertaking

    2851
    to take no part in politics, directly or indirectly, if released from custody, and not to leave the Dublin Metropolitan Police area. I thereupon signed an Order that she should be released from custody. It is not correct to say that the Lord Mayor of Dublin obtained her unconditional release.
    Mr. KING: Are we to understand that it is not merely conditional on the influenza epidemic, but as long as she continues her practice and observes this condition, she will be free?
    Mr. SHORTT: That would no doubt be so, so long as she keeps the condition.

    RAID (SINN FEIN OFFICES, BELFAST).
    Mr. KINGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Sinn Fein party's offices in Belfast have been raided and the preparations for an election rendered futile by the seizure of canvass books and other matter; whether this is preliminary to the prevention of all electioneering by Sinn Fein candidates; and whether the same policy is to be carried out equally towards all parties?
    Mr. SHORTT: The offices of the local Sinn Fein executive, 25, Mill Street, Belfast, were, in accordance with Government instructions, closed on the 7th instant, on an Order issued under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. They had been used as a centre for the distribution of seditious literature unconnected with electioneering purposes. Amongst a quantity of seditious literature seized some were documents which might be deemed to refer to the anticipated election. These have been returned.
    Mr. KING: Is it not a fact that any literature may be used in an election, and any sort of paper and material in any sort of office may conceivably be regarded as election literature? Where does the right hon. Gentleman draw the line?
    Mr. SHORTT: I am sure the hon. Member would not wish anyone to think his friends use seditious literature.

    PLOT-HOLDERS (SECURITY OF TENURE).
    Mr. FIELDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state what arrangements have been or are being made to give security of tenure to Irish plot-holders similar to those granted for allotments in Great Britain; whether the money now paid to British holders will be
    2852
    given to Irish plot-holders; and whether, in view of the urgency of continuing food production, he will expedite legislation?
    Mr. SHORTT: The whole subject of plot-holders is under consideration, but I am not yet in a position to make any statement. With regard to the latter part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to his previous questions on the subject.
    Mr. FIELD: Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman will give at least the same security for continuation of food production in Ireland as is given to the allotment-holders in Great Britain?
    Mr. SHORTT: I am afraid I can add nothing to what I have said. The position in Ireland so far as the plot-holder himself is concerned is the same as in England.

    EVICTED TENANTS.
    Mr. DORISasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether the Estates Commissioners or the Congested Districts Board have yet decided upon providing a holding of land for John Costello, who was evicted by Martin Walsh from his holding at Gurthagustalla, parish of Mayo, county Mayo; whether he is aware that in 1916 the Estates Commissioners decided that John Costello was entitled to a holding under the Evicted Tenants Act and that, having no untenanted land in the county for the purpose, they requested the Congested Districts Board to deal with the case; and that the Congested Districts Board in reply stated that it was not their duty, but that of the Estates Commissioners to provide the necessary land; and whether this evicted tenant is to be deprived of his statutory rights because of a disagreement between the two Departments as to their respective duties and obligations under the Act?
    Mr. SHORTT: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his previous question on the subject on the 2nd August, 1917, and to which I have nothing to add.

    SCHOOL TEACHERS (PENSIONS).
    Mr. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in view of the provision now being made to improve the pensions of English elementary teachers, he will make the necessary arrangements to secure an equivalent Grant for the same purpose for Irish national teachers; if so, what will be the amount of that Grant; and will he see that the improvement in

    2853
    the pensions of the Irish national teachers will operate from the same date as the improvement of the pensions of the English teachers?
    Mr. SHORTT: The Commissioners of National Education are not in a position to state what Grant would be necessary to provide pensions for Irish National School Teachers similar to those intended for the teachers of English elementary schools. The question of suitable rates of pensions for Irish national teachers is one which has been referred to the Committee on primary education recently appointed by the Lord-Lieutenant, and I would ask the hon. Member to await the Report of the Committee.

    IRISH CONVENTION.
    Mr. CLANCYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether he is now able to announce the names of the eight members of the Irish Convention who objected to the publication of certain documents relating to the proceedings of the Convention; whether those eight members still maintain their objections; and, if so, what their objections are?
    Mr. SHORTT: As I promised, I have consulted the gentlemen referred to. As some of them still demur to the publication of their names I regret that I cannot accede to the request of the hon. Member.
    Mr. DILLON: May I make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, whether he will not now decide to publish all the particulars about the Convention, in view of the fact that there are only eight out of ninety men who object to publication?
    Mr. SHORTT: The matter is under consideration, but I think it is still undesirable.
    Mr. FIELD: Are we to take it that the policy of the Irish Government is to be ruled by the minority instead of the majority?
    Mr. KEATING: From whose point of view is it undesirable? Is it not better to have the point of view of a large majority than of eight out of ninety?
    Mr. SHORTT: From the point of view of the Convention.
    Mr. KING: Will the minority rule always in Ireland?

    TOWN HALL, MALLOW.
    Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the Town Hall at Mallow, county
    2854
    Cork, has for some time past been in possession of the republican candidate for Parliament and his supporters, with a flag flying which has in other parts of Ireland been forbidden by the competent military authority; and will he say why a building maintained at the public expense and by the ratepayers, who are opposed to the establishment of an Irish republic, is allowed to be so utilised?
    Mr. SHORTT: The town hall at Mallow is a house leased by the Mallow Urban Council from the town landlord. The Urban Council have rooms in it rented by the county surveyor, the Income Tax collector, and other persons. One room is rented to members of the Sinn Fein Club, which room is now the headquarters of the Sinn Fein electioneering party for the Parliamentary Division of North-East Cork. A Sinn Fein party flag is hung out each day, but this flag has not inscribed on it any letters, seditious or otherwise, but is merely a flag of three colours—green, white, and yellow.
    Major NEWMAN: Is it legal for candidates to have the use of a public place like this?
    Mr. SHORTT: Apparently the council has power to let the rooms if it wishes.

    FLAX.
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what steps are being taken to establish mills in the South of Ireland to deal with the flax grown this year; whether he is aware that the carriage alone to Belfast would be £12,000, which sum would nearly pay interest on double the capital required; and whether, as the industry offers such promise, he will see that the necessary assistance is given?
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a Grant of £1,280,000 has been made to the English Board of Agriculture to encourage the growth of flax in England, and a guarantee of £600,000 to flax spinners in Belfast; whether he is aware that in the South of Ireland flax has been grown in increasing quantities during the past three years, and would become an important industry if facilities were available for deseeding, retting, and scutching; whether he is aware that this year 4,000 tons of flax must be taken from the South to Belfast to be dealt with, meaning a cost of £12,000 for carriage alone; and whether, under all those circumstances,

    2855
    he will consider the desirability of making a substantial Grant for establishing factories in suitable centres in the South of Ireland?
    Mr. SHORTT: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to his previous questions on this subject on 31st October and to the reply to the question of the hon. Member for South Derry on 7th August last.

    MUNITION WORKERS.
    Mr. KEATINGasked the Minister of Munitions, in view of the future diminution of work in munition factories in Ireland, what steps, if any, he has taken to provide other employment for those at present engaged in Government munition factories?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I must refer my hon. Friend to the announcements which have been made on behalf of the Government in this House and in the Press on the subject. The same plans as are being made for Great Britain will be applied to Ireland.

    HOSIERY CONTRACTS.
    Mr. FIELDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether better arrangements will be made in connection with Irish hosiery contracts in Ireland to avoid the necessity of contractors having to deal with a Department in Edinburgh; and whether this work will be entrusted to a Department in Ireland where competent hosiery inspectors and finance inspectors could be employed to deal with the work expeditiously?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): Arrangements have already been made for a representative of the Department of Wool Textile Production to be stationed in Ireland for the purpose of dealing with manufacturers in Ireland of hosiery. He will proceed to Ireland shortly.

    ARMY DEPOT (DUBLIN).
    Mr. FIELDasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state when it is expected to have full control of the premises at Westland Row, Dublin, for the receiving and inspection depot; and whether the military authorities in Ireland are to have control of that Department in view of the promises to trade and Parliamentary representatives
    2856
    that the responsible officials at the Department at Westland Row would directly represent the War Office?
    Mr. FORSTER: It is hoped to have complete possession of the premises by the 1st December next, but I cannot yet give a date for the completion of the structural alterations which are necessary. With regard to the second part of the question, the depot will be directly under the control of the War Office, but the officer in charge and his staff will be under the Irish Command for purposes of discipline.
    Mr. FIELD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that experience has shown that the whole business would be better without the intervention of the Irish Command?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid as regards discipline we have to put them under the Irish Command. As regards the management, that will be under an officer responsible to the War Office.
    Mr. FIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into that point?

    WAR OFFICE CONTRACTS.
    Mr. FIELDasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether better facilities can be given to blanket and cloth manufacturing firms in Ireland which contract for supply to the War Office, and have to deal in Dublin with a representative of the Bradford Cloth Department, when the Surveyor-General's Department already exists as an Irish Department for War Office work?
    Mr FORSTER: The existing facilities place blanket and cloth manufacturers in Ireland in direct touch with the Department of Wool Textile Production, and it is not proposed to make any change in this respect.

  NEUTRAL EMBASSY MAILS.
  Sir RICHARD COOPERasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken to protect British interests in the circumstances recently brought to light in regard to the conduct of the close relative of an official in the Foreign Office, who is stated to have communicated with a highly-placed personage in Germany, through the medium of the mail bag of a neutral Embassy?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): The case to which I think the hon. Baronet refers is being dealt with under the appropriate powers, and I do not think it desirable to make any statement on it at the present moment.
  Sir R. COOPER: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that public interests will be adequately protected?
  Mr. BRACE: Quite.

  CLEVELAND ROW (RESIDENTIAL PREMISES).
  Mr. LOUGHasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is about to commandeer under the Defence of the Realm Act some valuable and high-class residential premises in Cleveland Row, St. James's, for war purposes; if so, to what use he intends to apply this property; and whether, under the existing circumstances, he will postpone taking such action?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER Of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. LOUGH: Does my right hon. Friend mean that he is not going to take over this property, or that he will reconsider the matter?
  Sir A. MOND: No; I mean what I said. I do not intend to take over the property.
  Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman be a little more civil?

  TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT.
  Sir R. COOPERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make an Order under Section 9 of the Non-Ferrous Metals Act to bring manganese and chromium and their ores under the operation of that Act, in order to obtain the power to enable him to put an end to thy control of these metals by firms of enemy Association, like that of K. Ettlinger and Company?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD Of TRADE (Sir Albert Stanley): The question of a possible extension of the list of metals and their ores included within the scope of the Non-Ferrous Metal Industry Act is under consideration.
  Sir R. COOPERasked the President of the Board of Trade if Mr. Ernest Moon's
  2858
  Committee reported to him on 16th April of this year that the business of K. Ettlinger and Company is a case of enemy association, that it did not fall within Section 1 of the Trading With the Enemy Act, 1916, and that in the opinion of the Committee further legislation was desirable to enable the Government to deal with it; and will he say why he has not taken steps to obtain the necessary powers to enable him to remove this and similar instances of enemy control during the War?
  Sir A. STANLEY: The Advisory Committee under the Trading With the Enemy Acts reported to the effect stated in the hon. Baronet's question, but I did not feel prepared to introduce legislation which would bring many firms of undoubted British character within the scope of the winding-up provisions of emergency legislation.
  Sir R. COOPER: Is it not the fact that the firm, which has been found by a Government Committee to be of enemy association, has been allowed to continue to trade during the War against British interests?
  Sir A. STANLEY: I do not think I can usefully add to what I have already said, that this case was gone into very carefully by the Board of Trade, which took advice from various quarters. The conclusions we came to, I think, were right and they are embodied in my reply.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the case of this firm could be dealt with if English legislation were similar to the Indian legislation of this country; and will he assimilate the English legislation to the Indian?
  Sir A. STANLEY: I am afraid I am not versed in Indian legislation and I could not give a satisfactory reply.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: Is there any reason why, this firm having been in substance recommended to be wound up by Mr. Moon's Committee, which found a technical difficulty, effective steps should not be taken to enable it to be wound up?
  Sir A. STANLEY: I think the hon. Baronet must accept that there are reasons why we did not take the step suggested by the Moon Committee.
  Sir R. COOPERasked the President of the Board of Trade if an investigation was made by an accountant appointed by the Board of Trade into the affairs of

  2859
  Messrs K. Ettlinger and Company; if the investigation extended to the relationships existing between K. Ettlinger and Company and the Carlton Iron Company, Limited; and will he lay the accountant's report upon the Table?
  Sir A. STANLEY: The answer to the first and second part of the question is in the affirmative. Reports of inspectors appointed by the Board of Trade under the Trading With the Enemy Act are invariably treated as confidential documents, and I do not therefore propose to lay this report upon the Table.
  Sir R. COOPER: Is it not desirable in the public interest that where the right hon. Gentleman finds it necessary to take action in direct opposition to a Government Committee he should give the public some fair reason why he has had to go in opposition to it?
  Sir A. STANLEY: I am quite prepared to give the hon. Baronet the reasons why we were not prepared to carry out their recommendation.

  BRITISH FOREIGN TRADE (CINEMATOGRAPHY).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the. Department of Overseas Trade has developed any plans, or is it contemplating the development of plans, in order to utilise the medium of cinematography to assist British foreign trade; and whether the cinematograph department of the Ministry of Information could be used for this purpose?
  Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND (Department of Overseas Trade): The question has been carefully considered by the Department in consultation with its Advisory Committee, which is composed of representatives of industrial, commercial, and financial interests. The Department is prepared to give to British firms who desire to engage in cinematograph advertisement abroad of their industries any assistance that it can, through the medium of its officers overseas, in obtaining facilities for the display of films.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    MILK.
    Mr. CLANCYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in view of the
    2860
    difficulty and, in some cases, the impossibility of obtaining milk in many villages and small towns, he intends to take any action before the close of the Session enabling rural district councils to provide land for milch cows in their respective areas?
    Mr. SHORTT: I am obliged to the hon. Member for calling my attention to the matter, which is now under consideration.

    FEEDING-STUFFS.
    Mr. WRIGHT (by Private Notice)asked the Shipping Controller whether any, and what, tonnage has during the last few days been diverted for the importation of maize from the Argentine, and/or cotton seed from Egypt for the purpose of increasing our supply of concentrated feeding-stuffs for cattle?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): As soon as the Armistice was signed, the necessary diversions were made to increase our importations of feeding-stuffs, 50,000 tons of liners have already been sent to the River Plate for the carriage of maize to the Allies, and as regards cotton seed, the Ministry of Food's requirements are being well met.

  MOTOR CAB TYRES.
  Sir ALFRED YEOasked the Home Secretary who is the official, and what his rank is, and what are the qualifications and experiences of the official, who finally decides the type of tyres to be used on motor cabs in the Metropolitan police area; and whether he will consider the desirability of referring the matter to a committee of five experts nominated by the Royal Automobile Club?
  Mr. BRACE: The responsibility for any such decision rests with the Commissioner of Police; but the only Regulation now in force as to the types of tyres for motor-cabs is the Regulation requiring every motor-cab to have on one front and one rear wheel an approved means of preventing or limiting side-slip. The Commissioner could not properly delegate his responsibility to a committee nominated by a private body, but, if any technical matter should arise which requires reference to a committee of experts, he would be glad to invite the assistance of the Royal Automobile Club.

  MOTOR LICENCES (LONDON).
  Sir A. YEOasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that, owing to the Military Service Act, 1916, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has refused to grant a renewal of the licence of Thomas Arthur Read, motor-cab owner-driver, badge No. 1189, of 137, St. Elmo Road, Shepherd's Bush, although he has been licensed to drive a motor-cab and an omnibus for the past twenty years, has passed the Scotland Yard driving examination on nine different types of motor-cabs, two of which have been in the dark, has not had an accident above the value of £10, has not caused any injury to the life or limb of anyone, and has an excellent certificate of examination by Sir Anderson Crichett, F.R.C.S.E.; and whether, taking all these facts into consideration, he will immediately order a renewal of Read's licence?
  Mr. BRACE: The driver in question has lost the sight of one eye, as is stated in the medical certificate referred to in the question. The Commissioner of Police informs me that in refusing the licence he has acted on the recommendation contained in the Report of the Committee on the Licensing of Partially Disabled Men as Drivers, that a licence should not be granted to a man who has only one eye. As I stated in a reply to the right hon. Member for Deptford on the 12th instant, it is proposed to reconstitute this Committee in order that the subject of the employment of injured men as drivers may be further considered; and this case along with other similar cases will then come again under review.
  Sir A. YEOasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that the Commissioner of Police has refused to grant a renewal of driving licence to Herman Stern, badge 9588, motor-cab owner-driver; and whether, in view of the fact that Stern drove a motor-cab for a number of years before joining the Army, was in France for nearly two years in the Royal Fusiliers, was in several engagements, was badly gassed, and eventually discharged, he will order an immediate renewal of Stern's licence?
  Mr. BRACE: Stern was licensed in July, 1914, to drive a motor-cab. He enlisted in the Army in December, 1915, and was discharged in. September, 1917, as "subject to epileptic fits," and his application for renewal of licence had to be refused on medical grounds. As Licensing Authority the Commissioner
  2862
  would fail in carrying out his statutory duty if he licensed an epileptic to drive a motor-cab.
  Sir A. YEO: Is it the fact that this man is fully incapacitated from resuming his work because of epileptic fits?
  Mr. BRACE: I cannot give any other answer than this, which has been supplied to me by the Chief Commissioner of Police; who speaks with full authority.

  IRISH CHANNEL STEAMSHIP SERVICE.
  Colonel Sir NORTON GRIFFITHSasked the Chief Secretary if, in view of the great inconvenience caused to travellers between this country and Ireland by the recent changes in the sailings, he will take the necessary steps for the normal service to be resumed?
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: I have been asked to reply to this question. I am informed that the recent changes in the times of sailings of the Kingstown-Holy-head Mail boats were made by the owners themselves, with the concurrence of the General Post Office. The Shipping Controller, and I understand the Admiralty also, have no objection to the resumption of the normal sailings if the other parties concerned consider it desirable.
  Mr. FIELD: When will the normal course of things be restored? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at present passengers are detained at half-past five in the morning, when no other travelling facilities are available?
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: As I tried to explain, this is not a matter for the Ministry of Shipping, but for the owners themselves, with the concurrence of the Postmaster-General.
  Mr. FIELD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we have been referred to the Shipping Department to have the matter settled?
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: This is not a matter for the Ministry of Shipping. An alteration will, I understand, be made as soon as possible.
  Sir NORTON GRIFFITHS: Will the hon. Gentleman make representations in the proper quarters, with a view to improving existing conditions?
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: Certainly.

  COAL CONSERVATION AND ELECTRIC POWER (DEPOTS).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the opinion held by borough councils and others to the effect that the recommendations of the Reports of the Coal Conservation Sub-committee to the Ministry of Reconstruction and the Electric Power Committee to the Board of Trade should be translated into effective legislation by Parliament at the earliest possible moment; and, seeing that it is of the utmost importance that the Government should provide industry with the means indicated in those Reports of absorbing the labour which will be available on demobilisation with the least possible dislocation and delay, will he take steps to carry out these recommendations?
  Sir A. STANLEY: I am aware of the opinions held, and can assure the hon. Member that I fully realise the importance of the matter, and hope to be able to place before Parliament proposals for legislation with the least possible delay.

  GENERAL ELECTION.

    PETROL FOR CANDIDATES AND AGENTS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether the petrol licences to candidates for Parliament can be issued in respect of hired cars or only for privately owned ones?
    Sir A. STANLEY: The Petrol Control Department will not require any information as to the ownership of the cars which will be used by candidates and their agents, and no distinction will, therefore, be made between hired and privately owned cars.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman now see his way to increase the allowance of petrol?
    Sir A. STANLEY: Yes, Sir; it has been decided to make some increase in the allowance of petrol both for candidates and their agents. The allowance will be increased by 10 gallons in each instance. That will increase the amount from 20 to 30 gallons, according to the size of the constituency.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a larger increase for those who have very large county constituencies?
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman's reply to mean that voters may be brought to the poll in hired cars?
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many motor cars may be used at an election—one for the candidate, one for the agent, and one for anybody else?
    Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of giving a larger supply of petrol to those members who represent very large constituencies?
    Sir A. STANLEY: This question of the allowance of petrol for use during the General Election was very carefully considered by representatives of all Departments, and the matter was under discussion for several weeks. The decision was the result of a carefully prepared plan, I have gone into the matter since, and although I do not pretend to be a proper authority to determine what can be done, I feel that the decision come to by those competent to advise the Government was under the circumstances the best to be done.
    Colonel LOWTHERrose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Further questions had better be put on the Paper.

    IRISH WORKMEN.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister if he will say what arrangements will be made to enable Irish workmen engaged on work of national importance in Great Britain to vote in the coming election; if he is aware that, at the outbreak of war, many Irish workmen were sent to Great Britain by trade unions and Labour Exchanges; and if he will see that arrangements are made to enable them to vote?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. S. Walsh): I have been asked to reply to this question. Any elector who by reason of the nature of his occupation, service, or employment might be debarred from voting at a poll at a Parliamentary election was entitled to claim to be placed on the absent voters' list, so that he might vote by post. If an Irish workman was resident in England during the qualifying period and has been registered for an English constituency he can vote as an elector for that constituency.

    ABSENT VOTERS.
    Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether the soldiers who will have returned to this country before the polling day at the forthcoming General Election will be entitled to vote as absent voters, whether actually at their own homes on such polling day or in some other part of the United Kingdom; and, it not, what arrangements will be made by the Government to meet the new situation created by the termination of hostilities?
    Mr. S. WALSH: Any person on the absent voters' list is entitled to vote by post, if he is not a proxy voter, and arrangements have been made by which soldiers who may be in this country or detached from their units can themselves notify to the Registration Officer the addresses to which they desire their ballot papers forwarded.

    MILITARY VOTERS IN UNIFORM.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board whether he will instruct returning officers to issue ballot papers to military voters in uniform who present themselves at polling places where such voters' names are not entered on the absent voters' list or the supplements thereto?
    Mr. WALSH: Undischarged soldiers who are registered and have not before the poll been placed on the absent voters' list for their constituency will be able to vote at the appropriate polling place in the same way as civilian voters if they are able to attend the polling place on the day of poll.

  COAL SUPPLIES (LEEDS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY).
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Coal Controller has received representations from the Leeds Industrial Co-operative Society with regard to the nature of the method adopted to fix supplies of coal; and whether he has been able to modify the method to meet the need of the large number of small consumers who are intimately concerned?
  Sir A. STANLEY: Representations have been received from this society objecting to their supplies being based on those of a previous year, but it is difficult in allocating the supplies of the country as a whole to adopt any other system.

  RAILWAY SERVANTS (SUPERANNUATION ALLOWANCES).
  Mr. E. HARVEYasked whether any steps are being taken to provide for the increase of superannuation allowances to retired railway servants to meet the increased cost of living?
  Sir A. STANLEY: I am afraid that I cannot add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for the Tottenham Division of Middlesex on this subject on the 31st October, of which I am sending the hon. Gentleman a copy.

  IMMINGHAM DOCK CASE.
  Captain DOUGLAS HALLasked the Attorney-General whether he has yet completed his investigations as to the desirability of taking further proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act against certain directors concerned in the Immingham Dock case?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Gordon He wart): My right hon. and learned Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The further inquiries have been completed, and alter an exhaustive investigation by the Director of Public Prosecutions and by counsel, proof was not forthcoming upon which to prefer any criminal charge against any director or official of the company.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    CADETS (TRAINING AND PAY).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry what arrangements are made for cadets between their stay at Hampstead in the reception battalion and their transfer to a school or between their school and squadron; and what allowance or pay is given them?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE to the AIR MINISTRY (Major Baird): Cadets ordinarily proceed direct from the distribution depot at Hampstead to the cadet brigade or school to which they are posted. If granted leave from the depot they are given on application an advance of pay at 1s. 6d. per diem, plus ration allowance at the rate of 2s. 1d. per diem.
    Cadets passing from the school at Uxbridge to a training squadron are usually

    2867
    given a week's leave in respect of which an advance of seven days' pay and ration allowance is made as well as a return railway warrant. Cadets from the Dominions are given an additional advance in view of the fact that most of them have no homes in England.

    CHEVRONS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary to the Air Ministry whether he is aware that the present uncertainty with regard to the wearing of chevrons in the Air Service is causing disquiet to thousands of officers and men who are now entitled to wear them owing to their previous service at the front in the Army or the Navy; and whether he can give an assurance that the Air Council will publish their scheme allowing chevrons to be worn before the Dissolulion of Parliament?
    Major BAIRD: The Air Council are aware that feeling exists in the Royal Air Force on this subject. Remedial action is being taken, and an announcement will be made as early as possible.

    MEDICAL ADMINISTRATION.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary to the Air Ministry whether he is aware that at the last meeting of the Medical Administrative Committee they unanimously re-affirmed their view that the new medical administrator should be willing to accept the principles laid down in the Medical Advisory Committee's Report, on the ground that unless this step were taken all the work of such committee might be undone to the detriment of the Air Service; and whether the new administrator is prepared to accept such resolution?
    Major BAIRD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The offer of appointment was made to Colonel Fell on the recommendation of the Medical Administrative Committee which had not ascertained whether he concurred in the report of the Medical Advisory Committee. As, however, I stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Gloucester on the 4th instant, one of the conditions of the offer made to Colonel Fell is that he should be guided by the principles laid down by the Watson-Cheyne Committee subject to certain amendments as regards principles of administration.

  IRISH MAIL SERVICE.
  Mr. CLANCYasked the Postmaster-General whether on the 8th instant a letter was addressed to the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company by the Post Office authorities directing that the mail packet should not leave Kingstown till a certain hour in the afternoon, whether the mails and passengers were on board or not, though the contract with the company provides that the boats shall, under heavy penalties for non-compliance, start on their voyage immediately that the mails are put on board; whether since the 28th October the mails, passengers, and luggage have been on board twenty minutes before the time fixed for starting; whether, in view of the fact that the quarter of an hour or twenty minutes thus lost every day might be saved but for the letter referred to, he has authorised that letter; and will he now direct the order it contains to be withdrawn, and so shorten the journey from Dublin to London?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): The City of Dublin Steam Packet Company themselves suggested 2.30 p.m. as the time of departure from Kingstown, and when it appeared that they were sometimes starting earlier they were told they should observe the time fixed. The time of arrival at Holyhead was fixed at 5.47 p.m., and the company were not willing to fix an earlier time. The timing of the train from Holyhead to Euston must depend on the fixed time of arrival of the boat, not on such an earlier time as the packet company are able on occasion to achieve. I hope, however, that daylight sailing and the difficulties which have arisen out of it will soon cease.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT.
  Mr. TREVELYANasked the Prime Minister whether, now that the Armistice has been signed, all restrictions on liberty of speech and the Press will be at once removed; all the regulations with such tendency made under the Defence of the Realm Act rescinded; all British subjects imprisoned without trial released; and all penalties for offences connected with political speech or writing remitted?
  The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I can add nothing to the answer which I gave yesterday to a Private Notice Question by the hon. Member for East Mayo.

  DEATH PENALTY (BRITISH ARMY).
  Mr. TREVELYANasked the Prime Minister whether, now that the Armistice has been signed, the death penalty will be abolished in the British Army?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The answer is in the negative.

  WAR AIMS COMMITTEE.
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement as to the restrictions or changes, as a result of the Armistice, which have been, or will be, effected in the activities of the War Aims Committee; and whether he will assure the House that the War Aims Committee will not be used in the electioneering campaign of the General Election?
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether money is to be provided for the activities of the War Aims Committee and the Propaganda Department during the General Election; and whether he will state what is now the position of their agents and speakers?
  Colonel SANDERS (Treasurer of the Household): The following letter was sent to all War Aims Committees on the 4th instant:
  "The committee have decided that in the event of a General Election taking place, they will be compelled to suspend all war aims work for the time being.… Directly an official announcement is made, all engagements entered into will be automatically cancelled."
  It has also been decided to suspend all meetings and publications during the period of the Armistice, with these exceptions, for which arrangements had been made: The illustrated supplements circulated by a number of provincial newspapers will be continued for two weeks. There will also be another issue of "Reality." All arrangements having already been made for a number of trades unionist members to visit the Western Front, these will be carried out.
  Mr. KING: May we be assured that not only the publication of leaflets but their issue to the public will be stopped, so that they will not be used for electioneering purposes by party candidates?
  Colonel SANDERS: Yes, certainly; they are being told to close the whole thing down.

  VENEREAL DISEASE.
  The following question stood on the Paper in the name of Colonel LOWTHER:
  51. To ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that several thousand women were found at Lille in a state bordering upon putrefaction from the ravages of venereal disease; whether these women had been forced into concubinage, one woman being allotted to every five German soldiers; and, if so, what steps the Government are taking to bring those responsible for these atrocities to justice?
  Colonel LOWTHER: I should like, Mr. Speaker, to apologise for having to put down such an unpleasant question. It is not my desire to enlist fictitious sympathy—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member should put his question, and not make a statement by way of preamble.
  Colonel LOWTHER: Then I will ask the question.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: When Lille was liberated by the British troops, between 1,000 and 2,000 prostitute women suffering from venereal disease were found there, owing to the Germans having concentrated in Lille all the women from venereal hospitals in the area. There is no evidence that any of these women were forced by the enemy into adopting the profession of prostitution, nor is there any evidence as to any system of concubinage or allotment to German soldiers.
  Colonel LOWTHER: If I produce the officer who can give chapter and verse for this, will the right hon. Gentleman see that investigations are made?
  Mr. MACPHERSON:I will certainly see this officer personally.

  MEMORIAL TO FALLEN SOLDIERS.
  Sir H. CRAIKasked whether, if it is decided to have a memorial in Hyde Park to those who have fallen in the War, this will be carried out solely at the public expense and by public authority, without any private action or private expenditure being permitted in connection therewith?
  Sir A. MOND: No proposal for a permanent memorial in Hyde Park to those who have fallen in the War has yet been submitted to me. Any such scheme could

  2871
  only be carried out at the public expense and with the approval of Parliament subject to the gracious permission of His Majesty the King, the Ranger of the Royal Parts.

  LONDON POLICE.
  Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Prime Minister what promises he made at the conference held with representatives of the London Police on the 31st August as regards recognition and their right to join the National Union of Police and Prison Officers?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: At the conference between the Prime Minister and representatives of the London Police Force on the 3lst August, the Prime Minister stated emphatically that the Government would on no account recognise the National Union of Police and Prison Officers, but that he would be prepared to recommend the Home Office to set up machinery through which members of the police force could make representations to the proper authorities regarding any grievances as to their conditions of service.
  Mr. NUGENT: Does the same rule apply to the Dublin Metropolitan police?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think that that question had better be addressed to the Chief Secretary.

  TRADE UNIONS (GOVERNMENT PLEDGES). INDUSTRIAL PEACR.
  Mr. ROWNTREEasked the Prime Minister if he will say when he intends to introduce the War Pledges Bill; whether he is aware that a spirit of suspicion and unrest is growing up amongst trades unionists and others at the delay in giving legislative effect to the pledges made by the Government at the commencement of the War; whether he is aware that until this Bill is passed it will be impracticable for organised labour to enter into effective negotiations with the Government and other employers regarding readjustments that may be desirable owing to experience gained during the War; and, in view of the fact that several weeks must elapse before a new Parliament is able to deal with this matter, whether he will reconsider the question of carrying the Bill through both Houses before the Dissolution?
  Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked whether the Government, in the interests of industrial peace, will immediately introduce a Bill to fulfil its pledges to the trades unionists?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave in reply to a supplementary question by my Noble Friend the Member for South Nottingham on the 12th of November, except to repeat that the Government are at present in consultation with the representatives of the organisations concerned.
  Mr. ROWNTREE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that an essential element of industrial reconstruction will be hung up unless this Bill is passed, and that rearrangements cannot be made by the trade unionists until they have got the pledges given to them ratified by law?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government are quite aware of the importance of the question and the necessity of coming to a decision about it. I hope that my hon. Friend will regard it as a wise course to have the matter investigated by those who are interested, and that he will agree that no harm is likely to arise from that course.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. BYRNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has yet decided to appoint a Committee to consider the advisability of increasing the weekly payments to old age pensioners?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. BYRNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the urgency and importance of this matter, and that any proposal which he would make in the direction indicated in the question would have the whole-hearted support of the House?

  TRAVELLING POST OFFICES.
  Mr. NUGENTasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the delay in acceding to the memorial from the men employed on travelling post offices, who have been so severely hit by the War, and the small amount now given to them—the increase is on the basis of a 10 per cent. addition for the duration of the War, about 4d. or 6d. a day—he will arrange to

  2873
  have the Grant made retrospective at least from the date on which the memorial was lodged?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I regret that I cannot undertake to apply this concession retrospectively.
  Mr. NUGENT: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it fair, after keeping these men waiting for eight months, to give them no compensation?

  WOUNDED SOLDIERS (EMPLOYMENT).
  Mr. BROOKESasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that some firms are dismissing soldiers whom they are employing on discovery that they have been wounded in the War; and whether it is possible for him to make representations if specific cases are brought to his notice?
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. G. Roberts): I was not aware that any firms had dismissed soldiers in the circumstances referred to. My hon. Friend, however, has brought a specific case to my notice, which is being investigated. In connection with each Employment Exchange a Committee, consisting of equal numbers of employers and employed, has been appointed, to whom such cases will be submitted for inquiry. Further arrangements are under consideration.
  Sir A. YEO: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that in the ranks of employers there is great uncertainty as to what their liabilities will be with regard to many of these men coming back from the front wounded in reference to the matter of employment?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I am holding a conference this afternoon in respect of that same question.

  LORD ROBERTS' MEMORIAL WORKSHOPS (MACHINERY).
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked why the request of the Nottingham Committee of Lord Roberts' Memorial Workshops for permission to order the necessary machinery has not been granted?
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Sanction was granted for the supply of machine tools which, in the opinion of the Minister, were
  2874
  suitable for the purpose for which they were required. The Nottingham Committee wished to secure new machine tools but, in view of the urgent demand for new tools for direct munitions work, the Department did not feel justified in releasing new machines. The committee were at first unwilling to accept the second-hand machinery offered, although in good condition. Twenty-one machines submitted out of the twenty-five required have, however, now been accepted.

  HOLZAPFEL, LIMITED.
  Mr. GWYNNEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his Department have place orders with the International Paint and Compositions Company, Limited, formerly known as Holzapfel, Limited, and their subsidiary companies, the Sunlight Enamel and Paint Company, Limited, and the British Aeroplane Varnish Company, Limited; whether the firm Holzapfel, Limited, was struck off the Admiralty list; whether it has now been restored under the name of the International Paint and Compositions Company, Limited, together with its subsidiary companies; whether these companies are managed by Mr. Bertie Ward, formerly Mr. Bertie Holzapfel, and Mr. Theodore Ward, formerly Mr. Theodore Holzapfel; whether much of the detail work is done by a naturalised German named Mempel; and if there are other firms more British in origin who are equally capable of carrying out contracts for the Government?
  The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Pretyman): The firm of Holzapfel, Limited—now the International Paint and Compositions Company, Limited—was suspended from the Admiralty list pending inquiries, and their name has not yet been restored. The Admiralty has been informed that all the directors of the company are natural-born British subjects, and it is understood that Mr. Maempel has severed his connection with the firm. As regards the last part of my hon. Friend's question, it has been ascertained from the Board of Trade that the management, staff and shareholding of the International Paint and Compositions Company, Limited, are almost entirely British. The firms mentioned as subsidiary companies do not appear to be known to the Admiralty.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    RECRUITING (SUSPENSION).
    Mr. KINGasked the Minister of National Service what restrictions in recruiting, and what relief from the conditions of national service, are already effected, or may immediately be expected, as a result of the cessation of hostilities?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): While recruiting under the Military Service Acts has been suspended, those Acts remain in force in case necessity should arise for bringing them again into operation A man, therefore, who holds a conditional exemption and who ceases to fulfil the conditions on which the certificate was granted would be liable to be called up for service in the event of a resumption of recruiting under the Military Service Acts, subject to the right (under new Regulations for tribunals about to be made) of applying for renewal of exemption within seven days of the issue to him of a calling-up notice or the issue of a public notice of the resumption of recruiting under the Military Service Acts. The same considerations apply to voluntarily attested men who have been granted conditional exemption by a tribunal.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that men who no longer observe the conditions of their exemption will not be subject to any interference?
    Mr. BECK: Recruiting is suspended, but I think that the hon. Gentleman had better read my answer which will be published broadcast.
    Mr. KING: Will these new conditions be issued quite shortly?
    Mr. BECK: I hope, immediately.
    Mr. KILEY: Is it understood that a person whose exemption has expired need not make application for renewal until public notice has been issued?
    Mr. BECK: Certainly.

    MARRIED MEN OVER FORTY-TWO.
    Mr. WATTasked the Minister of National Service whether he proposes to relax any of the decisions of tribunals arrived at, say, within thirty days of the signing of the Armistice with Germany, whereby men of forty-two and upwards with wives and families and businesses are
    2876
    called up now or at a future date; and are these men to be allowed to remain at their work?
    Mr. BECK: Instructions were issued on the 11th instant suspending all recruiting under the Military Service Acts, and cancelling all outstanding notices calling men up for medical examination or for service.
    Mr. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that men were sent to the Colours on the 11th of the month, and on the 12th, after the Armistice was signed?
    Mr. BECK: I would like to have instances of that if my hon. Friend will supply them.

    ABSENTEES.
    Sir A. YEOasked the Minister of National Service whether he is aware that Albert Seaton, of 257, High Street, Camden Town, London, N.W., the proprietor of a one-man butcher's business, having about 3,000 registered customers, whose age is thirty-six years and nine months, who is graded 2, and whose occupation, age, and grading bring him within the reservations of the Revised List of Certified Occupations, has been summoned to appear at the Bow Street Police Court as an absentee, in spite of the fact that the County of London Tribunal has recently passed a resolution that the operation of the Revised List of Certified Occupations could be regarded as a sufficient reason within the meaning of the Regulations for the rehearing of a case even if the man became liable for Army service before the list came into force, and despite the fact that the Ministry of Food is pressing for the exemption of Mr. Seaton, the rehearing of his case before the tribunal has been refused by an official of the Ministry of National Service; and whether, seeing that the executive officer of the St. Pancras Food Control Committee made a statutory declaration on the 25th October last declaring that if Albert Seaton should be called up for military service serious public inconvenience would be caused, steps will at once be taken to withdraw the proceedings referred to?
    Mr. BECK: General instructions were issued on the 11th instant cancelling all police notices concerning absentees, and discontinuing all proceedings against absentees and for recruiting offences.

    EVASION (PROSECUTIONS).
    Mr. NUGENTasked the Minister of National Service whether, in view of the

    2877
    cessation of the War, the prosecutions pending against persons for alleged evasion of military service will now be discontinued; and if those arrested or sent to prison will now be released?
    Mr. BECK: Instructions were issued on the 11th instant cancelling all police notices concerning absentees and discontinuing all proceedings against absentees and for recruiting offences. It is not possible to reopen the cases of men who, previously to those instructions, had already been convicted by the Civil Service.
    Mr. NUGENT: When will the cases of those who have already been before the Courts be considered?
    Mr. BECK: As I have already said, it is not possible to reconsider the cases of men who have already been convicted.
    Mr. NUGENT: What about the cases of those who have not been convicted, and against whom proceedings are pending?
    Mr. BECK: As I have stated, all proceedings have been suspended.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Does the answer of the right hon. Gentleman refer to cases of men handed over from the military authority to the civil authority, the Home Office?
    Mr. BECK: I had better have notice of that.

    ONE-MAN BUSINESSES.
    Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any provision is being made to grant early release to soldiers who, before mobilisation, were possessors of one-man businesses; and whether any financial help to these men is contemplated, in view of their losses incurred?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I dealt with the first part of my hon. Friend's question in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock on Tuesday last. With regard to the second part, I must refer to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hoxton on the same date.

    APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
    Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he can state to whom application should be made for the release of men from the Army for return to their civil occupations, and the principles which will govern the military authorities in granting such release?
    Mr. G. ROBERTS: I have been asked to reply to this question. The Civil Demobilisation and Resettlement Department of the Ministry of Labour will be responsible for dealing with applications for the release of men from the forces and for laying down the principles which, subject to the exigencies of the naval and military situation, will regulate the order of release. I propose to deal with both these points in a public announcement.

  RABIES (DEVON AND CORNWALL).
  Mr. CAREWasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the steps taken to overcome the outbreak of rabies in Devon and Cornwall are meeting with satisfactory results; if he will state the number of people that have been bitten and deaths that have taken place from this cause; and whether there is a sufficient quantity of muzzles available for carrying out the Muzzling Order?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Prothero): So far there has been no spread of rabies beyond the two counties in which it was originally found to exist. But the period of incubation of rabies, though usually one of days, may be one of months, and it is always possible that the disease may have been carried to another part of the country in a dog which has not yet developed it. I trust, however, that the measures which are being taken against the disease in the two counties are such as to ensure its final eradication after all the present sources of infection have been brought to light. In reply to the second part of the question, I am informed by the Local Government Board, who deal with hydrophobia, that there have been no cases of that disease and consequently no deaths. The number of persons known by that Department to have been bitten or scratched by rabid or suspected dogs is twenty-five. In reply to the last part of the question, the difficulty in obtaining muzzles, owing to the demands on wire for war purposes, handicapped the Department in the earlier stages of combating the disease. The Ministry of Munitions have since then given low priority certificates sufficient to release wire enough for about 130,000 muzzles, and allotted the wire to a certain number of makers.
  Sir A. YEO: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a good deal of

  2879
  feeling outside that qualified men are not consulted in the way they might be with a view to stamping out rabies?
  Mr. PROTHERO: I am not aware of any such feeling, and I do not believe, considering the eminence of our veterinary authorities, such an opinion is held.
  Mr. CAREW: As the Order comes in on the 15th, will the muzzles be ready for the public by that time?
  Mr. PROTHERO: I hope so.

  LONDON HOSPITAL (STAFF).
  The following question stood on the Paper in the name of Major CHAPPLE:
  94. To ask the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the service in the wards of the London Hospital included any period of service by the nurse during which she was working as a private nurse; and whether he has had any report from any matron to the effect that nurses so treated are less qualified for Army service than nurses trained in other hospitals?
  Major CHAPPLE: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, why these words have been omitted from my question, "taken from her training in the wards and sent out," and these words have been deleted also, "at 13s. 5d. to herself and £2 12s. 6d. to the London Hospital"? May I suggest to you, Sir, that the words of my question have no meaning whatever with these words deleted? What I want to know is if these nurses who are taken from their training in the wards at the end of the second year, and sent out to private nursing at 13s. 5d. to themselves and £2 12s. 6d. to the London Hospital—has any report come from any matron that nurses who get two years' training and two years' farming are as good as nurses trained in other hospitals?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must put the question on the Paper. He has repeatedly attempted to raise the points he has now put, and I have always struck them out on the ground that the War Office is not responsible for the management of the London Hospital, and is in no way answerable. The hon. Member will ask the question on the Paper.
  Major CHAPPLE: The question I ask is whether nurses trained in these circumstances are as qualified as those in other circumstances. Surely that is a proper
  2880
  thing to ask the Under-Secretary for War, who has jurisdiction over these appointments?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has no jurisdiction over the arrangements between the governors of the London Hospital and their staffs.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I can add nothing to the several replies which I have already given—nine in number—to questions on this subject by my hon. and gallant Friend.
  Major CHAPPLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that he has evaded on each of these nine occasions the question I have asked, and that either he is deceived by his Department or is deceiving the House?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I said the hon. Member on several occasions has attempted to obtain information from a Department which is not responsible in any way, and cannot give the information. He has tried to evade my ruling.

  MOTOR TRANSPORT DEPOT, CIPPENHAM.
  Mr. GRANTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, owing to the shortage of houses in the neighbourhood, at least 1,000 new cottages will be required for the permanent staff of workmen to be employed at the Cippenham mechanical transport depôt when in full working order; whether the estimated expenditure of £1,750,000 on this depôt includes any sum for the provision of workmen's dwellings apart from the temporary huts now in use; and if not, by whom and when and at what cost are these dwellings to be provided?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not aware of any shortage of houses in the neighbourhood to meet the probable requirements of the permanent staff of the dept at Cippenham. In any case, I think it should be possible for the employés to reach the works by using the Great Western Railway. The estimated expenditure includes the provision of housing for the military personnel that will be employed at the depot, but it is not proposed to provide any other dwellings.

  BRITISH CASUALTIES.
  Mr. RICHARD LAMBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that the Armistice has

  2881
  now been concluded, he will state the complete British casualties since the outbreak of war?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I have arranged to make a statement before the House rises.

  PRISONERS OF WAR.

    REPATRIATION ARRANGEMENTS.
    Mr. LOUGH (by Private Notice)asked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) whether it is expected that some 30,000 or 40,000 prisoners released under the Armistice will arrive in Holland to-day or to-morrow, and, if not, how many; what arrangements have the Government made for the repatriation, feeding, and clothing on their arrival in neutral countries and the reception in this country of the prisoners in Germany which under the terms of the Armistice are to be immediately released?
    Captain C. CRAIGasked the Home Secretary (1) whether the British prisoners of war who were interned at Philippopolis have yet been handed over to the British authorities;
    (2) Whether, in view of the great volume and the varied character of the work which the Admiral in charge has to perform in Turkish waters, he will cause an officer of high rank and with large powers to be specially appointed to superintend and carry out the arrangements for the release and repatriation of British prisoners of war in Turkish hands; and
    (3) Whether, in view of the food shortage, and the political and general disturbance in Germany after the signing of an armistice and of the indefiniteness of the word immediately employed in the clause in the Armistice dealing with the release of prisoners of war, he will take steps to ensure that all British prisoners of war, wounded and unwounded, shall be handed over to the British authorities within fourteen days from to-day?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): It is impossible to say precisely what is the number of our prisoners who have found their way into Holland in the past few days, but, according to the latest information, they probably number not more than 1,000. Sir Walter Townley, our Minister at the Hague, has appointed our Consul-General at Rotterdam, our Military Attaché at the Hague, and General Bruce, who has
    2882
    himself been a prisoner in Germany, to act as a Committee charged with the welfare of our prisoners arriving in that country and their earliest possible repatriation. Extra medical supply and transport staffs are being sent out, and besides a very large stock of emergency parcels from the Central Prisoners of War Committee, 30,000 full kits and 30,000 rations for a month will be sent immediately as a first instalment. All Red Cross workers, V.A.D.'s, and medical personnel now in Holland will be retained for the present to cope with the emergency, if required. Besides such Dutch ships as may be available, seven ships capable of carrying 9,000 persons have been ordered to Holland to bring back the prisoners, and three of them sailed yesterday. I may add that, independently of these arrangements, a small party is expected in England to-day.
    In Denmark similar arrangements are being made to those in Holland. Ten thousand kits and 10,000 rations for a month are being sent, and it is hoped to effect the repatriation of prisoners east of the Elbe by neutral ships from Baltic ports.
    For such of our prisoners as may return via Switzerland, like orders are being given. For these prisoners it is proposed to draw on the British Army in France for supplies of food, and a large supply of clothing has been placed at the disposal of General Hanbury Williams, our representative on the spot. For any prisoner who may be returned directly across the lines in France and Belgium, instructions are being sent to expedite their passage to the Channel Ports and to do everything possible for their comfort on the way. The whole question of moving the prisoners from the camps in Germany under the Armistice will be dealt with at an International Conference which opens to-morrow in Belgium, at which Major-General Sir John Adye will represent the interests of British prisoners of war.
    As to the prisoners in Austria, the Italian authorities and General Lord Cavan are being asked to make all arrangements for them, and to secure their speedy return.
    All British prisoners of war in Bulgaria, with the exception of sixteen officers and thirty other ranks, are now in our hands. All at present unaccounted for will be traced by all possible means.

    2883
    I now come to those in Turkey. For them, Admiral Calthorpe, the High Commissioner at Constantinople, has been asked to appoint a Commission of three to attend to the prisoners' wants and to secure their early repatriation. The Commission will consist of a naval and military officer and a civilian resident in Turkey. The military authorities in Egypt have been instructed to see that there is no want of food and clothing for the prisoners, the great bulk of whom will be assembled at Smyrna and sent home through Italy and France. I may say, however, that a number of prisoners have already been passed into our lines in Mesopotamia and Syria, and their wants are being met by the authorities on the spot.
    All the combatant prisoners on arrival in England will go to large reception camps, where they will receive the heartiest of welcomes, their medical wants will be attended to, and arrangements will be made for giving them leave as soon as possible. Other arrangements are being made for the reception of the civilian prisoners. I trust and believe that, in so far as time allows, nothing will be lacking to secure that the practical gratitude of the nation shall be shown to those who have done so much and suffered so grievously in the cause of right.

    SERVICES IN THE FIELD.
    Captain C. CRAIGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether seeing that the Army Council have decided that no recommendation for reward for services in the field which were per formed prior to 15th November, 1917, can now be accepted, and which shuts out practically all officers and men taken prisoners before that date from any hope of reward, he will endeavour to have this decision modified to the extent of permit ting recommendations of prisoners of war for honours to be considered although the application arrives after the date mentioned?
    Mr. HOPE: I am informed by the military authorities that the Army Council have now before them the question of considering recommendations for officers and other ranks who have been prisoners of war for services rendered prior to 15th November, 1917.

    ESCAPES FROM ENEMY CAMPS.
    Captain CRAIGasked the Under secretary of State for War whether any
    2884
    decoration or reward has been given to any officer, non-commissioned officer, or private soldier for having escaped from an enemy prison camp; and why, in view of the courage, resource and determination shown by many of these men, their successes in escaping have not been recognised in some way by the War Office?
    Mr. HOPE: I am informed by the military authorities that the answer to the first part of this question is in the negative, but that the matter is under the consideration of the Army Council.

  DEMOBILISATION.

    YOUNG MEN (EDUCATION).
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether in the order of demobilisation, due consideration will be given and, if possible, priority conceded to young men whose education was interrupted in order to enter military service, and whose only chance of resuming their interrupted education will be lost if they are not speedily released?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The question of priority in demobilisation to officers and soldiers of like standing who claim release in order to continue their education, provided that it can be proved that their education was interrupted by military service, is being considered.

    POLICE.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any steps are being taken with respect to the demobilisation of policemen serving with His Majesty's Forces?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Provision has been made in the demobilisation scheme for the early release of policemen serving with His Majesty's Forces.

  BRITISH WEST INDIA REGIMENT.
  Sir JOHN BUTCHERasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to the fact that the British West India Regiment recently took a distinguished part in the successful operations in Palestine; whether the British West India Regiment is to be regarded as an Imperial unit; whether the non-commissioned officers

  2885
  and men of this regiment are permitted to enjoy the increase of, pay granted to other Imperial units under Army Order 1, of 1918, and, if not, what is the reason for this; whether the increase of pay is granted to coloured men joining English regiments; and, if so, why there should be any differentiation against the non-commissioned officers and men of the British West India Regiment?
  Mr. FORSTER: I am, of course, aware of and fully appreciate the services rendered by the British West Indies Regiment. The non-commissioned officers and men have received the benefit of the, accelerated grant of proficiency pay and relief from hospital stoppages, but they are not eligible for the further concessions which have been made in strict accordance with the decision of the Government.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: Why are they not entitled to the benefits under Army Order No. 1? Mr. FORSTER: That Order refers to regiments with their depots in the United Kingdom.

  ARMY PAY DEPARTMENT.
  Mr. BROOKESasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether female clerks of the Army Pay Department employed in the provinces are entitled to the war bonus of 3s. 6d. granted by the Government from 1st July, 1918; and whether, if they are, he is aware that this amount has not been paid?
  Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir; that bonus relates to permanent clerks who serve on rates of pay fixed before the War. It does not apply to these women clerks, who have been engaged during the War at various rates. Authority was, however, recently given to local offices to revise within certain limits the rates of pay of temporary employés of this class.

  ARMY SERVICE CORPS (FORAGE DEPARTMENT).
  Mr. WATTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that the Forage Department of the Army Service Corps are the only men under military discipline who have never received any advance in pay since 1914;
  2886
  and will he say why this is so, and whether it is contemplated now to improve their conditions?
  Mr. FORSTER: The men referred to are certain specially enlisted soldiers paid on a civilian basis. The facts are not as stated, but the adequacy of the pay at the present time is under consideration.
  Mr. WATTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that women are working in the forage department of the Army Service Corps at 2s. 6d. per day for a nine hours' day?
  Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir. If the hon. Member will give me further particulars of his statement, I will inquire into them.

  ARMISTICE TERMS, TURKEY.
  Major NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the present state of affairs at Baku and in Transcaspia; who is in effective occupation of these territories; and has he information as to the two British expeditions which reached the Caspian some time ago but were compelled to withdraw previous to the Armistice recently concluded with Turkey?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The latest in-formation from Baku is that quiet prevails there, and normal business conditions have been resumed. The Turkish commander has issued orders for the withdrawal of all Turkish troops from the town, in accordance with the terms of the Armistice. In Transcaspia we control the railway east of Krasnovodsk, the Bolshevik forces having withdrawn east of Mery. The situation is favourable. There is nothing further to add to the statement which has already been made in the House that our troops who were sent to Baku were successfully withdrawn and rejoined our main forces.

  INTERNATIONAL PAINT AND COMPOSITIONS COMPANY, LIMITED.
  RUPERT GWYNNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the International Paint and Compositions Company, Limited, of Newcastle-on-Tyne and London, was formerly known as Holzapfel, Limited; whether the managing director is Mr. Bertie Ward,

  2887
  formerly Mr. A. G. Holzapfel, and one of the directors is Mr. Theodore Ward, formerly Mr. Theodore Holzapfel; whether these gentlemen have changed their names by deed poll; and whether he is satisfied that the firm is now thoroughly purged of any alien taint?
  Sir A. STANLEY: The answer to the first three parts of this question is in the affirmative. I am informed that all the shares held by enemies in the International Paint and Compositions Company, Limited, have been sold by the Public Trustee and that the great majority of the shares previously held by naturalised British subjects of enemy origin have been purchased from them by British-born subjects, the interest of such naturalised British subjects now being less than 6 per cent. of the capital of the company.

  WAR SERVICE (DECORATIONS).

    STATEMENT BY MR. MACPHERSON.
    Colonel LESLIE WILSON (by Private Notice)asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is in a position to make any announcement with regard to the award or decoration to officers, non-commissioned officers and men who took part in the Gallipoli operations?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I have received also a Private Notice question from my hon. Friend the Member for South Salford (Sir M. Barlow). I hope the House will pardon my giving a somewhat long answer to the questions.
    As has been already stated in the House, the settlement of this matter has been complicated, owing to the diversity of the interests involved, and has been delayed by the need for consultation with the Dominion authorities.
    I am glad to be able to say that an agreement has been reached which has received the approval of the War Cabinet and His Majesty the King, and which, I am assured, is satisfactory to those principally concerned. In the first place, the 1914 star will be reserved for its special purposes. A star on the same model and with the same riband, but bearing distinctive marks as to date, viz., the years 1914–15, will be given to all officers and other ranks of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines who prior to 31st December,
    2888
    1915, served in a ship of war at sea, and all officers and other ranks of military and air forces who served in a theatre of war prior to the same date. In every case the officer or man must have served on duty and with proper authority, and no officer or man will receive the 1914–15 star in addition to the 1914 star.
    Thus in the same way that those who first bore the brunt of the attack in France and Flanders received a special mark of recognition by the award of the 1914 star, so those from our Dominions and Colonies as well as British and Irish troops who first responded to the call of duty and served in a theatre of war will receive special recognition. The House will recollect that it has been originally proposed and sanctioned that the Governments of Australia and New Zealand should present their troops with a special medal for the operations on the Peninsula. They have now agreed to the new proposal, so that all troops, British and Indian, and those from the Dominions, who shared the same dangers and hardships shall receive the same award. The date chosen, namely, the 31st December, 1915, forms a definite break in the operations, and all concerned have accepted it on the understanding that it is final. It will interest the House to know that there will be included, in addition to all those who fought on the Gallipoli Peninsula, the Canadian troops who fought at the second battle of Ypres, the battle of Festhubert, and subsequent operations of that year in France and Flanders, all those who fought at the battle of Loos, the troops engaged in the defence of Egypt, the troops who conquered German South-West Africa under the command of General Botha, as well as all who were engaged in other parts of the African continent, the Australian Force which captured the Bismarck Archipelago, and those who fought so gallantly under General Townshend at Kut.

  IMPORTS AND EXPORTS (RESTRICTIONS).
  Mr. STEWART (by Private Notice)asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make any statement as to the possibility of relaxing at an early date some of the prohibitions imposed during the War on imports and exports?
  Sir A. STANLEY: I am glad to say that the first steps have already been taken to remove or relax a number of prohibitions

  2889
  on imports and exports that have been imposed during the War. The first list of relaxations is given in full in the current issue of the "Board of Trade Journal," and I hope to be able to issue further instalments from week to week. The aim of the Board of Trade is to remove as soon as practicable any restrictions which are no longer essential to safeguard the position, especially as regards tonnage and exchange and the conservation of supplies for essential purposes.
  Sir A. YEO: Does that include timber?
  Sir A. STANLEY: Timber is not in the present list.
  Sir A. YEO: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider that. It is rather important.

  BRITISH COMMUNITIES IN TURKEY (RELIEF).
  Mr. BLISS (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs: Considering the privations of the British communities in Constantinople and other places in Turkey, will the Government permit stores of food to be sent to these places; and will they assist in sending them without delay? Will the Government take measures to feed the starving portion of the British community in those places until supplies can be supplied normally?
  Mr. BALDWIN: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The position of the British communities in Turkey is receiving consideration in connection with the general problem of relief in all territories where it is required, and it is hoped shortly to set up a regular system for meeting the needs of the situation. In the meanwhile such emergency measures as are possible are being taken.

  DISTURBANCES (DUBLIN).
  Mr. DILLON: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can make any statement as to the disturbances which took place in Dublin last night, and what steps he has taken to protect the life and property of that city in the event of the renewal of those disturbances?
  Mr. SHORTT: I have had no notice from the hon. Member, but I have notice of a similar question from another hon. Member.
  2890
  I did not get the notice in time to make any special inquiries to-day, but, according to the latest information I had about half-past eleven last night, the disturbances were not serious, and no special steps are necessary.
  Mr. BYRNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that according to the news on the tape to-day, there was a very serious disturbance?
  Mr. SHORTT: No, Sir. I am not aware of that.

  NEUTRAL AND ENEMY COUNTRIES (REVICTUALLING).
  Sir H. CRAIK (by Private Notice)asked the Leader of the House whether any steps are being taken by the Allies to provide for revictualling of neutral and enemy countries?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: This matter has been put in the hands of the Inter-Allied Food Council, who are taking immediate steps on the subject and hope to be able to provide for the pressing necessities of the populations concerned. If, however, there should be a disturbance of public order in any country, Allied assistance would be necessarily delayed and perhaps prevented.

  TRANSPORT.
  Second Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 136.]

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

  Licensed Stockbrokers (Ireland) Bill, without Amendment.

  School Teachers (Superannuation) Bill,

  Tithe Bill, with Amendments.

  TITHE BILL.
  Lords Amendments to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 117.]
  SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
  Lords Amendments to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 118.]
  BILL PRESENTED.
  MINISTRY OF LABOUR (REQUISITIONING OF PREMISES BILL,—" to authorise the taking possession of premises required in connection with schemes of demobilisation for Employment Exchanges and other purposes of the Ministry of Labour," presented by Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS; supported by Mr. Bridgeman; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 116.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  MINISTERIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS.

    PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.
    Mr. ASQUITH: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what business he proposes to take to-night and next week?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: To-night we shall take any Orders on the Paper that we can get, except the Termination of the War Bill (Second Reading), which is not yet printed.
    To-morrow, the Committee stage of the Appropriation Bill, and further stages of other Bills.
    On Monday, the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill.
    On Tuesday, the remaining business, which I cannot specify, to enable the House, as I hope, to prorogue on Wednesday, or at the latest on Thursday.
    Mr. Bonar Law made the following further announcements:

    HIS MAJESTY'S MESSAGE TO THE EMPIRE.
    In regard to Tuesday, His Majesty the King has intimated that he would like to send a Message to the Empire by addressing both Houses of Parliament and the official representatives of the Dominions and India in this country. After consultation, it has been thought that the best method of doing this would be that an Address should be presented to His Majesty in both Houses, and the Motion giving the terms of the Address will be put on the Paper to-night. It will be moved in both Houses on Monday. The proposal is that, after this House assembles on Tuesday, it should adjourn to the Royal Gallery; but the day will not be lost, as it is not expected to take a long time. The arrangements will be mentioned on Monday.

    GENERAL ELECTION.
    4.0 P.M.
    I have also to make another announcement, which I promised to give to the House as soon as it was possible to do so. The Prime Minister proposes to recommend the King to issue on the 25th November a Proclamation summoning a new Parliament. If this be done the Nomination Day will be the 4th December and the Polling Day the 14th.
    The votes will be counted at a date subsequently to the Polling Day, but the exact date will depend on the Bill which is now before the House.
    If that Bill be not passed, the day for the Count cannot be later than Sunday, the 22nd, which would, in fact, make Saturday, the 21st, the last available day.
    If the Bill be passed without amendment, the Count could be postponed until Saturday, the 28th.

  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.]
  Resolved, That this House do sit Tomorrow.—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: A convenient opportunity is provided for the Government making some statement before the House finally disperses on the arrangements which are being completed, I understand, at the Ministry of Shipping and the Admiralty for the provision of tonnage, for demobilisation, and for the supplies of food and raw material for ourselves and Allies which are now urgently necessary. But before proceeding to ask some questions on this subject, which will, I hope, elicit a full statement from the representative of the Government, I should like to draw attention to the shipbuilding position as it has been disclosed by recent figures, and the fact that the necessity for keeping our shipbuilding up to the maximum has become no less pressing by the return of peace. Accordingly, the figures given by the Admiralty, our Mercantile Marine has gone down during the whole period of the War by a net sum of three and a half millions gross; that is to say, of the British steamships which have been lost by marine and War risks during the four and a quarter years of the War—some

  2915
  9,000,000 tons—about five and a half millions, or rather under that, have been replaced by purchase, by capture from the enemy, and by the shipbuilding yards of this country; and the big deficit of three and a half million tons provides us with as grave a problem as was ever faced by a Government or by the Government Departments which are specially charged with the duty of keeping up our supplies. We have grown so much accustomed to large figures in the loss of tonnage during the last four years that there has been a tendency to regard even this net deficit of three and a half millions as a matter of little moment. Very large numbers of people in the country are quite ignorant of the fact that there is a great difference between gross tonnage and average tonnage; and even, after all our shipbuilding discussions they do not realise that 3,500,000 loss of tonnage means, if you take an average of four voyages a year, that the carrying capacity of our Mercantile Marine will have been reduced by something like 20,000,00 dead-weight tons in the course of a single year, and will affect every commercial and social problem by which we shall be faced during the period of demobilisation.
  It is not only a question of bringing supplies to this country, such as were referred to by an hon. Member opposite at Question Time to-day, when he asked about the tonnage available for the carriage of feeding-stuffs from the Argentine, but it means that our total food supplies will be diminished; and until this tonnage shortage is made up, our raw-materials, metals, textiles, and timber, all of them urgently necessary, will fall far short of the requirements of industry and of those who will be engaged in industry. Twenty million tons deficit below the available carrying capacity of the United Kingdom merchant fleet before the War also means that there must be retained in our various essential and home trades a very large number of vessels which would in normal times be engaged on employment in foreign trade carrying between this country and foreign countries, and to an even greater extent by retaining them from trades which are between foreign countries and our own. The effect of that, not only on the interests concerned—because, after all, that is a minor matter—but on the financial strength of this country, and particularly on its
  2916
  financial position in relation to the rest of the world, naturally cannot be overlooked by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he must be as well aware as anyone in the world of the very large part played by foreign trade in stabilising our exchanges and providing us with those visible exports without which our exchanges are apt to remain at a discount. The necessity, therefore, is one not only for our industries here and for those who are employed in them, but also for the varied interests, national as well as personal and collective, which centre around the restoration of our foreign exchange.
  One reason why the deficit is so large is undoubtedly due to the fact that our shipbuilding expectations for the year 1918 have not been fulfilled. I regret there is no representative here of the Controller-General of Merchant Shipbuilding, but no doubt my hon. Friend opposite (Sir L. Chiozza Money) will be good enough to give the House some explanation of the fact that whereas in an Admiralty Memorandum of last February or March the Admiralty contemplated an output this year of 1,800,000 tons, ultimately rising to 3,000,000 tons, the actual output, as a matter of fact, has been nothing like that, and it is doubtful whether we shall exceed 1,500,000 tons for the whole year. When I asked recently the representative of the Admiralty if the Government still aimed at obtaining the higher figure, I received a not over-emphatic reply. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell the House to-day that, although the War is over and peace is being obtained, it is still the ambition of those in control of merchant shipbuilding to raise the output to the maximum figures promised by the Admiralty. We have recently been disturbed at the falling off in the output promised, because in the months that have passed it has become apparent that nothing like the improvement anticipated has been achieved. In the month of October there appeared to have been a great fall as compared with the output in the month of March when the discussions were at their height in the House of Commons. No doubt, in the month of March, there were completed a number of large vessels which had been for a long time on the stocks, and they raised the total figures, but in the month of October the total output was only 136,000 tons. I hope November is going to show a great improvement, but the

  2917
  amount for the whole year will apparently be little, if any, in excess of the 1,500,000.
  It is not my business this afternoon to allocate any blame for this failure to reach the high figures which were promised to the House when the subject was under discussion in the spring. I am certain it is not due to any defect on the part of Lord Pirrie, who has achieved what many people thought an impossible task in securing harmony between the shipbuilders of the country and himself and the Department over which he presides—a harmony well nigh perfect. There has been every effort made on their part to comply with his wishes, and he has adopted every possible means to secure the largest possible output from the first. But it is doubtful whether he has received the same amount of assistance from some other Departments; and I venture to suggest that the failure to give Lord Pirrie the amount of labour which he was promised last spring, which again and again has been mentioned in the House, is solely responsible for the big drop in the output. In the spring the Admiralty made a promise in the House of Commons that 20,000 men would be immediately released from the Colours-skilled men—to enter the shipyards. As a matter of fact, up to date, the number of men released is very little more than 15,500; and at the same time as those 15,500 men have been released the Ministry of National Service has actually been recruiting from the shipyard staff. One would scarcely have believed that to be possible if one did not know it as a matter of actual fact. I have had letter after letter from shipbuilding firms on the North-East Coast of England pointing out that at the very time they were crying for more labour men are actually being taken way from them, and only a fortnight ago I received a letter from the chairman of one of the shipbuilding yards in the North pointing out that some of his fitters had that very day been called up for service. This has been an obvious breach of the undertaking given last spring. It has made it impossible for Lord Pirrie to staff the yards which were at work and to reach the very large figures which he had undoubtedly anticipated when he took the work on.
  But that is not the whole of the labour demand which was made by his Department. It was announced in the House on behalf of Lord Pirrie that the extensions
  2918
  which he had planned with great energy-would require at least 75,000 men more than were at that time employed in the shipbuilding industry. Of these 75,000 men, which I presume included the 20,000 indicated in the spring, only 15,500 have been forthcoming, and there must be a further reduction from that figure in respect of those who have been simultaneously recruited. This is the sole explanation of the failure to reach the largo figures which everybody at that time anticipated could be achieved. There has been material on the spot. In many yards there are stacks of material now lying alongside the ways which cannot be erected, and some keels cannot be laid until the berths are ready, simply because of the absence of labour. Not only has Lord Pirrie had to meet difficulty in getting necessary labour when it might have been forthcoming, but he has been handicapped by the lack of housing accommodation. In nearly all shipbuilding centres the accommodation for shipbuilders and engineers has been so short that in a great many districts temporary buildings have been put up from time to time. I believe an announcement was made in the House in connection with Lord Pirrie's programme that not only would the necessary labour be provided but that housing sufficient for the men would also be provided by the various Departments to enable the whole of the men who were to be used in these shipyards to be comfortably and expeditiously housed, and by that means in these crowded districts the yards would be extended without undue hardship being placed on the shipyard workers. Indeed, at the very time they were extending the yards it was hoped the accommodation would be so attractive that the workers would regard any change in shipyard life not only with equanimity but with pleasure. The action of the Controller-General has been gravely handicapped, He sent round communications to the shipyards, I think some six weeks or a month ago, to say that whereas in the priority list which had been in force until about that date accommodation for shipyard workers was high up in the list—I am not sure it was not first—it had been altogether taken out of the priority list by the Priorities Committee of the Cabinet. The result was in those districts where there was a shortage of houses, even if he could have provided the necessary number of men, he would have been able to give them shelter. I need hardly say that that places all the shipyards

  2919
  and the Controller-General at a very-great disadvantage. I cannot believe that the Priorities Committee of the Cabinet could have realised in the autumn, as they realised in the spring, the urgency of pressing on with the shipyard work, or they had scarcely removed housing for shipyard workers from their priority list. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be able to tell us, now that the War is over, that housing for shipyard workers will be regarded as of the first necessity, will be restored to the priority list, and placed at the head of that list, where it was until, I believe, the summer holidays.
  The country, I think, is entitled to know what is now the policy of the Government in regard to the various types of vessels which are to be constructed. In the first place, I should like to ask whether it is intended to go on with the building of any more standard vessels? From such newspaper paragraphs as have come under my view, I gather that standard vessels are not to be laid down except in such cases as are covered by the contracts already placed, and in such yards as are already provided with material. Are standard ships to come first on the normal shipbuilding programme? That is the first question I desire to ask. The second question is whether it is proposed to continue the construction of fabricated ships, whether at the national yard at Chepstow, or private yards elsewhere; thirdly, whether the concrete ships which were part of the shipbuilding programme are now to be regarded as unnecessary by the Shipbuilding Department, and if constructed at all are to be left to private enterprise? In regard to the ownership of these standard and fabricated vessels, it will be interesting to know what steps are being taken by the Ministry of Shipping to have them drafted into private trades. We were told the other day, in answer to a question, that so far the purchasing of standard vessels by shipowning companies had not gone as rapidly as might have been anticipated, and that only one vessel—as we understood the answer given in the House—out of—I presume—some hundreds, had so far been sold. Perhaps my hon. Friend will give us later information as to the number of standard vessels which have now passed over to private ownership.
  The second point I want to ask is this: whether that vessel was actually sold by private bargain or whether she was sold
  2920
  by sealed tender? I need hardly point out to the representative of the Government that if these vessels are to be sold by private bargain it will be impossible to maintain a uniform price—absolutely impossible! The necessities of the shipowners and shipowning companies are different. Not only does their present need for tonnage vary according to the number of vessels which they have lost, but according to the various character in the trades in which they will be employed. A standard vessel, for instance, of about 8,000 tons dead-weight would be no good in a very large number of trades unless she had spent on her, beyond what is already provided in the present specification, some £11,000 or £12,000 to fit her for ordinary traffic—so far do these vessels vary from the standard of the ordinary cargo-carrying vessels. Furthermore, a good many of those vessels will have to be much altered, and a great many superfluities, which are not regarded as being of any use whatever by many private owners, will have to be taken out before they will be able to compete in normal times with the vessels built to private specification. It therefore follows that the varying needs of the shipowning companies, and the trades into which they must go, make the values of these vessels different in different cases. Furthermore, if they are to be sold by private bargain, I can assure the Government that they will find themselves laid open to the charge, justly or unjustly—I hope unjustly—that they are making private arrangements with certain owners which are better and more favourable than they made with others. There is only one way to get over that: either these vessels must be sold by public auction or from time to time sold under sealed tender. If that is done in both cases they will be able to get rid of any charge of favouritism, and they will arrive much more justly at the market price, and at how great or how little is the demand for this particular class of vessel. I hope the anticipation of many of those who know the vessels well may be belied, that it will be possible for the Government to get rid of these vessels on favourable terms, and to have them drafted into the regular trades as rapidly as possible.
  As to the fabricated vessels, I feel sure the Government will have great difficulty in finding any private owner bold enough to undertake their ownership. For two reasons—one because of their design and specification, and the other because of the unpopularity which they have already

  2921
  achieved in seaports. I am not exaggerating when I say that the most unpopular vessel sailing at the present time, because of the unkindliness of their type, are the fabricated vessels. Anybody who has had anything to do with the engagement of crews knows that this is the case. All these have to be disposed of sooner or later. They have to be drafted into the trades which are controlled and used by those who know how to use them best. It will be interesting to know what steps have already been taken, and what steps are in contemplation, to draft them into the ownership of companies and buyers.
  I should like to say a word or two on another side of the shipping problem which does not concern shipbuilding. The changes which have taken place during the last four years have placed us at a tremendous disadvantage in comparison with many neutral flags. America, as everybody knows, is building with great rapidity, and her ambition is to be possessed of the greatest mercantile fleet in the world. Her Ministers talk about it, not only as a war provision, but as a peace provision. Mr. Herlihy has been particularly frank in his speeches, interviews, and articles. He has declared that it is the ambition of the United States to use the great effort which is now being made both on the East and West coasts of America to provide her with the largest mercantile fleet in the world. No doubt if they go on at their present speed they will be successful in achieving this. There is only one means by which we shall be able to hold our own against the American flag—that is by constructing and running all our vessels more economically than can the Americans. Let me lake, first of all, the cost of construction. At the present moment, on the figures which pass through shipbuilders' hands—and I must make a careful distinction as to this, we in this country are apparently building vessels, in spite of high wages, at a far cheaper rate than they cost under the American scheme, far cheaper. But the House ought not to be deceived into imagining that this is true in fact. What actually is the case is this: that the Ministry of Munitions is making a subsidy to the steel trade which, as we have discovered by answers given in this House, amounts to about £47,000,00 per annum.
  Mr. HOLT: Up to 31st July.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: My hon. Friend asked a question the other day and I have no
  2922
  doubt he has the correct answer with him. That, then, is for the steel which goes to all sorts of Government purposes, and shipbuilding has been regarded as one of them. It will be interesting to know from the hon. Gentleman opposite how much of that £47,000,000 has actually been a subsidy to the shipbuilding of this country. Perhaps he can inform the House at what price per ton plates and angles have been accounted to the various shipyards. So far as I have been able to see the accounts it appears to me that they have been accounted to the various shipyards, not at the actual cost which the country and the shipyards have to provide them, but at an artificial figure, the difference being made up out of the allocation from this £47,000,000 subsidy which has just now been disclosed. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let us know exactly how much of the £47,000,000 has gone as a subsidy in the building of these vessels. They were vessels built for Government account, and therefore I have no doubt on this, as on other occasions, he will say it is only a question of bookkeeping. But in the matter of bookkeeping of this vast importance we are entitled to press for an answer, for if the amount given in subsidies brings the total cost per ton of the vessel constructed in this country up to the same figure as the total cost in the United States it seems that we shall be placed, because of the smallness of our output, at a very grave disadvantage in comparison with the United States of America.
  The other point I wish to make is this: Whether in the running of our vessels the Ministry of Shipping is contemplating any steps whereby they can get back to anything like the old economic level? Material, of course, is of the first necessity, for in all these vessels the cost of repairs plays a large part in their total expenditure. Insurance, which no doubt will remain higher than it was until the seas have been thoroughly swept, will, we hope, sooner or later return to its old normal level, and with London as the great insurance centre of the world will be restored. What, however, is of great importance to us to know is whether the Ministry of Shipping has entered into engagements which makes economies in these directions impossible or will delay them, for the sooner we reach the economic bases on which vessels were run before the War the better it will be not only for the shipbuilding industry as a whole, but for the people of this country who rely on cheap

  2923
  carriage for their sustenance and for their industries. In regard to wages I would make only one remark, and it is this: It is impossible and most undesirable that the scale of wages current before the War should be the scale of wages after the War is over. Merchant seamen deserve well of their country. They deserve well of their employers. It is hardly likely that the present tremendous high figures can be maintained now that the supply of labour is likely to be increased and the perils of the sea have been decreased. I need hardly say, however, that no one desires that they should go back to the old 1914 pre-war level. The Americans will have the advantage of a large number of new vessels, but the Scandinavians will have another and entirely different advantage. Both in Scandinavia and in Holland enormous reserves of capital have been accumulated. The shipping companies there have not been restricted to the scales of freights which from the beginning of the War have had a great effect upon the earnings of the shipping companies hero. It appears to be almost entirely forgotten that from the very first outbreak of the War at least one-third of British shipping has been subject to artificial rates, the Blue-book rates having affected one-third of the mercantile fleet under requisition by the Admiralty.
  As time went on and the Admiralty control over merchant shipping was extended to the Board of Trade I think this occurred somewhere about the summer of 1915, and that was the first occasion on which the Board of Trade had actual control of the allocation or requisition of ships—there was a further limitation of freights. There came into force the limitation scheme affecting all Allied ports in France and Italy, there were limitations provided under the Requisitioning Foodstuffs Committee which was presided over by Mr. Deputy-Speaker and which conducted its operations until the Ministry of Shipping was set up. Artificial restrictions were also placed by various forms of control exercised by the Committee over which Sir Maurice Hill presided. All this went on up to the end of 1916 when the hon. Member for Toxteth, an undoubted authority with whom the Parliamentary Secretary has had many a tussle in argument, declared in the House quite truthfully that three-quarters of the British Mercantile Marine was at that moment under process of requisition,
  2924
  limitation, or control. There was also an adjustment of control of shipping between this country and the Allies by-Lord Curzon's Committee, and all those connected with that Committee were absorbed into the Ministry of Shipping except the chairman. Those who assisted the Admiralty Transport Department, as well as those on the Committees I have named have ever since been giving voluntary assistance to the Ministry of Shipping, without which it could not have existed.
  When all these limitations were keeping within somewhat reasonable bounds the earnings of vessels subject to them, a number of vessels which were free from requisition were the only vessels in the open market, and they were able to make large profits of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer declares he took a share. During this time the Dutch, Danish, Swedish and Norwegian owners were accumulating gigantic funds. I have obtained some information with regard to the lines in Holland. I have not been able to ascertain the total increase in the Scandinavian trade, but I know that the capital of the more important Dutch shipping firms has increased during the War from 98,000,000 florins to 123,000,000 florins, and their reserve funds have increased from 28,000,000 florins to 148,000,000 florins. Their fleet of vessels, in spite of losses by mines and submarines, increased during that period, while their liabilities decreased at the same time, and their dividends have been the highest on record. However, the question of dividends is not what concerns me most at the present time, but what does concern me is the fact that these companies have accumulated gigantic funds. Even in this group of companies which I have mentioned and which does not cover the whole of the Dutch lines, the reserve funds have risen to 148,000,000 florins, and no doubt they have very large secret reserves not declared which they have carried forward in order to conduct competition with this country.
  The available supplies of capital are so large in those countries that the Norwegian ship-owners have been prepared to place orders for ships in British shipyards at gigantic figures, and they are prepared to pay large sums on deposit. The Norwegian Excess Profits Duty does not apply to shipping capital which is reinvested in shipping, and the effect of their law has been to give a further acceleration to the placing of orders in British yards, and at

  2925
  one time in American yards, by those foreign companies which have such enormous funds at their disposal. The same is true of the Danish companies and, to a smaller extent, of the Swedish companies. It follows that our competitors for new tonnage from Scandinavia and Holland will be rich beyond the dreams of avarice. They will have liquid funds at their disposal, they have already laid their hands on many shipbuilding berths, they are prepared to enter into large engagements, and they have already purchased a considerable number of vessels from other flags.
  I would like to ask whether we have entered into engagements as a Government with the Norwegian companies to sell them standard or fabricated vessels. It has been freely rumoured in some directions that already some conditional sales have taken place under some restrictions as to the routes on which the vessels are to be employed. Is it a fact that standard vessels have actually been sold, or conditionally sold, to foreign flags? If so, it will be interesting to know to what flags they have gone, and what class of vessel was disposed of. These disadvantages under which the British merchant service will be placed when the War is over extend to every trade. They apply not only to the big lines, where there will be a certain amount of competition, but even more to the smaller lines engaged on the near trades, and to the trades which are usually called the tramp trades. There are no more severe competitors anywhere in the world in the tramp trades than the Norwegian, the Swedish, the Danish, and the Dutch. I do not think it is realised by those who have not come into contact with the necessities of the case how far these lines are at present handicapped, and if, with all these disadvantages, we start off in times of peace depleted in our tonnage greatly affected by the quality of vessels which are retained, it will be almost impossible to restore to the British flag the very large fleet which it possessed before the War broke out. I cannot see how it will be possible for us to Improve its quality under many years of repairs and rebuilding, or how it will be possible to retain in the shipping industry the vast sums of capital which will be necessary for its expansion.
  But while foreign competition has been aided by these great accumulations of wealth, there has been another tendency
  2926
  which has also affected adversely, especially the cargo companies flying the British flag. Everybody remembers the degree of unpopularity, which was actually fostered in this country, some time ago against those engaged in the shipping industry, and there never was any more anti-national movement than the effort which was made at that time to blacken the characters of those engaged in the shipping industry, who were held up to the public as the worst class of profiteers. Those who indulged in this campaign in the past have now entirely altered their views. If any attempt is made to compare the rates of freight which were at that time the subject of so much declamation inside and outside the House, it will be found that since the Ministry of Shipping was established they have had to organise a scale of rates far greater than any earned by any private company in the past. I do not blame the Parliamentary Secretary for that, because he could not help it, and it would have been well if the Government had realised, when freights were going up, that even private companies could not help themselves, and they showed themselves no less generous to their customers than the Ministry of Shipping itself has done during the two years it has been at work. This wave of unpopularity against those engaged in the shipping industry led a great many of those engaged in that industry to feel if that was the kind of attitude to be assumed in Parliament towards British shipowners they had better put their capital into something else.
  There was also a great tendency to sell out their vessels, because of the greatly enhanced prices which were offered, and a very large number of vessels were sold by men who were able to get a very large profit. I need not mention names, because they are well known, and some of them are now in office at the Ministry of Shipping, and as they are there it must have been considered to be an entirely blameless act on their part to sell their vessels. At any rate, they did turn their vessels into capital. And what has been the effect of this wave of unpopularity? it has driven capital out of the shipping industry to a very large extent. Companies have been wound up in Scotland, in Glasgow and on the Clyde, in South Wales, on the North-East Coast, in Liverpool and in London, and the money has been invested in other ways, and it is not likely to return to the shipping

  2927
  industry again. As one who has not an undue acquaintance with the trade, although my knowledge of it is as good as some people, and as one taking an interest in our own stability and strength and in the development of shipping at this time, I say that this is a national injury, and it ought to be our business to try to restore our strength by re-attracting capital into the shipping trade, and to do our best to try and regain under our flag all vessels which are likely to fly under another flag if our shipping companies are to do the work which they did in the past. I would point out just by way of illustration the kind of thing that has happened. I have had placed before me to-day some correspondence from one of the shipping lines which runs from Leith. It goes entirely to the Northern European ports to places like Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Antwerp, Denmark, Calais and so forth. It requires something like twelve vessels to run that service. They have lost eight vessels, and they have only been able to purchase back five against eight passenger and cargo liners and five cargo liners. The company say:
  "We have now two passenger and cargo liners, three cargo liners, and four other vessels."
  That is only nine out of twelve, and to do this they have absorbed the whole of the capital which they received from their underwriters and the Government for the vessels which were lost. If that is going on in every company in the country it means, despite the huge insurances which in wound-up companies look so remarkably prosperous, that in going and continuing concerns the companies are at an actual disadvantage, and that they will have a smaller fleet to go on with, although there has been no actual loss of capital. What has happened in the near trades is going to happen elsewhere. In the near trades the business will be taken by Dutchmen, and to some extent by Scandinavians. It is possible that some of the Dutch competition will be really German competition. They will certainly find themselves with very hot competitors, and it may mean that the greater proportion of the traffic between England and the Northern European ports may be carried by foreign ships instead of by British ships, a state of things which would be entirely new. In the case of the more distant trades it is equally true to say that the companies, if they put their capital back into tonnage, will be at a positive disadvantage. The necessity for
  2928
  keeping down prices is as urgent in the shipping trade as in any other walk of life, and, unless it can be done, it seems to me impossible to restore our mercantile fleet. How far can it be done? In the first place, it is impossible to reduce the cost of merchant ships unless there is a much greater supply of iron and steel. I understand that some arrangements have been made for freeing the iron and steel industry from control, which means, I presume, that many iron and steel companies which have been engaged purely on munitions in the past, will be free in the future to build plates, bars, stanchions and so forth, and provide such material as is necessary in the engineering trade. The sooner that is done the better. It is equally certain that larger and cheaper supplies of coal will be necessary if the shipbuilding trade is to be restored. We cannot have larger supplies of coal until a very large number of miners are returned from the Army to the mines. Indeed, one comes back to the labour problem on every hand. There can be no large supply of iron ore in this country unless there is the shipping to carry it. Timber, which plays a large part in shipbuilding, certainly cannot be provided from our home supplies. In every direction there is a necessity for shipping to be increased almost as rapidly as we would wish to see an increase in food and raw materials.
  I would say only one word as to the direct effect that this must have upon our social conditions. I believe that there is only one combination of circumstances which would tend to a spread of what is popularly known as Bolshevism in this country, and that one set of circumstances is that there should be at the same time a shortage of food and other necessities of life and the lack of work by which men can provide themselves with the means of subsistence. If the turn over from war work to civil work is not skilfully managed, it may be that there will be a great gap between the high wages that have been paid in munition factories and the less abundant wages which will be provided in civil work. If many men have to walk about the streets for weeks or possibly for a month or two together at the very time that prices remain high, they will find themselves totally unable to balance their household budget. Therefore, at a, time when we want to provide them with work we should accelerate by every means in our power the building

  2929
  of vessels and engines in our shipyards. The turnover from the building of warships to the building of merchant ships can be easily managed. The yards lay side by side, and they have already been differentiated. The labour which has been used in the one is equally suitable for the other. Let us by all means take that labour from armament yards and pour it into the merchant shipyards with the greatest possible speed. If that is done, it will prevent these men being thrown on to the streets, and we shall at the same time provide for a greatly accelerated output of the very tonnage which is required. It would be as well, in addition, to provide that amongst the first categories of those who are demobilised should be the engineers and shipbuilders in all their various classes, who are necessary to increase the supply up to the total which has already been provided for in Lord Pirrie's budget.
  An abundance of vessels affects the social position on the other side. There can be no lowering in the prices of food until more food is brought into the country. Of course there can be a very great increase in the amount of food brought into the country immediately vessels are dismissed from naval employment. I do not know what the total number of vessels in naval employment has been recently, but at one time, I believe, something like 1,200 merchant vessels were in the service of the Navy. If anything like 800 or 900 of these could be at once released and start to carry coal from this country to foreign countries and food back hero in large quantities for man and beast, a tremendous change would be effected in the level of prices, which have ruled here during the last two or three years. The effect, therefore, of an increased tonnage would be three-fold. It would provide increased employment; it would enormously increase the exports from this country, thereby helping our foreign exchanges, and the coal trade and all the vast number of trades associated with the coal trade; and it would relieve the necessities of foreign countries and of our Allies, who are badly in need of fuel. If these vessels were sent on outward voyages there would be a much larger tonnage available for the carriage of food here. All these objects have their social effects, but I can imagine no object which would have a more profound effect in preventing any revolutionary outbreak in this country than that of increasing the available
  2930
  amount of shipping for the carriage of raw materials and articles out of this country and for adding to our supplies of raw materials and food in this country.
  Mr. HOLT: I should like to say a few words in supplement of the very admirable speech which my right hon. Friend has just delivered. I want a few more particulars about shipbuilding than my right hon. Friend has asked for. First of all, let us have a perfectly clear and definite pronouncement that shipbuilding is going to be made absolutely free, that people are going to be allowed to order the sort of ships that they want from the people who are ready to build them, and, in fact, that they are going to be able to get these ships delivered to them. My right hon. Friend made some remarks with regard to warship construction, with which I am not wholly in agreement. I do not think that it will be at all satisfactory to switch the men off from warships into the mercantile shipyards. These warships are not being built in any special yards, but in the ordinary shipbuilding yards. The yards which have been selected during the past year or two for the building of warships are those very yards which in peace time turn out the highest class of work. If work is stopped at those yards, the British shipowner will be prevented from constructing the best class of tonnage. All the warships now on the stocks should be got off the stocks. Those very near completion should be launched, and those which have only just been begun should be taken to pieces and removed, just as a good many merchant ships were taken to pieces and removed at an earlier stage of the proceedings. It would be a great misfortune if these yards, the very best yards in the country—some of us know their names, but I do not care to give them in Debate—were prevented from turning out the best tonnage, as they have been in the habit of doing in years gone by. Take the case of some of the steamship companies which have lost very badly in the War. Everybody knows that some of the companies have been peculiarly unfortunate, much more so than others. Take the case of the Cunard Company, who, through no fault of their own, have been particularly unfortunate. It would be a monstrous thing if that company were prevented from replacing its tonnage with tonnage of the same quality as that which it has lost. It is no use saying to the company, "You can go to the yards which have been in

  2931
  the habit of building tramp steamers and get ships there." They cannot, because the yards cannot turn out the quality of work demanded. They must go back to their old friends—such people, for instance, as Clyde Bank, the very people who have been employed in building warships.
  Standard ships, of course, are not going to be a very satisfactory proposition. It is quite plain that they do not meet anybody's requirements. They have been constructed to the designs of gentlemen who are rather theoretical and who are all the time spending other people's money. It is not a very satisfactory proceeding when the person who decides what is to be done is not going to pay the bill, because he is apt to decide on wrong principles. These ships are too costly for a certain class of business and not good enough for another. They fall between two stools. I would like to ask the Ministry of Shipping to consider how far it is possible to make an arrangement whereby some of these ships should be altered in a very early stage to suit the wishes of people who are ready to buy them. It might be possible to save a good deal by turning ships in a half or a quarter completed condition over to people who could get them altered to suit their requirements. I do hope that we shall be definitely told that standard ships which have not been actually begun will never be started at all, but that the contracts will be cancelled and that people will be allowed to build what they want.
  5.0 P.M.
  We ought to have from the Government a perfectly clear and definite statement with regard to steel. We know that steel cannot continue to be sold at the price at which it is being nominally sold to-day because of the subsidy. I believe that these subsidies represent at the very lowest 30 per cent. of the cost of steel—possibly it is a good deal more. I was told by a very well-informed gentleman that the Government would immediately have to raise the price of steel by 100 per cent. I hope that is an exaggeration, but it is certainly true and obvious that either the subsidy must discontinue, in which case the price of steel must be very greatly raised, or else the Government will be making a very large present to every person who consumes steel. The taxpayer will not tolerate that. Surely, then, it is a matter of very great moment, in order to enable people to lay their plans for the future, that we
  2932
  should be told exactly what is the position with regard to steel and what is the price which we are going to have to pay! Until we know that nobody can make up his mind what he is going to do. Of course, shipowners have very large reserves from the very unfortunate source of having had their ships sunk by the enemy. My own feeling is that any public-spirited shipowner ought to be willing to sacrifice all those apparent gains in building tonnage at what may appear to be inflated prices. But unless the cost of building can be brought down there will not be much money left once those funds have been exhausted for the building of new ships. It is essential, therefore, that the Government should immediately consider the question of putting matters on such a footing that the cost of shipbuilding can be very materially reduced. I want to say a word or two about the re-establishment of industry. So far, a good many of our friends, such as the Japanese, have been kept off competition with British shipowners because of the danger of losing their ships. They have kept their ships out of the way. Directly the danger from the enemy has disappeared, we shall, no doubt, find that large numbers of these people, who were so busily occupied the other end of the world, will want to come into the trade of this country and try to get the established business of the regular lines. None of us ought to complain of that; certainly I do not, so long as I am allowed to defend myself. We are, however, entitled to ask the Government that they should at once put the British shipowner in a position to compete on equal terms with any foreigner who is to compete with him. The best method, indeed, almost the only method by which we who are engaged in running the regular lines can successfully compete with our foreign friends lies in our superiority of service. I believe we have better ships than they have, and I know that we are prepared to get them, but we must be allowed to use the best ships and acquire the best ships. If we cannot get a superior article, I am quite certain we shall not successfully compete against our foreign friends. The best hope for the British Mercantile Marine in, the future lies in actual superiority, and if we beat them on quality rather than on quantity. But we must be quite free to go in for quality. I hope we are not going to be too altruistic in putting the British Mercantile Marine at the service of our

  2933
  Allies. For instance, I do not believe that British shipping ought to be given now, as it has been given, to the Allies who are refusing to use their own. It was all very well to say to the British ship-owner that he must provide tonnage to meet the Allied requirements. I do not think we ought to object to doing that, but I do submit that we are entitled to demand, first of all, that the Allies should use the whole of their own ships to meet their own requirements.
  I know that this has been going on. It ought never to have been allowed. Two of our Allies—I will not mention their names—have been carrying to Egypt from the Far East enormous stocks of goods and filling up Egypt with those goods. They would not take the ships up the Mediterranean for fear of losing them, and they sent their own ships back to the Far East. In some cases British ships were used to carry goods to those Allies through the danger zone, and I suppose British ships will still be used to supply those Allies. That is not fair play. We are entitled to ask that our Allies shall use their own ships entirely for their own purposes before they ask us to do anything. We ought to be particular in taking that line with the United States. After all, no one is morally entitled to use this country as a means of jumping his neighbour's business. Amongst the shipping companies it would be very disgraceful if any one of us who has been fortunate should take advantage of what has happened to jump the business of a neighbour. That would be very unsportsmanlike. I do not think that any of our Allies should be allowed to do it to us. The Government ought to see that none of the Allies are allowed to use their own shipping in order to collar the business of the British shipowners, while British shipowners are having their vessels taken from them in order to meet the requirements of an Allied State. We ought to have a definite assurance upon that point.
  There are one or two small matters to which I would draw attention. I spoke the other day on the subject of fishing craft, and I will again draw the attention of the Shipping Controller to that matter. The Minister must know that there are large numbers of trawlers and other shipping craft engaged on Fleet service. If those vessels can be released speedily we shall accomplish two things at once—first, we shall reduce the charge which falls upon the Exchequer; and, secondly, we shall increase the food supply of the
  2934
  country. That can be done almost immediately. It is a matter to which prompt attention should be given. The fishing craft should be got away from naval service and put to their proper business that is, feeding the people of the country. How about the coastal craft? We know that the railways are congested, and that there is difficulty in travelling. If we could re-establish the coastal service we could send more goods by sea than by rail. That at once would introduce economy, and set free a good deal of coal for other uses, because it takes a great deal more coal to convey the same weight of goods by rail than it does by sea. Finally, I would ask the Government, if they really value the British Mercantile Marine, which has been a very great national asset during the War, to set the business free as soon as they possibly can. The only way to make that or any other business a success is to conduct it on proper commercial lines so as to make it pay. We want to make commercial profits. We shall want them, because we are going to have prodigious taxes to pay; and I do not know who is going to find the money to run the country if you are going to run businesses at a loss, and rely on the Income Tax to meet public expenditure. It is an urgent necessity that business should be thoroughly profitable. Therefore I say to the Government that it is most important we should be told as soon as possible exactly what is going to be done, and that we should have it put into our own hands as soon as possible to make the best of the job of repairing our fortunes.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): My hon. Friend who has just sat down, and also the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman), dwelt upon the paramount importance of the Mercantile Marine in the economy of the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend the Shipping Controller very fully realises that fact. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman—indeed, I think he has had the assurance in advance—that, so far as the Shipping Controller is concerned, he is determined at the earliest possible moment to restore those normal conditions in the shipping trade which are pleaded for by both the speakers in this Debate. He has already announced it in the public Press. He did it at the earliest possible moment after the

  2935
  Armistice was signed. He has said in the clearest terms that it is his desire to restore the normal conditions. The time will undoubtedly depend upon circumstances over which the Shipping Controller has not entire control. The War is at an end, we hope, but the consequences of the War are not yet over. We have to provide for the prime necessities of the nation in the time of reconstruction. Subject to that very necessary warning, the Shipping Controller is determined to restore the normal conditions. My right hon. Friend asked me a number of important questions relating to details, the whole of which, I am afraid, it would not be possible for me to answer without some notice longer than that which it was possible for him to give me. I am quite sure he will understand that. If you take, for example, such a matter as the proportion of the steel subsidy, which has been so far involved in the amount of ship construction that has taken place, it will be obvious that that must be a matter for inquiry, and I could not give him an answer now. He will understand that. I can tell him, however, that I believe that the amount of the steel subsidy comes to about £2 a ton dead-weight of the constructed ships, so that if you take an 8,000 ton ship, £16,000 would represent the amount of the steel subsidy. It is not such an important item in the total cost of the vessel as he imagines. I agree that it is an exceedingly important point, and I will endeavour to obtain the information for which he asks.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Will the Parliamentary Secretary let us know how much is the total amount of the subsidy as given to shipbuilding? I see the amount is 1,500,000 tons gross. On that, will the total amount of the subsidy come to about £4,000,000?
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: Yes, on that calculation it would be about that sum, but I will endeavour to obtain the information for the right hon. Gentleman. He also asked me a question with regard to sales of standard ships. As my right hon. Friend knows, the declared policy of the Government with regard to shipping is to restore the position that obtained. It therefore follows that the Government have contemplated the sale of the Government ships to private owners, and a beginning of the sale has been made, as was announced by me in this House in answer to a question. One ship has been actually
  2936
  sold, and negotiations with regard to others are proceeding. The right hon. Gentleman raised a question as to the method of the sale. The sale which took place was a sale by private treaty, and in the opinion of the Shipping Controller that was the method which secured the best price for the Government. Another point of some interest was that with regard to housing and the extensions that have taken place in some of the yards. The matter of priority to which he referred has been pressed. I can give him a full assurance that in relation to every matter concerning shipbuilding first-class priority will be given, whether it is for steel, whether it is for labour, or the supply of material, or the supply of houses for workmen that are needed in connection with these extensions. The right hon. Gentleman knows that in connection with the national shipyards very extensive housing schemes are in process of completion. There have been one or two miscellaneous points which I should like to clear away before coming to the major part of the subject. My right hon. Friend referred to the cost of running vessels, and in that connection I was very glad, not only to hear his well-deserved tribute to the men of the Mercantile Marine, but also to recognise the spirit in which he spoke of the advances in wages which have been given, especially recently, to the men of the Mercantile Marine during the War. I am afraid it must be admitted that before the War our sailors of the Mercantile Marine were not among the best paid workmen, and that has accentuated in our minds the extraordinary services we have received at their hands. The pre-war rate of about £5 10s. per month for an A B, or less, as my hon. Friend says, in some cases, has now been increased, and with the war risk bonus, which is still payable although war risk has now happily come to an end, is now increased in the case of A B's to £14 10s. and in the case of firemen to £15.
  After all, these are miscellaneous matters, and the very root of the matter before us is the question of the restoration of our Mercantile Marine in point of magnitude. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Runciman) referred to shipbuilding. He expressed grave anxiety as to the position which obtains now that we have arrived at peace and have to face the enormous losses sustained through placing the Mercantile Marine not only at the service of

  2937
  the nation but of the Allies—and, we might say, the world—in connection with the great War that has come to an end. The House will remember that at the end of March Lord Pirrie was appointed Controller-General of Merchant Shipbuilding. He took over from the Admiralty Controller the department of the deputy controller of auxiliary shipbuilding, and Lord Pirrie took entire charge of merchant work. Lord Pirrie's relations with the Shipping Controller, like those of his predecessor, have been constant and intimate. The special interest of the Shipping Controller in shipbuilding has always been recognised, and it was the special powers of the Shipping Controller which had been relegated to Lord Pirrie. The Government has now decided that direct financial and parliamentary responsibility for shipbuilding shall return to the Shipping Controller, and it is for those reasons I am replying to the questions of the right hon. Gentleman under this head. There are reasons for the change which was made originally. My right hon. Friend will remember the contest for labour and materials, the unregulated contest which constantly took place between the Admiralty and shipbuilders and the loss and disadvantages which resulted. There was therefore at that time a very good cause for attempting to make an arrangement which would secure a proper co-ordination of these supplies and these calls, and so we worked out a scheme of single control, and in place of the unregulated competition which took place we got co-operation to secure at once the maximum supply of material and its most effective use. Now the supplies of steel, I am glad to say, are ample. Supplies of labour should certainly grow in the near future. There had been a separation of yards under Lord Pirrie into those set apart for merchant work and those for Daval work, so that in these yards undesirable competition was eliminated. The change made in 1917 has served its purpose, and the time has come for uniting the building of merchant ships with the responsibility for running them, and the Shipping Controller has therefore now the financial and Parliamentary responsibility for this work. Now I come to ask the House to consider this question in its broad aspect, and I do want, if I can, to help the House to understand why it is that a number of accomplished men, including Lord Pirrie, who I am sure has the confidence of everyone, and not least
  2938
  the confidence of the right hon. Gentleman opposite—why these accomplished men who have devoted themselves to increasing the national output of ships have not raised the figure above that referred by my right hon. Friend. I want to endeavour to-make it clear what the output was and what it is. In 1913 we had a record output of 1,900,000 tons. In 1914, the year the War broke out, it fell to a little below 1,700,000 tons. In 1915 it fell to 650,000 tons; in 1916 it fell again to 540,000; then in 1917 it rose to a little over 1,200,000 tons.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that up to the beginning of 1916 merchant shipbuilding was under the control of the Admiralty, and was only transferred to the civil department in January, 1916, by the second Munitions Act?
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: My right hon. Friend must not misunderstand me. I am not referring to who is responsible. I only want the House to see where we have got, because if you put into operation a new movement in regard to shipbuilding it does not come to fruition until long afterwards, and the efforts of one man may overlap those of another man, so that it would be unfair to divide it into periods of responsibility, saying this man was responsible for this and that man for that. It was not in my mind to do that, but I did want the House to see why these things have occurred, and what the prospect is for the near future. Now in 1918 we have got a certain improvement, and an improvement which can be best expressed perhaps by giving the figure for the twelve months ending 31st October. In that twelve months we reached a total output of little less than 1,600,000 tons. Now what is the meaning of that figure? Curiously it coincides almost exactly with Lord Pirrie's estimate of what it is possible to turn out in British yards in a year with the labour which is available at the present time. Lord Pirrie's estimate of the possibilities of shipbuilding as they are at this moment, before further men are brought back from the Army to work in this country in the shipyards, is an output of 1,650,000 tons. I am speaking of gross tons. As was pointed out by my right hon. Friend, in some of the early-months of this year we got a rather larger output than the average of the period to which I have referred, and those better figures, I am afraid, excited optimistic forecasts by people who hoped they

  2939
  would he followed by better figures still. It was a rush to completion of vessels in that period which gave the figures of the months to which I have referred a fictitious magnitude. It is true that the figures I have given are rather better than they look for one thing, because they did include the completion of a number of tankers, and refrigerated meat boats, which took up more labour than would have been taken up by building plain cargo tonnage. But, on the other hand, the figure is not as good as it looks, as it follows from what I have said, that the stock of ships in hand now is not so good as it was a year ago. There are not so many big vessels coming forward for completion, and therefore the figures are not so good as they look.
  I want to put this frankly to the House, because I do not want any misunderstanding whatever in regard to the facts I have related. I think it is extremely important there should be no misunderstanding. What is the position? It is bound up with an extremely important fact, and that is the victory over the submarine. How have the submarines been beaten? They have been beaten in the first place, of course, by the dauntless courage and adaptability of the Royal Navy, but if we look to the methods that have guided that personal element you may divide them up thus: Destroying the submarines, building new merchant ships, repairing all the many ships that have been damaged by the enemy, and by marine risks which have been accentuated by war conditions, and lastly—a very important factor—there has been the using of our merchant ships in such a fashion as to avoid attack. Let me deal with the last point first, because it is both a shipping point and a shipbuilding point. It was the convoy system worked out between the Admiralty and the Ministry of Shipping which played a very large part indeed, especially with regard to the concentration of ships in the North Atlantic, in the wonderful results presented. Many facts under this head have already appeared, but the House may be interested to know, if you take all the homeward bound ocean convoys from the summer of 1917 to 2nd November, 1918, the convoys included about 47,000,000 gross tons of merchant shipping and the loss was less than 4.1 per cent. Now this great result could not have been achieved, and this is what I want the House especially to note, if an
  2940
  increasing amount of labour had not been drafted to the Admiralty side of construction. When the convoy system was commenced, and I remember the doubts and difficulties which surrounded the beginning of it, the Admiralty—we can say it now as we could not then—had not enough protective craft to work a convoy system. It had to be begun tentatively, destroying submarines and working convoys meant building anti-submarine craft of various types in great numbers. The success of these craft has been great and increasing, but the devotion of labour and material to this successful work necessarily restricted merchant work, and a much greater show of merchant shipbuilding could have been made in all these long months if the means of attack had been neglected, and we had not made destroyers, sloops, mystery boats, and so forth. But what would have been the use of adding 50,000 tons a month to merchant shipbuilding if, through neglect of the side of attack, the enemy had sunk not only those 50,000 tons but perhaps 50,000 tons besides? I well remember going to the trials of the first standard ship on the Clyde in the late summer of 1917. The ship was the "War Shamrock," which was leaving next day for Genoa with a load of coal. One almost felt inclined to shed a tear over the deck of the "War Shamrock." Would we ever see her again I Those were the days when destruction was very high indeed, and it entailed a risk—I do not know the percentage at this time. I have forgotten—but I think I can say a ship was not likely to make four trips to Genoa without being lost. So that to be on the deck of the "War Shamrock" was really to wonder whether one would see the vessel again. I am glad to say she is still afloat. If you take standard ships as a whole, there are 145 now completed. The enemy has only disposed of five. Including one loss by marine risk, we have 139 out of 145 still afloat, carrying cargoes for the United Kingdom or the Allies. That result would not have been achieved if labour had been devoted in greater volume to the merchant side of shipbuilding instead of being devoted to means of protection and means of attack.
  May I now direct attention to repairs? From January to September this year just under 20,000,000 tons of merchant shipping have been through the repairing yards, and for heavy repairs exceeding one month 2,250,000 tons have been repaired. I cannot give the corresponding figures for

  2941
  the Admiralty side of the repair work, but they are equally remarkable. We had to repair our increased Navy, and we have also repaired ships which have been in our waters belonging to the American Navy, and we have had to repair merchant vessels, and only the balance of shipyard labour has been available for new merchant ships. That led to the result which my right hon. Friend deplores. I can give one even more remarkable than those which he quotes. Between 1st January and 24th October of this year we brought into the shipbuilding industry from all sources 28,000 men, skilled and unskilled, of whom 14,287 were brought in from the Army Of these, only 8,000 could be put on to new merchant work. All the others were taken by the Admiralty for new work or for repair work, or were taken by the merchant repairing yards. May I put it another way, because I cannot help feeling that if these facts were once realised the explanation of what has occurred becomes perfectly plain. The facts as to the division of shipyard-labour could not be given before in the conditions which obtained, but they can be given now. When war broke out we had perhaps about 250,000 men engaged in shipbuilding, marine engineering and repairs. The precise figure cannot be obtained, but I think that is a near estimate. The number now is 381,000. That is to say, in spite of the enormous demand upon British personnel by this War we have drafted into the shipbuilding industry 131,000 persons since the war began. Of the 381,000 men employed in shipbuilding, only 116,000 are engaged on new merchant work, so that out of every three men only one is engaged in turning out new merchant ships. I have given the House the explanation why it is that now we are only able to show, with the labour available, an output from our merchant yards of about 1,650,000 tons a year. Is not the justification of the division made of the persons available in the industry to be found in the remarkable results achieved? When a thing is done, I fancy, with most of us it ceases to have its old importance, and now that the War is won we can perhaps look back rather lightly upon the early months of 1917, when Germany declared her policy of unlimited piracy and we had to meet it. Let me remind the House of the position which obtained in April, 1917. I well remember those days when we used to go to the Ministry of Shipping in the morning and find a return from the Admiralty, a sheet of foolscap paper, with a list of
  2942
  ships covering it from the top to the bottom—a loss of ships which if it went on meant that we should be beaten to our knees in nine or twelve months. That was the position we had to face. In April, 1917, the total losses in that month were 555,000 tons of British shipping alone. I am not speaking of the Allies. We built in that month rather less than 70,000 tons, so that there was a net loss in April, 1917, of 485,000 tons. Nearly 500,000 tons down in a single month! You have to multiply that by four to see what that means in the loss of cargoes in a year. That meant therefore that in a single month the German campaign was so successful that on account of it we lost cargoes at the rate of 2,000,000 tons a year. Obviously, if that went on for only six months we were in deadly danger. If it went on for nine months we were ruined. That was the position. We can afford to speak of those things as we could not speak of them at the time. Now contrast that with the position which obtained in September, 1918. In that month the loss had been reduced to 151,000 tons a month. I am giving both war and marine losses, so as not to disguise any of the facts. Building had risen to nearly 145,000 tons; so the net loss of shipping in September was less than 7,000 tons—a negligible figure. In short, the submarine campaign had been beaten. But it was only beaten because the Government devoted the labour supply which was available more largely to the Admiralty side than it did to the merchant Shipping side, and, although one cannot say exactly what would have taken place, it is more than probable that if that labour had been reversed, if the larger amount had been put on the merchant side and the smaller part on the Naval side—it is not an unfair conclusion that very possibly the war might have been lost, because shipping was the backbone of the Allies.
  The policy of standard shipbuilding was initiated by the Shipping Controller at the end of 1916. Since then it has been developed. Has it been justified? I have endeavoured to obtain the opinion on this of all sorts of experts, and I have found almost unanimous agreement amongst them in regard to it, whether they are shipbuilders or marine engineers. Let me give a typical opinion of a well-known shipbuilder. He says there are practically no arguments of any moment to put against the advantages of standardisation. Standardisation is the only method for the most

  2943
  rapid and economic production of steamers. One of the best known marine engineers gives the case of a standard vessel. He points out how the hull was made by one man, the boiler came from another works, the engine came from another works, and all these were wedded together because of the standardisation which had been decided upon.
  Sir W. RUTHERFORD: They almost invariably are whether under standardisation or not.
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: That is not the opinion of these gentlemen, and they are really in the first flight of their profession.
  Sir W. RUTHERFORD: We do not know who they are, but I should not think they are.
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: Lord Pirrie thoroughly agrees with them, and his opinion is certainly worth quoting in this House or anywhere on the subject.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am sure my hon. Friend would not wish the House to imagine that all shipyards are organised like Lord Pirrie's. On the North-East Coast, and on the Clyde as well, it has been the common practice for large numbers of shipbuilding companies to be dependent on other sources for the supply both of engines and boilers.
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: That is perfectly true. That is to say, my right hon. Friend is considering the case of marine engineering quite detached from the shipyards. But here is my point. If you have a number of detached marine engineers and a number of detached shipbuilders making hulls, boilers and engines under standard pattern, any one of them can be transferred anywhere, and you get a facility of wedding the parts which otherwise you could not obtain.
  Sir W. RUTHERFORD: I do not think so.
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: I have not converted the hon. Baronet, but the fact remains. It is obvious, upon a moment's consideration of the case, whether one is an expert in shipbuilding or not. Then there is the fabricated ship. I cannot help thinking my right hon. Friend has been a little unkind to the fabricated ship. He says it is most unpopular among the
  2944
  sailors. How can that be, seeing that only one of them has been completed so far, and that is not, I understand, a typical vessel? I should recommend my right hon. Friend to go and see the fabrication.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have, and I have conferred with those who have tried to get crews for them and who find the greatest difficulty in doing so.
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: Does my right hon. Friend refer to American ships?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: To fabricated ships, one of which was built in the new yard on the Tees which is under the control of Lord Furness.
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: There is only one. I do not know whether one fabricated vessel makes an argument, but there are not a number afloat. So far as the fabricated ship with which I am acquainted is concerned, it is a first-class engineering job. I have it on very high authority indeed not only that it is that, but that it has come to stay in shipbuilding. However, let us not enter on the domain of prophecy. Undoubtedly it is the case that the fabricated ship is a deeply interesting experiment. It has been received with something like enthusiasm by some shipbuilders at least, and certainly some shipbuilders who were at first very greatly opposed to it now welcome the conception and are glad to undertake work in connection with it. So far as the fabrication of ships in the national shipyards is concerned, one can see the process going on, and it is really a very remarkable contrast in many respects to the old kind of shipbuilding. Of course, it will not suit every purpose in shipbuilding, but it serves some purposes, and that it serves very well indeed the purpose of plain cargo vessel construction is now established. Also the conception, which originated here, crossed to America; they have developed it in their own way, and the fabricated vessels, which are being turned out in very large numbers from the American yards, owe their inception to the genius of men on this side. When I spoke of certain things being satisfactory, I hope I have not suggested more than this, that the output to which I have referred as roughly 1,600,000 tons at which we have arrived is only satisfactory in relation to the circumstances which obtain—relatively satisfactory—I do not pretend for a moment that it is satisfactory in regard to the figures to which the right hon.

  2945
  Gentleman (Mr. Runciman) directed attention in his opening remarks; I mean the fact that we have lost such a high proportion of our shipping during this War. Having regard to these facts can we say that an output of 1,600,000 tons is satisfactory? I have already reminded the House that in 1913 we reached a record output for merchant shipping with just over 1,900,000 tons. What else did we build in 1913? We built certain warships. Can we arrive at an estimate of what was, as it were, the total output of all our yards in 1913, whether naval or merchant work, expressed in terms of merchant work? An endeavour has been made to do it, and you may take it as a fair estimate that in the year 1913, if you have regard to the total output of all our yards, whether Admiralty or merchant, we turned out an equivalent of about 2,300,000 gross tons of merchant ship building. What are we doing this year? Taking the twelve months ended 21st October, we have already turned out nearly 1,600,000 tons of merchant ships. In addition we have turned out war vessels which are estimated to be the equivalent of over 1,300,000 tons of merchant ships, so that our virtual output in the twelve months ended 31st October, 1918, is no less than 2,927,000 tons—nearly 3,000,000 tons.
  Mr. HOLT: Surely the hon. Member is falling into a mistake, because he is assuming that the merchant output during 1913 and the year of which he has just spoken is of the same quality. The merchant output in 1913 was of a very superior quality compared with that which has taken place in the last twelve months.
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: I certainly think some allowance must be made for that fact, but even when allowance is made here is the broad fact, that putting aside for the moment the quality of the tonnage, you get in the twelve months ending 31st October an output of nearly 3,000,000 tons, or its equivalent in merchant shipping, as compared with 2,300,000 tons in 1913, which was the record year in merchant shipbuilding. The common conception, therefore, that our shipyards have gone down in point of output, and in point of material and personnel, is entirely wrong. We have far more men employed and we have a far larger output. In view of these facts what can we hope for in the near future as a fair estimate of merchant output? Of all the things in the world which it
  2946
  appears to me from bitter experience both here and abroad we ought to receive with caution, are estimates relating to future output of shipping. Every estimate that has been made in this country, and every estimate that has been made in America, has alike been signally falsified. With that caution I will give, with bated breath, an estimate of what we may expect. I have spoken of 1,600,000 tons as a fair estimate of what can be done with existing labour. The position now is that priority will be given to the return of shipyard workers from the front. That and the fact that there will be a transfer of labour from naval to merchant yards means that we can reckon upon another 1,000,000 tons apart, I think, from any output from the extensions which have been authorised and have been made in the various shipyards throughout the country and apart from the output of the national yards. That would raise the total to 2,600,000 tons, and I do not think that it would be too great an estimate to suggest that in a little while the output of the slips of the new extensions and the output from the national yards and the output which we shall get from the diversion of repair work to new work will account for another 500,000 tons, which will raise the total to well over 3,000,000 tons a year. If, therefore, we put the output at 3,000,000 tons, I do not think we shall name a figure beyond reasonable expectation.
  I have been asked to state in clear terms the policy of the Shipping Controller in regard to shipbuilding. I think both my hon. Friend (Mr. Holt) and the late President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Runciman) asked whether they could have an assurance in the clearest terms that the Shipping Controller desires that private yards should in future be open to the shipowners. The answer is clear in the affirmative. I may say at once that quite a long list of urgently needed vessels has already been discussed between Lord Pirrie and the Shipping Controller and authorised. Sixty-nine ships of various types, liners and so forth, will be laid down in various yards in December, January and February. Not a single hour was lost by the Shipping Controller and Lord Pirrie in this matter. Steps were taken immediately the Armistice was signed.
  Mr. HOLT: Are we to understand that no stipulations were made as to what ships

  2947
  were to be built, and that particular shipowners have no priority given to them in that way?
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: As I understand it, the priority is a matter of first come first served, and, of course, the national interest has to be considered. I was asked also to state whether any more standard vessels would be laid down. I want the House to see that the freedom with which we are opening private yards to private shipowners is partly in consequence of the work which has been done in the West in the national shipyards. It is intended to continue laying down and proceeding with the fabricated ships in the national shipyards, and the fact that these ships can be turned out so well and so quickly, enables this policy of throwing open the shipyards to ordinary construction to proceed.
  Mr. HOLT: One point I asked about has not been answered by the hon. Gentleman. Is it going to be made quite clear that the Admiralty work at the private yards will stop, so that the people who want to get a specially high quality of ship may get them?
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: Does the hon. Member ask whether a transfer is to be made immediately of labour from the Admiralty yards to the merchant yards?
  Mr. HOLT: There are certain yards which have been set apart for Admiralty work. These yards are the best yards in the country, and capable of doing the highest class of work. All I want to know is whether the Admiralty work will be got rid of from the slips, so that the slips of those yards will be available for building the highest class of merchant ship?
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: Yes, certainly. At the earliest moment when the national interests allow, and I hope it may be soon, these yards now doing Admiralty work will be transferred to their old type of work. The Shipping Controller regards it of the utmost importance that this better type of ship should be proceeded with. What about the future? The gravest apprehensions have been expressed by my right hon. Friend in regard to this matter. It is true that the British Empire, in placing its shipping, which was one of its chief assets, at the disposal of the Allies, as well as of itself, took a great risk. I must say in passing that I hardly agree with the hon. Gentleman
  2948
  (Mr. Holt) in what he said in this connection. It was our duty to do this, and if we had not done it the War would have failed. It is true that the United Kingdom, by placing at the disposal of the Allied cause its great national asset of shipping, risked not only its present but its future. I join with the right hon. Gentleman who spoke first as to the extreme importance of shipping to the national interest. We have risked a great deal in this matter, and, as he says, we are about 3,500,000 tons down, after allowing for all building, on the cessation of hostilities. It will be five or six years—I do not know whether the House realises this—before we shall have reached in point of tonnage, and this with an output of nearly 3,000,000 tons a year, which we never before attained, shipping in aggregate equal to that which we should have had if the War had not occurned. We have not merely lost ships by enemy attack, and by exaggerated marine risk, but we have lost the shipbuilding that we should have had if the War had not occurred. Therefore the loss is very serious and very heavy, and we have to face the fact that neutral countries and Allied countries have gained by reason of the hazard to which we have put our ships. But this was part of the game; it was part of our deliberate policy. We knew that we were risking these things. We knew that we were risking in this War practically all that we had, and it seems to me at this time of day almost beside the point to argue as if the exigencies of war and the plain consequences of war could have been avoided by either one Government or another, or one Department or another. It could not have been done. We must face the position and be thankful that it is no worse. As I have said, we have escaped from a deadly peril, and our attitude ought to be one of thankfulness rather than one of complaint. Nevertheless, we have risked our mercantile-position.
  6.0 P.M.
  What are our prospects? I have always been an optimist in these matters, and I recall that in the ten years before this War, or one might say from the opening years of the twentieth century, the course of the economy of the world was marked by extraordinary advance. Those who feared that there would not be enough trade to go round were shown to be entirely wrong. In spite of the competition of Germany and America, our exports and imports increased as they had

  2949
  never done before. There was more carrying to be done than ever before, and it did appear that the world had reached a point of large-scale dealings and rapid expansion that differentiated the twentieth from the nineteenth century. Is that happy expansion to be resumed after the War? I think it is. I think, among the things that have been learned, not only by one country in this War, but by all countries, is the extraordinary powers of production which are possessed by the world, given scientific application—that the world possesses powers of production which were almost unsuspected. In our own country we have found, in spite of the draining of the very flower of our men into the Army and Navy, that we were able, not only to maintain but to increase production. It is probable, apart from coal, that the total volume of production of this country has increased, and not decreased, during the War, and we end the War with not less, but more, material capital in the country—I do not refer to value, but to the actual volume.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: Including war material?
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: Yes; but I should suspect even apart from war material.
  Sir W. RUTHERFORD: With the advance in price, of course!
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: I spoke not of price, but of volume. If that view of the subject is true, as I hope it will be found to be, there will be much more carrying to do in the future, and there will be room, not only for a larger British Mercantile Marine, but for several mercantile marines, just as in the old days there proved to be room for a number of expanding trades in different countries. I hope, therefore, that the whole of this output hoped for of 3,000,000 tons a year mercantile shipping, which was never attained in time of peace, will be re-ached. There is great hope that it may be done, and that, in spite of the competition of America, which has been referred to this evening, there is plenty of room for the British shipbuilder and the British shipowner. Not only in respect of ordinary trade and manufacture, but in respect of shipbuilders, we end the War with a better plant and a larger material capital than that with which we began the War; so that, looking at the whole subject, I think that we may, I do
  2950
  not say dismiss the apprehensions that have been expressed to-night—I should be sorry to do that, because there is every need for the most urgent consideration—but without dismissing those apprehensions I think that, given the old qualities of British enterprise, British shipbuilding will play a part in the world in future not inferior to that which it has played in the past.
  Major HAMILTON: I want to refer to an entirely different subject—the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Reconstruction on Tuesday last. It lasted for, I believe, an hour and three-quarters, and during the whole of that time I listened with intense interest to the suggestions and information which the right hon. Gentleman was able to give the House. I was very much astonished that the Debate last night lasted only until a little after eight o'clock, and that very few speeches were made either criticising or approving of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I did, however, listen to one speech, that of the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt), who suggested that the industries of the country were in such a condition even to-day that they could immediately absorb the whole of the available labour when the Army and Navy have been demobilised, in addition to the undoubted disorganisation which must arise when the munitions factories are also reduced in output. I cannot think that when he made that suggestion the hon. Member had really studied this problem which was before us. He stated also—which I think is a somewhat rash statement to make just before a General Election—that it was ridiculous for the Government to suggest such a large out-of-work benefit—a miserable 24s. a week to men who are to-day earning £6 or £7 working in munition factories! The problem is an immense problem. The hon. Member for Hexham suggested that these people might be employed making roads or loading and unloading ships. Those who have made a study of this question know that there is a vast demand for the strong, able-bodied labourer who can be employed on the roads and in loading and unloading ships. But the type of man who is likely to be thrown out of employment immediately is the old man, the man who has not been physically fit, and has therefore not been put into the Army; and there will also be disemployed a very large number of women and girls. I do not

  2951
  think that he can suggest employing these women, girls, old men, and physically unfit men, loading and unloading ships or making roads.
  Mr. HOLT: I did not say that.
  Major HAMILTON: It is with those people we have got to deal. That is the first problem before us. I was delighted to hear that there is going to be an allowance, small as it is—I agree with the Government that probably it cannot be made larger—to tide over the difficult period of the dislocation of industries. The right hon. Gentleman said another thing which I am sure will be of intense interest to manufacturers throughout the country. He said that it was the object of the Government to remove as rapidly as possible all Government interference with industries, and I hope that the Government will carry out that promise of the right hon. Gentleman quickly. He also said the Ministry of Munitions was to die a natural death by Monday next and was to become a Ministry of Supply.
  The MINISTER of RECONSTRUCTION (Dr. Addison): At an early date.
  Major HAMILTON: That also will be greeted with considerable satisfaction in trade circles and by manufacturers in this country. But they want to know some details as to how this Ministry of Supply is going to work, 1s, for instance, in future the entire Admiralty programme of the purchase of ships, repairs, etc., to be done by the Ministry of Supply? Are all War Office requirements going to be purchased through this new Ministry? The sooner such information is given to the country, so that everybody will know where he is, the better will our manufacturers be able to reorganise their works for after-the-war trade. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the scheme of out-of-work allowances, but did not explain exactly where these payments were to be got. Are they to be got through Labour Exchanges or through the Post Office, or by what means? It does seem to me that in some of these very large factories, which are temporarily dislocated, it would probably be in the interests of the State to pay these out-of-work allowances through the employers' organisation—that is, through the ordinary pay offices of the factory where the people are temporarily out of work. Then he said that the Government was going to accept
  2952
  liability for the return of overseas officers, and, in some cases, their own families, to their country. He did not say to what Department these officers had to apply. I hope that some public statement will be made on this point. I have already been asked how an officer gets some allowance to return to Australia from this country with his wife. Then he gave some considerable information about the pooling of storage arrangements on the railway and the organisation of railway traffic, so as to enable some railways to be used largely for demobilisation purposes, and the other railways to be available for ordinary trade. Here, again, it is important that some public statement should be made as to which railways would be available for ordinary trade. Otherwise manufacturers will find themselves unable to get the information, during the rush of a General Election, and will not know to what Government Department to apply and will not be able to ascertain how to get their goods moved about the country.
  Then he stated that a new Department for looking after labour was being set up under Sir Stephenson Kent. Sir Stephen-son Kent was the Controller of Labour in the Ministry of Munitions. Now we all want to know whether he is head of a new Government Department or has he joined the staff of the Ministry of Labour, or is he still in the Ministry of Munitions? Here, again, I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will realise the difficulty of the humble man in the street. It is most interesting to know that a new Government Department is being set up under such an efficient head, but it is most important for everyone to know what that gentleman's address is and in what Government Department he is working. The right hon. Gentleman dealt largely with demobilisation and reconstruction as they affect the problem of labour. There is an old proverb, which says: "If you take care of the pence the pounds will take care of themselves." I am not at all sure that that proverb cannot be applied very efficiently to our reconstruction problem. If you take care of the manufacturers the manufacturers will be able to employ labour, and the Government must apply the whole of their energies with the utmost efficiency to assisting the manufacturers and contractors in this country over the next month or two and enabling them rapidly to get back to ordinary peace conditions. If the Government can assist the manufacturers really efficiently in this way, they will assist the classes who will require

  2953
  employment to find work, and, therefore, the problem will solve itself. It occurs to me that there are four material and chief ways in which the Government can assist manufacturers. The first is by a rapid and sufficient supply of raw materials which they require. The second is by retaining, in the neighbourhood if possible, a supply of such labour as may be temporarily thrown out of the factories. The third is by assisting the manufacturers with finance; and the fourth is by assisting them to clear their works of Government material which is at present blocking those works. With the first of my suggestions, the right hon. Gentleman dealt fully in his speech. He said that the supply of raw materials was going to be dealt with by various methods which he outlined, and I am quite satisfied that that matter is receiving the careful attention of the Government. I say the same as to my second point, the retention and temporary retention of labour, as far as possible, in the district. I am sure the Government is dealing with that.
  As to the third point, the financial assistance of contractors, I feel very strongly—and, if I may say so, I have had some slight experience in this matter during the last two months—that manufacturers are at present handicapped on all sides by lack of prompt settlement of their accounts. I know that Government Departments do their best to get these accounts settled, but when you take a business such as that of the Ministry of Munitions, which is doing a turnover of something over £200,000,000 a year, a new office which has sprung up very rapidly, it is inevitable that in an enormous business of that sort manufacturers' accounts should get somewhat behind, and when any difficulty or item of red tape, as it is sometimes called, arises in connection with their account, it gets put on one side and the unfortunate manufacturer finds himself shortly in the position of borrowing from the bank. We have to appreciate that the very fact that wages have more than doubled in the last two years means that manufacturers must necessarily have more floating capital or working capital in the form of ready cash in order to carry on their businesses. Their wages bill at the end of a week has to be met and has to be met in cash, and that wages bill, owing to the fact, even if they are not employing any more hands, but owing to the fact that wages are so much higher, means a considerable extra sum of money. All
  2954
  these arguments, then, lead me to this, that where the Government has to cancel contracts and has to stop the production of war material, I do hope that they will try to set up some central accounting organisation, which will be empowered by the Treasury—for it must have full Treasury sanction—to pay contractors' accounts rapidly and, where necessary, to make payments on account, so as to assist manufacturers over this trying time. I do not know whether it would be possible—I am sure it would be a very great help—if there could be some bringing together of manufacturers' accounts as at present held by different Government Departments. One manufacturer who was trying to get some money out of me the other day on a Government account told me that the sum which he wanted out of me was not so very much, but that the War Office and also the Admiralty owed him a large sum, and he said that he had spent two or three days running from one Department to the other endeavouring to raise a little cash. Eventually I saw the head of the Accounts Department of the Ministry of Munitions, which made a payment which sent him away happy for the time being.
  The fourth item to which I referred was the clearance of the works of Government material. I want the House to think for a moment of the position of a fairly large manufacturer, with an efficient works, who at present is carrying on some dozen or more contracts, some from the Ministry of Munitions, some from the Admiralty, some from the Board of Trade, and some possibly even from the Board of Agriculture. I know one actual case of a large firm who are making aeroplanes, making tanks, making large machinery for the Admiralty, making agricultural machinery, and also making railway materials under the Railway Executive Committee, which is the Board of Trade. As a result of our success in the War, I do not think that we want any more tanks. We do not want the tanks completed, so I presume, and the Minister of Munitions has probably instructed this firm to stop the production of tanks. I believe the particular machinery which this firm is making for the Admiralty will also be stopped. There is no doubt that the construction of aeroplanes must be stopped, because a month's output of this firm could not be stored in the factory. I do not believe it could even be stored in the adjacent town, unless it were on the railway, down the railway embankment and sidings. What is going to be the

  2955
  position, is what the governing spirit, the managing director, of this business wants to know. Is he going to have an accountant with two or three experts from the Ministry of Munitions to inquire into the cancellation of the tank contract and to say what partially manufactured material is to be scrapped, what is to be handed over to him, and what the Government is going to remove and sell elsewhere? Is he to have another accountant with another two or three experts from the Admiralty to deal with their contract, and a similar batch of men from the Board of Trade? In these works, and in every works, there is only one batch of accountants, and they cannot possibly supply—short-handed as they are to-day—men who can deal with a swarm of officials from these different offices if they all arrived at the same time. And it would be equally disastrous for these works if they did not arrive at the same time, for the object of the firm is not only to get their contracts, which are cancelled, paid for and settled and the material removed out of the way, but they want to get on with their ordinary peace products, and we all of us, especially the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Reconstruction, are anxious to assist them to get on with the peace work, so that they can employ the workpeople and produce a useful article. But they cannot get on with their ordinary peace products if the Admiralty acts in this manner. I picture the possibility of firms applying to the Admiralty to send down and remove this block of material and to let them get their machines cleared. The Admiralty replies that it is doing the best it can, and then send a large staff elsewhere, and the Admiralty may then half clear works within a few miles of this one, while the Ministry of Munitions half clear this one—and the friction which will arise will prevent the employment of workpeople, and the condition of some managing directors will be such that they will end in a lunatic asylum.
  I suggest that the Government should try and do what the right hon. Gentleman said he had found in so much evidence in his work in reconstruction. They should go in for co-operation. The right hon. Gentleman in his very fine peroration said that the resettlement of industry depended on industrial peace, and that industrial peace could only be obtained by wholehearted co-operation between capital and labour. Let the Government set an
  2956
  example, not only of whole-hearted co-operation but of extreme efficiency. Let them collect together those contracts which are cancelled, let them put them under one capable Minister with a staff collected in the best way that it can be collected in the various Departments which have been dealing with these contracts, let that Minister and his staff make up his mind with which factory he will deal and send down one staff of accountants and experts to deal with all contracts in that factory, to clear that factory and enable that factory immediately to get on with its peace work. I am satisfied that something in the nature of a Minister of Liquidation of War Contracts should be set up, and possibly the new Ministry of Supply could undertake that work. But it must be all put together, We must not have, what we have had during the earlier days of the War, competition between the Government Departments. The right hon. Gentleman said a Committee was set up a little time ago to advise and report on the disposal of war stores. I would suggest that that Committee should possibly be put, say, under the Board of Trade, and let that Committee dispose of all war stores which are complete, such as motor lorries which are capable of running on the road, which have either come back from France or which, under the Ministry of Munitions, have been completed in the factory and turned out as new. Then leave it to the Minister of Liquidation or the Minister of Supply to dispose of all partially manufactured articles. That would be a perfectly clear cut line. Everyone would know whom to go to if they wished to buy completely manufactured goods, and every manufacturer would know that the material partially manufactured would be disposed of under the Ministry of Liquidation.
  In conclusion, I should like to add this: such a Minister of Liquidation will be unavoidable. Owing to the fact that he is dealing with manufacturers' accounts, that he is investigating their accounts by means of his own staff, he will know exactly in what financial position that manufacturer is, and he and his advisers will be in a position to give that financial assistance which I am satisfied must be given and must be given promptly to many manufacturers to tide over this time of change. Therefore, I would suggest to the Government that this Minister of Liquidation, or whatever you like to call

  2957
  him, should be directly connected with the Exchequer. I know—it is so even in my small Department of the Ministry of Munitions, where I have been endeavouring to settle claims arising out of contracts—that, over £1,000, these claims have to be referred to the Treasury. That means another ten days at the very shortest, sometimes three weeks, sometimes a month before even I get consent to pay the couple of thousand pounds that I represent should be paid to the con tractor.
  That sort of delay in connection with the enormous financial responsibility which the Government are now facing in stopping the production of war material. There must not be that delay in reimbursing to the contractor the money which is found by the Government's own inspectors to be due to them. I implore the Government, either that the Treasury should give to this Minister of Liquidation a really free hand and trust him and his experts to assist the manufacturer by advances in payment or loans, if necessary, to entrust him really with the authority of the Treasury and not to have these repeated and constant delays. If only the Government can get this co-operation of Government Departments in the clearing up of these war contracts I, personally, have no fear for the future. I honestly feel that with some whole-hearted pulling together of Government Departments, and a really efficient Minister in the liquidation of war contracts, we shall be able to clear the factories rapidly, to assist the manufacturers over the financial troubles which they are bound to have to face in the next few weeks, and, by doing that, we shall get over the troublous times which are facing us. In my opinion, the Labour programme will solve itself, and we need have no fear of Bolshevism, or any other "ism," in the next few years.
  Colonel COLLINS: The hon. and gallant Member referred in the earlier part of his speech to the projected Ministry of Supplies, which the Minister of Reconstruction informed the House on Tuesday would be constituted. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give the House some information as to when this new Ministry will be established. When the Government set up this Ministry, I hope that they will endeavour to provide in it the best points in each of the Government Departments. There are many good points in the Ministry of Munitions, and there are
  2958
  also good points at the War Office and the Admiralty, and in the other large Departments. I trust, therefore, that the Minister of Reconstruction will combine in this new Ministry the best points of each of those Departments. The Minister of Reconstruction also informed the House of the Surplus Disposal Board, set up some months ago to consider the resale of warlike stores. He also informed us that the value of those stores amounted to, although I do not think he stated the figure exactly, about £500,000,000. He also reminded the House of the scandals which took place after the South African War and previous wars. That leads me to ask who will be responsible for the disposal of those stores? We want to fix definite responsibility for this large sum of public money, and to know exactly who is responsible, and who will give authority for sale throughout this country and in France, and in the different parts of the world where our stores are to-day. I know that the Board has been busy for many months past, but I feel positive myself that a Board is not the proper machinery for action to-day. I hope that we may be informed as to the exact steps the Government propose to take in this matter.
  The Minister of Reconstruction also told us of the large sums which are going to be spent on demobilisation and transport, food, raw materials, and other purposes. When the previous. Consolidated Fund Bills were passed during the War we had confidence in passing those Bills, although they were for large sums of money, because we knew exactly the Government who would be responsible for the expenditure of that money. We have no assurance to-day that this money will be spent by a Coalition Government in future. In previous Consolidated Fund Bills we knew the Government who were responsible, and we knew that parties behind the Government were united in a common effort. We have, unfortunately, no such assurance to-day, and although I hope personally that a Coalition Government will continue in the immediate future, we have no assurance that we shall not be returning shortly to bitter party strife. The money which the Minister of Reconstruction and various other Departments will be spending will be spent, as the hon. and gallant Member told us, on the termination of war contracts and demobilisation, and if we are to return to bitter party controversy, some of those huge payments will lose their national character. I would

  2959
  appeal to all parties to make this Consolidated Fund Bill a symbol of unity, at any rate during demobilisation. The money has to be spent on demobilisation, and, as the Minister of Reconstruction told us on Tuesday, demobilisation is interwoven with the beginning of reconstruction, and it is none the less a war service, just as this Consolidated Fund Bill is on a war scale. It appeals for a common effort, and the machinery of government and the Departments which have been created during the War cannot be immediately scrapped, even after the peace is signed. As the Departments cannot be immediately scrapped, and as we must continue for many months, perhaps for a few years ahead, the Departments and the conditions which exist in this country, I hope that a Coalition Government will continue to guide the destinies of this country.
  There is another reason why I think we should endeavour to sink our party differences. Our soldiers and sailors are returning from Flanders and Gallipoli and other parts, and they do not want to return to a country filled with strife. They have had experience of poisonous gases for the last three or four years, and they do not wish to return to a country filled with strife, or, as has been suggested elsewhere, with poisonous gases. After risking their lives these men want to return to this country and to find better social conditions and security of employment. The question I put to the House is this: Is this money under this Consolidated Fund Bill to be spent amid the sharp and bitter quarrels of party? In my judgment it should not be so. The Minister of Reconstruction told us of the large sums to be spent on transport ships and on putting them into good repair and on railways which need repair and other demobilisation services which are common objects and not party questions. So is the restoration of civil rights and the abolition of D.O.R.A. We have fought for freedom, and we must restore it during demobilisation time, not as a party act but as a national act. We gather from the Press this morning that the Government intend to maintain the present rate of wages for the next six months. Is this huge payment of public money to be spent by a Party Government? I think it will lose its main characteristic if it is spent by a Party Government. It should be spent by a Coalition Government with all parties behind it. I ask this question. Is this
  2960
  then not the time when political parties, whether Liberal or Unionist, Labour or any other section, should rather endeavour to sink their differences and seek accomodation one with the other? I know full well the difficulties with which my hon. Friends who sit on these benches are faced. I do not know the decisions of the Labour Congress this afternoon, but I hope even yet at this late hour we may seek to adjust our differences and so pass this Bill as the representatives of the nation to those men who are returning to these shores.
  Dr. ADDISON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Altrincham (Major Hamilton) has asked some questions which I will endeavour to answer. The out-of-work donation is intended to be paid through the machinery associated with the Labour Employment Exchanges, which is now used for the payment of out-of-work benefit under the Unemployment Section of the Insurance Act. That will necessitate a great augmentation of the machinery, and therefore we have amalgamated the different Departments to which I referred the other day under one head. In answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question as to where claims should be addressed, the reply is to the Ministry of Labour, as the different Departments which have been amalgamated are under the authority of the Ministry of Labour. Both the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the hon. and gallant Member who spoke last asked some questions as to the powers of the proposed Ministry of Supplies. I gather from the tenor of their remarks that they are generally in accord with that proposal. I think the experience of everyone who has had anything to do with war services, and both hon. Gentlemen have had inside knowledge of these matters, recognises that it is common sense and a businesslike thing to amalgamate twin services as much as possible. Rome was not built in a day, and we do not propose to dislocate things too rapidly, but what is intended is that we shall have in one Department the general governmental supply services. I do not for a moment expect that for some time to come that Department will be responsible for building warships. It will need time and patience and readjustment before any such arrangement as that could be made. The arrangements that have already been sanctioned as to this Ministry of Supplies deal with the supply services of the Government generally. The hon. and gallant Member for

  2961
  Altrincham pointed out the desirability of dealing with the termination of contracts in a collective way. I think it is obviously common sense and the right thing to do, as far as we can. That is one of the reasons why at this particular stage I advised the Government that we ought to take a decision now as to the Ministry of Supplies, because it will enable us to a great extent to deal with this particular question.
  I share, with my hon. and gallant Friend his anxiety that we should give manufacturers as little trouble as possible, and that we should expedite the clearing of their accounts as much as we can, and that they should not be bothered with the visits of half a dozen different people where it is possible to avoid that. Where you have as much as twenty million items going through in one week, and that is at least the figure of the Ministry of Munitions, you are bound occasionally to have some difficulties. The hon. Member will have noticed in the papers this morning that we have issued an order enabling certain manufacturers to use certain stocks they have already in their yards, and so forth, with a view of getting subsequent accommodation. There is every desire to facilitate the clearance of works as soon as possible. With regard to aeroplanes, the physical difficulty of dealing with this mass of material is very great indeed, and it raises transport storage problems of serious difficulty. The Minister of Munitions is to make a statement in the. House on Monday next as to the steps they are taking in connection with these matters. That Department deals with the question of storage, clearance of accounts, and other matters of that kind, and my right hon. Friend will be able on Monday to give the hon. Member more detailed information than I can. Then I was asked about the transport executive which we have set up to deal with the storage, and my hon. Friend asked me quite properly to what Department that executive would be responsible? It will be, responsible to the Board of Trade. It is a transport problem. I cannot tell you, I am afraid, at this moment, what lines of traffic they are clearing for ordinary traffic and what lines of traffic they will reserve for demobilisation. I think that is a technical matter.
  Major HAMILTON: Will it be published as soon as possible?
  Dr. ADDISON: We will give as much information as we can as soon as possible.
  2962
  Another hon. Member asked about the arrangement—it is more than a good intention; it has become a fact—with reference to the disposal of the war stores. I entirely agree with him, that as things developed, it was clear that a Stores Disposal Board was not a workable proposal. Lord Salisbury's Council surveyed the whole question of the categories of stores, and how best they could be used for other purposes, or what policy should govern their disposal. It is on that account we feel that you must have one body responsible, as far as possible, for the general disposal of those stores. The authority for stores disposal has been concentrated now in the Ministry of Munitions, but that does not mean that this body will necessarily itself dispose, let us say, of horse-shoes and blankets that belong to the War Office. The body which will advise the policy to be pursued will advise the Minister; but, clearly enough, it would be quite impossible for this body to take physical disposal of things away from the people who are already dealing with them, and, subject to that general policy, it will be for those who now have the stores to deal with them or otherwise as is desirable. To give an illustration: Supposing the War Office has a large stock of sardines—the category of stores is a very bewildering business; it varies from sardines to camels—it is clear that, if you have a particular type of stores dealt with by one Department, the sensible tiling is to lay down lines of policy and the system of accounts to apply to them all. But where you have a store like motor-cars owned by four different Departments—the Admiralty, War Office, Ministry of Munitions, and the Air Ministry—it would be very foolish for all four Departments to be disposing of motor-cars. Therefore we concentrate in one of those Ministries the disposal of things of that kind. How you are to dispose of them is, of course, a detailed matter which you can only answer with reference to the general store itself. But I may say we intend, and we have, as a matter of fact, already taken steps to secure, that the requirements of public bodies, whether at home or not, for different categories of stores shall be ascertained beforehand, because we all recognise that in some of the services, particularly rural transport, we may be able to save a great deal of time by the utilisation of some of these stores. We have to secure that we do not damage the

  2963
  industry of the country at the same time. Those things will all be, and are being, taken into consideration.
  With regard to the appeal of the hon. and gallant Member for Greenock (Colonel Collins), I think it will go without saying that I am in cordial agreement with him. I think, as he does, that the problems of the immediate future need all the good will and unity of purpose that we can possibly secure. And I think myself it is essential that, if we can secure it, we should get a sufficient unity of action dealing with the problem of the immediate future which is represented in the form of controllership of the Government. It is perfectly true, as the hon. Member says, that there is no guarantee that the present Coalition Government will be responsible for the expenditure of the money which the House is now voting. Well, that is in the lap of the gods, and we do not know. But that does not divest us in any way of our responsibility of making the proposals to the House at this time. So long as we are responsible for their discharge, we shall discharge them in accordance with the lines of policy I set out to the House at very great length the other night.
  Mr. D. MASON: There has been a remarkable Report recently issued by Lord Cunliffe, and, I think, before this House dissolves, we ought to draw attention to this most important Report, which affects every trading and banking concern, and, in fact, every industry throughout the whole country. This Report is entitled the "First Interim Report of the Committee on Currency and Foreign Exchanges After the War." It is signed by Lord Cunliffe, who, as is well known, was formerly Governor of the Bank of England, and amongst the signatories are some of the most eminent and most distinguished bankers and financiers in this country. I think our congratulations, if I may say so, are due to these gentlemen for the care they have taken, and the lucidity with which this Report is drawn up. I would venture to suggest to any hon. Member that it would well repay him to peruse it. As the particular subject with which it deals, namely, the foreign exchanges, which, we know, have been affected all through the War, and the fact that finance enters into every conceivable form of trade or commerce, it seems to me that a study of this Report and the recommendations which it makes are well
  2964
  worth the attention of this House, and I hope the attention of the Government, and that action will be taken along the lines suggested in this Report, which, I venture to think, are, in the main, sound and worthy of such support.
  The Minister of Reconstruction, in a very interesting survey the other day, said that the supreme question for this country now was the maintenance of a supply of raw materials necessary for the carrying on of trade and industry. We know, of course, that to obtain these raw materials in various countries, the question of the exchange, the question of maintaining our credit, and the free interchange of bills of exchange, are essential. Therefore, to my mind, the necessary action of the Government in carrying out the recommendations which are contained in this Report, seem to me to be essential if we are to get back to peace industry, if we are to get our trade put on a solid, sound foundation, and, in fact, seem to me to lie at the very root of our future trade and commerce. The Report is really a Report on what one might term the smashing of the machine of foreign exchanges. I do not propose, of course, to survey the whole of what has taken place. It is well known to many of us how, after 1914, the exchanges got out of gear, and action was taken by the Government in the carrying through the House of the Currency Act, which tended to alleviate the situation, but which, as shown in this Report, finally smashed the machine and prevented the natural working of the foreign exchanges. The Report endeavours to show how the machine may be repaired, and the possibility, within a reasonably short period, of the machine again being put into working order.
  7.0 P.M.
  It is said by many that the financial supremacy of the City of London has disappeared, and has passed away for ever to the City of New York. I, for one, do not believe that for a moment, though it is true that we are very much dependent on the United States of America, and I desire to pay a tribute to the enormous financial help which we have derived from credits and from assistance by the United States. But if we have the skill and the courage which we have seen so well displayed by our soldiers and sailors in battle to bring to a successful and honourable close this great War—if we are to follow in their footsteps, we also can show in our several

  2965
  spheres that we have the same skill and courage, and can bring back again the City of London to the great position it formerly occupied. I believe it is possible to do that. In the first place, London is still where it was, and when we know the enormous population of England and that all the great trade routes, more or less, have their centre in London, it seems we need not have any fear or craven thought that we will not regain our financial supremacy. This Report endeavours to point the way to again resuming proper trading and the proper working of these important exchanges. In certain of the paragraphs it is very lucidly laid down how it is that these exchanges have failed to work, and how it is that they may again be put into proper working order. It is explained in another paragraph how this system works. Owing to the competition by the Treasury in continually issuing Treasury currency notes, the Bank of England was unable to stop this strain, and was rendered entirely ineffectual by the tendency to increase credit and by the Treasury continually issuing paper money during the past three or four years. The Report recognises that the remedy for this state of affairs is the actual transfer to the Bank of England of the control of these matters. The problem is, How are we to get back to the natural state of affairs which formerly existed? The Report is very cautious, because the Bank of England does not wish to embarrass itself. When you have a currency issue of £290,000,000, which is still increasing, the Bank is naturally very chary about taking over any great responsibility. Therefore these recommendations have been very carefully drawn up, and the Committee have been by no means hasty in their conclusion. They suggest that the steps should be very gradual.
  I for one have often recommended that if the high prices which exist to-day are to be prevented rising any further, one of the most effective methods of stopping it would be to contract the issue of these currency notes and bring trade back to its normal state. I believe you will have considerable activity in trade, but still I think we must face the fact that there will probably be a considerable decrease in that activity in certain quarters. If you artificially cheapen money you will still further inflate prices. I hope, therefore, that the recommendations of this Committee will be sympathetically considered
  2966
  by the Government and that some action will be taken by them to put them into force. The Report of the Committee on the cost of living has just been issued. It shows that the increase in the cost of living since the beginning of the War has been from 80 per cent. to 90 per cent., and one of the main contributory factors in accentuating this increase has been the action of the Treasury. This is rather a technical subject, but I think it is one of immense importance, because we know we have repeated attempts, many of them justifiable, to secure increases of pensions and allowances and wages. In these matters we are really working in a vicious circle. The more we increase the war bonuses, the greater is the cost of living. There is no finality, in fact, in this direction. What is necessary is that we should find some method of reducing prices. We want to do something which will allay unrest among an important part of the community. We want to get back to the sounder state of trade and industry, and if we reduce prices it will enable us the better to compete with other countries, and it will do more to stimulate our trade and industry. We want now to reduce the cost of production, so that we may stimulate our exports. We want to do everything possible to stimulate industry and trade in every direction.
  I need only mention one fact to show the alarming state of our present trade. This year we may possibly have a surplus of imports over exports of something like from £700,000,000 to £1,000,000,000, and that must, of course, entail an adverse exchange with the United States. We have only been able to maintain our exchange during the last two or three years by getting further credits established with the United States and by continuous borrowing. Now the necessity for that has disappeared, and we must face the problem how we are going to liquidate our indebtedness and get back to the position in which our exchanges were and be able to cease borrowing. The essential point is to stop Government borrowings as soon as possible. In the days of the Napoleonic Wars we raised taxation at the rate of 40 per cent. During the Crimean War we raised it at the rate of 50 per cent., and during the Boer War at the rate of 33⅓ Per cent. But in this War the proportion we have raised by taxation has been well under 5 per cent. The extravagance and high prices which have resulted from this method of finance has produced a situation

  2967
  with which we are now faced, and it has stimulated our imports enormously, with the result that we are faced with the position that we have an excess of imports over exports to the extent of from £700,000,000 to £1,000,000,000. I may be asked what is the solution of this problem. Some financial authorities are almost in despair at the prospect of getting back that freedom which we formerly enjoyed. I believe that one remedy is this—for we may learn lessons from similar crises in the past—in 1891 we had what was called the Baring crisis. The great house of Baring was embarrassed, and likely to fall. How was that crisis tided over? By a syndicate or a league of firms getting together and forming a guarantee fund, by allowing time the liabilities of the firm were gradually liquidated without any loss to the guarantors, and the house of Baring was saved. The same principle may be applied to our national affairs, and, if applied, would probably bring about the same result. Many of us, from the Prime Minister downwards, are enthusiastic supporters of a League of Nations, and ii seems to me that here again we may well find a solution of the troubles to which I have referred. If we have within this League of Nations in connection with our financial arrangements with the United States and other of our great Allies, whereby we may gradually get back the proper financial working of the exchanges—if that, I say, could be perpetuated I think this time of embarrassment may be tided over. I notice that President Wilson, in the message to our King, just published, says:
  "We know of the great partnership of interests and sentiment to which we belong."
  Of course we know. Those who have any experience of finance know what an enormous debt has been piled up in the United States. I desire to see that indebtedness removed. I am conscious of the fact, and have always paid a tribute to the assistance of the United States, but I desire to see my country free from this embarrassment. We must have co-operation in a League of Nations, not, however, still further to issue loans and to have a further plunging into debt, but rather as, in the Baring matter, to guarantee and to perpetuate this continuity of, co-operation for the purpose gradually of liquidating all our various liabilities. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman who represents the Treasury and the Government
  2968
  will seek rather to use the perpetuation of these powers of working together for the purpose of reducing our liabilities and of getting back as quickly as possible to ordinary and normal conditions. The other day I received a letter from Lord Cunliffe, Chairman of this Committee. I had written a letter in the "Westminster Gazette," and Lord Cunliffe referred to it. Lord Cunliffe said:
  "I have your note. When I first read your letter in the 'Westminster Gazette'—"
  a letter referring to the floating debt, and urging the Government to issue their proposals as soon as possible for finding the floating debt—
  "I determined one day to ask for your ideas on a scheme for funding the floating debt."
  Perhaps it would be out of order to suggest a means by which that could be effected, and for two reasons. It is very difficult to work out one's ideas as to how the floating debt should be funded, not being in office, or in possession of the information which is necessary for drawing up some such scheme. It is, I say, a very difficult matter, certainly on the floor of this House to submit a scheme. Secondly, I think it would not be in order in a Debate on the Appropriation Bill to say how the money should be raised and in what particular form. I believe, however, I am quite in order in saying that I agree with Lord Cunliffe and others in the City as to the supreme urgency of this particular operation being carried out as soon as possible. We have to-day a floating debt of £1,400,000,000. We know as the vast industry of the country develops that it demands capital to be increased rather than decreased. We hope—as we all do hope—to get rid of this artificially cheap credit which is flooding the country, and has been flooding it through our methods of finance, which I believe to be quite unsound, and which may perhaps have been excusable in time of war but will be suicidal to pursue in time of peace—because of this I suggest to the Government—and I believe the suggestion will be supported by many others in the City of London and throughout the country—that it is supremely necessary to bring forward their proposals for funding these short-dated securities as soon as possible.
  In conclusion, I would only—as I have already spoken of the necessity for the cessation of public borrowing at the earliest possible moment—emphasise again this point. We are now engaged in discussing

  2969
  this Bill. It is founded upon a Vote of Credit for £700,000,000, which we hope will be the last. We are conscious of the enormous burden which we have incurred in what we all, I think unanimously, believe to have been a just cause. Whether, however, causes are just or unjust they have to be paid for. We have to face that particular fact. It is one which many sober, serious men must realise as one of appalling gravity. Therefore, I hope that this easy method under which we have continuously lived of issuing loans and always incurring further liability either by diluting the currency by increased paper money or getting further credits, is finished, and that having now arrived at the peace period, the Government, when they go to the country, will put these points prominently before the people. I trust they will stand for a resumption of economy. While there are certain necessary reforms, I trust they will also try to cut their coat according to their cloth. Having spent our money we cannot altogether indulge in many things which we might have done at one time. One of the greatest reforms that we can pursue in this country is to maintain our solvency and to pursue drastic and strict economies. The other day I came across a passage from McCulloch, a financial authority, where he points out the insidious and most dangerous effect which flows from the excess of borrowing, which certainly we have been indulging in during the last four years. Writing on the "Advantages and Disadvantages of the Funding System" (page 428), he says:
  "An excess of funding or loan issuing bears a close resemblance to those most dangerous diseases which steal slowly and imperceptibly on the Constitution, and do not discover their malignant symptoms until they have fastened on the vitals and vitiated the whole animal economy. The industry and economy of individuals and nothing else can effectually countervail the profusion and waste occasioned by a war…"
  It is true that we have enjoyed in many industries a great prosperity. There has been a great plethora of money, and, as we all know, great extravagance. That is easy to see. I understand the Prime Minister is inclined now to say that we are going to have a wonderful programme of reforms of all sorts. We are going to have unlimited money spent on housing. All of this, it may be quite true, is very necessary; and certainly I, for one, in my own Constituency know, and have said, that there is a famine in houses. We
  2970
  have, however, to have regard to the population we are going to have, and where the houses are likely to be needed. Over and above everything we have to consider what we have the money to do, what reforms we can afford to indulge in. If we strain ourselves and we get panics, bankruptcies, and failures, and so disorder; if we have no regard to the position to which the world has come as a result of this enormous expenditure, the reforms will be false. It will be false economy to tempt the working classes of this country to indulge in certain schemes, however desirable they may be, if it is at the cost of the embarrassment of our Treasury and the undermining of our national credit.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I do not propose to detain the House very long, but I should like to bring forward a matter which, on many occasions during the Session, I have brought forward in this House. I have, first of all, addressed myself to the First Lord of the Admiralty. I have then addressed myself to the Post Office Department. I have endeavoured also to knock at the door of the Treasury. On no occasion have I received any satisfactory reply. The matter which I am now introducing is one which affects a great number of people in the country. It is a matter which affects Civil Service pensioners. I am not so much concerned with the men who have large pensions. They can very well afford to look after themselves. The people whom I am particularly interested in, and upon whose behalf I make the appeal to the Treasury, are those men who have comparatively small pensions. In many cases these men are infirm and unable to do work of any kind. They are one and all—or nearly so—in what I may describe as very straitened circumstances. I have here a list of about a dozen men who held Post Office pensions which average something like 15s. 6d. per week. These men are all over sixty years of age. They have put in service ranging from twenty-eight to forty-five years at the Post Office, yet their average pension at the present moment is not so much as 15s. 6d. per week. It will be admitted by everyone here that that sum is not one upon which any man, woman, or even child can exist in view of the present cost of living. It is not, however, only the Post Office pensioners upon whose behalf I would appeal; I would also appeal on behalf of the dockyard

  2971
  pensioners. Not very long ago I received a deputation of dockyard pensioners. One man told me that he had worked in the dockyard, I think it was twenty-three years, when he was invalided out. His pension was 5s. 6d. per week. He had upon that to keep his family. He had, happily, children who were able to assist in the upkeep of the family, or it would have been impossible for him to live. At the same time, here was a poor man who was in receipt of 5s. 6d. a week pension. I have asked on many occasions that during the War a bonus should be given to these small pensioners, or else, if that cannot be done, a Bill should be introduced enabling the State to add something to these pensions in order that they may be able to meet in some way the extra cost of living.
  It may be said that I am introducing a new principle, but this I deny. Already a war bonus has been given to officers in the Post Office whose wages or salaries do not exceed £500 a year, and if it was necessary to give this bonus to these officers how much more necessary is it to give a bonus to servants, many of whom are approaching the verge of starvation! Not only is the war bonus recognised in the Post Office, but it is also recognised in other Government Departments. Very early in the War I was one among many who called the attention of the House to the case of the old age pensioners, and it was decided, without any discussion, that the old age pensions should be raised. Why was that done? Simply to meet the extra cost of living and the smallness of the pension. The pensions I have read out are similarly small. I do not think they are exactly of the same measure, but in view of the work done by these pensioners their pensions must be considered very small, and they must find very great difficulty in meeting the present high cost of living, which has gone up, we are told, by something like 120 per cent. How can a man in those circumstances meet a position of that kind? I hardly need argue that, because the Secretary to the Treasury must be aware that it is quite impossible for a man receiving such a small pension to keep up any kind of position, much less to feed a family.
  Why were these pensions given? In order that officials of the Civil Service should not be placed, after leaving the service, in a position of great hardship. That was the idea of the State when it
  2972
  set up a system of pensions for Civil servants. Is that intention being carried out? I submit that it is not. The hardships that these men endure are very great and they were never anticipated when the pension was fixed. Surely the time has come when if it is not possible to give a war bonus extending over a certain period until at least the cost of living reaches normal conditions, it is possible to introduce a measure which will in some way or other raise these pensions to enable these men, at any rate, to live without suffering the great hardship which they have to endure under present circumstances. This has already been done in France, where they have voted £30,000,000 to raise Civil Service pensions, and under this Vote the small pensioners are to benefit. I mentioned the question of dockyard pensioners, who are particularly in circumstances of difficulty, because they are men who are unable to do any other work at all for many reasons. I do appeal to the Treasury to consider the matter and endeavour in some way to meet what I think the House will agree is a very justifiable grievance. I do not need to press this matter any further, and I feel sure the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will in his reply sympathise with the position of these pensioners. I ask him very humbly but forcibly to give something more than sympathy and do what he can to alleviate their sufferings and enable them during these trying times to tide over a period by giving some addition to their very small emoluments.
  Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): Before I reply to the last speaker I should like to comment briefly upon the speech of the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. D. M. Mason) and to say bow pleased I was to hear his remarks upon the most admirable Report of the Currency Committee which has recently appeared, and which I hope will be read and studied by other hon. Members of this House, because I feel that the principles which underlie that Report are sound, and are principles which should guide us, as far as we are able to adopt them, in the difficult times that lie ahead. There was nothing in my hon. Friend's speech which I desire to criticise except one remark, and that was when he made the rather curious statement that in the financing of this War during the last four years we had, in his opinion, not spent enough out of taxation.
  Mr. MASON: Not raised enough.
  Mr. BALDWIN: Not raised enough, and he made comparisons of the percentages in previous wars. I should like to remind the House that no percentages can be comparable with the War which is now drawing to a close and previous wars. There has never been a war comparable to the present one in the number of men engaged, in the enormous amount of material, in the vast expenditure of that material; and what we have to look at is not a comparative percentage, but the amount of money which has been raised year by year by taxation. When we look at it from that point of view, and when people look at it in years to come, I think they will feel that the effort this country has made during the last four years has been one which is not unworthy, and one that will compare favourably with any efforts in this direction which have been made in previous wars. There is one other remark with which I am in complete agreement. It may be that only for a short time shall I be responsible, even in the capacity I am to-day for the finances of this country, but, I sincerely hope that this may be the last Vote of Credit. As far as I have any influence, my desire is to get the finances of this country back again on the Estimates, although I realise that if that be the policy, it may not be possible for the next twelve months to present Estimates with the accuracy of those presented in pre-war years, and the Estimates themselves must be, from the circumstances of the case, sufficiently wide to meet many unforeseen contingencies. Even then I feel that would be preferable to going on much longer with the continuation of a system of Votes of Credit.
  I come now to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Devonport (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke). Be has dealt with a subject which he has advocated with sincerity and persistence for a long time, and it is a question that interests a number of hon. Members of this House. I do not wonder at that, because no doubt there is a great deal in the cases of those pensioners which makes a very strong appeal to the sympathy not only of the Government, but of hon. Members who study those conditions. I want to put before my hon. Friend one or two points which we who are responsible for the spending of money here have to bear in mind, and if I have to say "No" to his request I hope he will at least absolve me to the extent that he will
  2974
  not attribute it to hardness of heart or to an extra dose of "original sin." He knows probably as well as I do, that all of these pensions are governed by Statute, and cannot be increased without legislative authority. That being so, it becomes impossible at this stage, even if we were desirous to make other provision. The amount at present paid in these pensions to those who derive their rights of pension from these Acts is something over £3,000,000 a year. I do not base my case-so much on what, after all, is a technical difficulty as I do on two other points. In the first place, I have a responsibility to the taxpayer, although it may sound late in the day to put that claim before the House of Commons. The House may feel that the Treasury has not realised this responsibility in the last four years, but whether that be the case or not, I am sure that at this moment it is our duty o scrutinise very closely every demand made on the public purse. Here I come to the point that moves me most in this matter.
  After all, Civil Service pensioners are to-day in a privileged position as compared with a large army of men who have rendered unestablished service in the Civil Service, and as compared with the great mass of the people, who, not having been in the Civil Service at all, and having performed their duties with the ordinary risks of trade and industry, find themselves with no pensions of any kind, however small. Is it quite fair to the mass of these people with small incomes, upon whom ultimately falls indirectly a great deal of the heavy taxation of the present day, that we should take this one comparatively small and privileged class, and still further increase the privilege that they enjoy. That is quite a fair way of looking at it. I cannot persuade myself at the present time that it would be an act of justice to those much larger classes whose need is as great, or greater. It is quite true that a number of these pensioners are too old or too feeble to work, but it is equally true that a great many of them are still able to work. The House must remember that the demand for labour has been unprecedented, and that the wages for most of the labour have also been unprecedented. There have been better opportunities than at any previous time for those who were able to work to add substantially to their income. I regret very much having to say "no" to my hon. Friend. Constitutionally, I dislike using

  2975
  that word. I do not dislike using it so much as I did two years ago, but I do dislike it, and it is with real regret that I have to tell him that we cannot consider the case which he has put to the House with so much ability and so much sympathy. The Government must maintain the refusal that they have felt themselves bound to give to repeated questions put in the House during this Session and last Session.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I desire to call the attention of the House to two matters of urgent importance which have been very strongly urged upon me from Scotland and which affect the interests of the foremen in engineering trades throughout the country, and all those industrial workers who are looking forward to a better scheme of housing throughout our land. I will deal, first, with the question of the foremen. I should like especially to call attention to the unfortunate delay which has occurred in settling the claim of a most deserving class of workers, who may be called the non-commissioned officers of the great army of industry, and who, during these past years, have given of their very best in the service of their country. I am sure that my hon. Friend (Mr. Kellaway) will be the first to acknowledge the debt that his Department owes to the foremen in the engineering trades throughout this country. They have put forward their claim in a very fair manner and they have taken no means of enforcing it beyond the arguments of reason and of justice which they have presented to his Department and to the Treasury. The foremen in the engineering and allied trades—I speak especially for those who are situated in Scotland, because the numerous representations that I have received have come from my own Constituency and from other districts in the West of Scotland where the engineering shops are situated—ever since 1st October, 1917, have placed their claim before the Ministry of Munitions that they should share in the advances which have been made after due consideration to the workers engaged in our large industrial establishments during the War. Their claim now amounts to 45s. 6d., being the total of the advances which from time to time have been made to the other industrial workers, including the 12½ per cent. bonus, and to which they regard themselves as entitled. Throughout this period they have been urging upon the Ministry of Munitions
  2976
  that they ought to receive due consideration. I do not desire to take up the time of the House by tracing all the negotiations which have taken place, but I should like to mention one or two facts.
  The foremen, through their association, have had a number of interviews with the Ministry of Munitions. After their first interview, when their claim was very fully discussed and considered in a sympathetic spirit, a circular was issued, on 29th November, 1917, by the Engineering Employers' Federaton, recommending amongst other things that an advance, on rates of 25s. per week, should be given to foremen as from 1st August, 1917, the date when the claim was put forward. That advance was to cover, first, any amounts proposed as the equivalent of the 12½ per cent., under the Skilled Time-Workers' Order, 1917; secondly, the 5s. given by the Committee on Production to workmen from December, 1917; and, thirdly, any general advance given to foremen since August, 1917, other than amounts equivalent to the award of the Committee on Production to workmen of 8s. per week. That suggestion, which came through the Ministry of Munitions, was recommended by the employers themselves to all the firms to which the circular was sent. It was put categorically in this circular that the suggestions had come direct from the Ministry of Munitions. I am glad to say that a number of firms did act on that circular. In fact, the strength of my case lies in the fact that a number of the larger firms, such as Beard-more and Denny, had no hesitation whatever in giving effect to the recommendations. Unfortunately, a number of other firms held out. A further plea had to be made to the Ministry of Munitions to bring these other firms into line. In correspondence with the Ministry of Munitions, I was informed that the Law Officers of the Crown had some doubt whether, in the event of firms refusing to pay, the Order could be enforced under the Munitions Acts. I was informed in September, 1918, that the matter was receiving consideration. Subsequently another meeting was held between the engineering firms and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes), who, I understand, along with my hon. Friend, was quite prepared to admit the justice of the claim and indicated that he would do everything in his power to have the advance granted. Nothing, however,

  2977
  came of it until a circular was issued by the Employers' Federation at the beginning of October, 1918, to this effect:
  "The Minister of Munitions—"
  The circular referred to an interview which had taken place—
  "met recently a deputation on behalf of the foremen, when he stated—"
  I am founding my case upon a view accepted by the Department—
  "that in his opinion foremen should be in receipt of total war advances equal to 40s. per week plus 5s. 6d. per week recently sanctioned, and under-foremen 40s. per week plus 4s. 6d."
  It was also stated that the Minister was further consulting the Law Officers of the Crown as to whether he had power to issue an Order making these advances compulsory and if the Department wore advised in the affirmative the Order instructing payment of these amounts would be issued. The Circular went on further to say that the Representatives of the Department expressed the hope that federated firms would on their own hand, grant any advance necessary in order to avoid the necessity for compulsion being applied. One or two further interviews have taken place, and I have received letters from the Secretary of the Foremen's Association, in which he says that both the right hon. Gentleman, who is at the head of the Munition Department (Mr. Churchill) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Elackfriars Division, indicated that the case was just and clear, and that they were entitled to the advance. I understand, that since that date the Law Officers of the Crown have indicated, that it was within the power of the Ministry of Munitions to issue a compulsory Order. That being so, I put it to my hon. Friend, that steps should be taken at the earliest possible moment to give effect to the recommendations of his own Department. The only answer which so far has been given me, is that the Ministry cannot act without knowing the employers who are holding out. I imagine that by this time that information is in their hands. At any rate, they have had ample time to obtain it. I should have thought that they would have notified their recommendations to all the firms direct, and that they would have known what action had been taken. I desire very earnestly to appeal to my hon. Friend to have the matter settled without delay. I have met these foremen, and I understand that other Members representing industrial divisions of Scotland
  2978
  have also listened to their case. They are men who have given most loyal service throughout the period of the War, but during this long time they have been asked to stand out, although they regard themselves as entitled to receive these large war advances which have been granted to other industrial workers. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to settle the matter now, and to make the award retrospective, dating from 1st August, 1917, when the Ministry first indicated that it should be made, so that these men may not suffer owing to the good spirit and the good feeling that they have shown.
  8.0 P.M.
  I need hardly warn my hon. Friend that if he wants to avoid the undoubted unrest which results from unjust treatment, he must try to have this matter settled now, without any further delay. These representatives have been told over and over again that the Ministry is in full sympathy with them. Yes, but they expect the Ministry to act and do something. It does not satisfy them when they put forward a moderate case to be told that difficulties may have emerged, which are not insuperable, but which have during the whole of this long period prevented a settlement being arrived at. I am appealing to the hon. Gentleman in a spirit which he will recognise is intended to result in a settlement which is overdue and which will promote good feeling throughout the engineering establishments of this country. I believe these men have very great sympathy from a large number of their fellow-workers, and their claim, which covers the case of the foremen, under-foremen and others in similar positions, is one which ought to be settled without further delay.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions is, I am afraid, conjointly liable—if I may use a Scottish legal expression—with the Secretary for Scotland for another matter which I desire to raise, namely, the question of housing, particularly in relation in the first instance to the war-workers' scheme in Lanarkshire for housing the war-workers in that congested district. I have repeatedly urged this matter upon the Scottish Office and Ministry of Munitions, and I am bound to say that in my judgment the culprit is the Ministry of Munitions, because every effort has been made to meet the case so far as the Secretary for Scotland is concerned. I know he has striven hard to see that these houses which are overdue in

  2979
  the Middle Ward district of Lanarkshire should be erected without delay. The position is this. These houses have been required owing to the very serious danger to public health and to the whole community from the terrible and appalling congestion which has arisen in this particular district of Lanarkshire. A claim was put forward so far back as May, 1917, for a large number of houses in the district by the local authorities, the public health authorities, including all the large burghs of Lanarkshire, and the trades councils. After discussion, the local authorities agreed to a modified scheme of 1,750 houses being built to meet the immediate needs of the war-workers in that district. Eventually, however, owing to the conditions created by the War they agreed to accept an instalment of 250 houses, which were to be divided amongst the different local authorities. On the 4th February, 1918, they received an intimation from the Local Government Board that, subject to the consent of the Treasury, the Minister of Munitions had agreed to the erection of 250 houses being proceeded with on the understanding that the same conditions would apply to the scheme as existed under the agreement with the Middle Ward District Committee for previous Ministry housing schemes. It was only on the 23rd September, 1918, that the Local Government Board wired that the Treasury had sanctioned the scheme of 250 houses. I desire to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions to the terms, which were the erection of these houses on the same terms as those existing for the mid-Lanark housing scheme—
  "on the understanding that houses will be let at most favourable rents obtainable, not being less than may be sufficient to secure an economic return of 70 per cent. of the cost."
  That was a condition which was not in keeping with the conditions of the previous Lanarkshire schemes. In each previous case a reasonable rental was taken as the basis of the liability for the deficit which might arise after letting the houses at a reasonable rental. That has been interpreted throughout as corresponding to the rental of houses of similar character in the district. The condition here stated is that the rental of a two-roomed kitchen house would be £32 or £33 a year, which the local authorities consider wholly unreasonable. I hardly need ask my Scottish colleagues to support me in the view that
  2980
  £32 or £33 for a two-roomed house represents, at the present moment, a rental which could never be accepted or never be obtained as an economic rent. Accordingly, the local authorities decided that, if that condition were adhered to, the proposal could not be accepted. In a subsequent letter, addressed by the Ministry of Munitions to the Local Government Board on the 3rd October, no mention whatever was made of the stipulation that a return on 70 per cent. of the cost would be required. In order to clear up the matter these local authorities, representing the largest and most populous burghs in Scotland outside the two or three large cities, came to London and had interviews with the Secretary for Scotland and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions with regard to the question of rent. On the 24th October they had interviews with the representatives of the Ministry of Munitions, when they were told that the Ministry was not yet in a position to give a definite reply. So far, no reply whatever has been received. I submit to the House that it is hardly for a Department, which is fully made aware of the great industrial unrest which has been created owing to the housing conditions in the Lanarkshire centres, to postpone, or, at any rate, to delay, the consideration of a request put forward in May, 1917, so that at the end of the War we are still in the position that nothing whatever has been done, and not a single one of these houses under this scheme, which was of immediate urgency, has yet been built. The local authorities have a very good case, and I hope it will be supported by my hon. and learned Friend opposite (Colonel Greig), who hails from the same district. The case they make is that it is quite unfair to fix an arbitrary method of obtaining a return which brings out such a disastrous result as regards the rental requiring to be imposed, and that the only reasonable way of determining the rental is to fix it by comparison with the rentals obtaining in the district for houses of similar accommodation and construction.
  The delay has resulted in this: It has adversely affected the whole question both with regard to cost and consequent rental, while the conditions have been steadily getting worse since the proposal was first mooted. I do not desire to go into further details, but to sum up the matter, the Ministry of Munitions are undoubtedly responsible for the building

  2981
  of these houses. It is their scheme, at least so far as details are concerned, and it should be completed under conditions which prevail in similar schemes. I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is not prepared to meet this request and allow the same conditions to apply which have applied in previous schemes, namely, to fix the rents at a reasonable figure, having regard to the corresponding rentals in the district, and to meet the deficit, as he is prepared to do, in other cases? If this matter is allowed to continue its present position, I can assure him that he is seeking trouble, because the position is extremely acute, and was acute, even before the War. In Motherwell only ninety-three houses have been built since 1910. The population has increased during that interval very considerably, and the state of the housing accommodation there is something appalling. I do not want to weary the House with illustrations, but I will give one which conveys a, very full idea of the situation. During the last three months every ninth birth which has taken place in Motherwell has taken place in buildings where there was no water or any sanitary convenience. Of course, serious risks result both to the mothers and to the children. It is really an appalling situation. We hear about the dangers of revolution. I associate myself with what was said by the President of the Local Government Board in a speech the other day:
  "He did not wonder that there had been industrial unrest. He only wondered that there had not been a revolution years ago, because the record of our health bespoke the record of bad housing and insufficient food, light, air, sleep, and recreation that reflected in the most dreadful way upon our life as a nation."
  I regret to say that no better illustration of that condition can be found than in these large industrial centres of Lanarkshire and elsewhere where we have had war workers engaged at the highest pressure throughout the War, sometimes working double and three shifts, having to go to their homes to find nothing there for them in the way of food, no comforts, and the sleeping accommodation either occupied or perhaps just left by someone who has gone out on another shift. These conditions involve a public danger to the nation. I hope there will be some special answer from the Departments concerned with regard to the war-housing scheme. May I say that the general policy of housing is creating very great interest? It is a matter which will arise, perhaps, almost more than any other matter that will be
  2982
  dealt with during the coming weeks in the General Election. In the industrial districts the women will take an opportunity of expressing themselves very forcibly upon this subject. I regret extremely that the Government have not allowed a day for the discussion of their housing policy before the Dissolution. That was refused the other day in the House. We have had no general statement on housing policy made in this House, and the only measure introduced so far is a small Bill which was introduced the other day dealing in a most inadequate fashion with the situation, and which was generally accepted by the House as being quite insufficient to satisfy the feeling which exists throughout the country. The danger is a very real one. The situation was acute before the War. The population has been increasing, and there have been large extensions of works. We are about to face the return of the soldiers. What are soldiers going to say when they come back to these hovels, many of which are worse than the dugouts they have left? There are many districts throughout the land where the Government will be faced with a demand from those who have fought for them that they shall immediately see that an end is put to these conditions and that they should not be allowed to recur. I say they are faced with a very great danger. At the present moment there is no subject which ought to receive more immediate attention, both with regard to, the provision of building schemes and of preparation to enable us to proceed immediately with the provision of housing accommodation, than this question which I am discussing at the present moment. Now, we in Scotland have had the advantage of a very full survey of the housing conditions which have been given in the Royal Housing Commission's Report. I am not going to weary the House by going into that Report in detail at all, because all Scottish Members are familiar with it. The Secretary for Scotland is as anxious as anyone to see that something can be done to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and I have urged this upon him. But when you come to sum up the situation, nothing has been done to carry out those recommendations.
  I do not want to do an injustice to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I want to prove what I say. I know there has been something done in the way of sending circulars out by the Local Government Board to ascertain the requirements

  2983
  of each local authority. But what has the result been so far? He was good enough to give me an answer the other day indicating that he was informed that while no schemes were in their final stage schemes had been submitted for approval. So far local authorities had schemes in course of preparation for the provision of about 9,000 houses. The local authorities themselves had indicated that they were prepared to build 110,000 houses, while the Royal Commission indicated returns placing their requirements at a much higher figure, 121,000 new houses altogether being the shortage of houses of existing standards and 114,000 houses of an improved standard, or a total of 235,000. At this moment when we have happily secured peace, they have only schemes prepared for the provision of about 9,000 houses. I do suggest that the reason why so few schemes have been put forward is owing to the difficulties which the local authorities have had to face, or we should, I think, have got a good deal more done. I want to put to my right hon. and learned Friend that there are two difficulties which are very serious. One of them relates to the question of finance and the other relates to the question of the acquisition of sites.
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I do not want to interrupt my hon. and learned Friend, but before he sits down perhaps he will deal with the other difficulties relating to labour, material, and transport?
  Mr. MILLAR: I am very much obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend for mentioning that point. It is one which I certainly should deal with, but I was dealing with the difficulties which the housing authorities and local authorities had in preparing their schemes. Now these two difficulties, I want my right hon. Friend to realise, are felt by all local authorities and by all those who are interested in housing in Scotland, including the Chairman of the Housing Committee himself. He has taken a very great interest in this question, and he is following the situation to-day. As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, he came the other day to see the Scottish Members along with other representatives, and I regret very much to say that he is filled with anxiety—an anxiety which I and others share—at the situation to-day. Well, now, what are our difficulties? The first relates to finance. The local authorities have been asked to
  2984
  shoulder a substantial share of the burden in order to meet the deficit which will arise after all the charges have been met and the revenue has been received on the new houses which are to be built. They are asked to shoulder something like 25 per cent. to 30 per cent.—I think 30 per cent.: 70 per cent. being for the State.
  Mr. MUNRO: Twenty-five per cent. and 75 per cent.
  Mr. MILLAR: Oh, 25 per cent. and 75 per cent.! With regard to the figure, I might say the Housing Commission's Report says that the State should shoulder the whole burden of the deficit, so that the houses can be provided and let at an economic rent. The proposal now is that the local authorities would meet 25 per cent. I am told that is safeguarded by a provision that it does not exceed 1d. in the rate, but my right hon. and learned Friend will, perhaps, be able to inform the House whether that stands?
  Mr. MUNRO: Certainly.
  Mr. MILLAR: Very well. I was informed there was some doubt about it. Hs will see that the difficulty which arises is that many of these local authorities are not in a position, especially the smaller local authorities, to meet that expenditure, and if they do shoulder the proportion suggested—which I am told in the case of the small authorities may not be limited to a penny rate—they may be faced with very serious difficulties. Another point in finance which affects very seriously the position of those authorities is that they have all been asked to estimate not upon an annual basis what the deficit will be, but upon a septennial basis—that is to say, they have been asked to come forward with schemes not knowing what the possible charge on the Treasury will be for a period of seven years. That is a very difficult thing for any local authority to estimate—in fact, almost impossible. If they were allowed to treat the thing upon an annual basis they would be able to come forward and do so with much greater ease.
  I am told that this difficulty is one which has held back many of the local authorities in submitting their schemes, particularly when they have not been able to form an adequate estimate of what the cost of the land is to be. It would be difficult for me to discuss anything relating to legislation on this Vote, but what I want to suggest is that the absence of

  2985
  any definite guidance given to the local authorities as to what the basis of the land values is to be or on what basis the land is to be acquired in future, makes it absolutely impossible for them in an estimate which has got to be approved by the Local Government Board to complete their schemes. In other words, the local authorities cannot come forward with watertight schemes at the present moment until they know what the land is going to cost and to what extent provision has got to be made. Now, an answer given me the other day to a question I put was that various local authorities had represented to the Board that they are experiencing difficulties in acquiring sites at a reasonable cost. Of course they are! Nothing has been settled as to the basis on which the sites should be acquired. The question of compulsory acquisition was one for consideration by a Committee. It is rather late in the day if we are only going to get the Report of a Committee issued after the War is over for us to have the question of the basis on which the land is to be taken determined without some controversy. It may be that under the Coalition Government we shall have an agreement as to the methods by which the land is to be acquired, but I do not want to speculate as to that. I should be at least doubtful whether there would be such absolute unanimity on the subject as to enable us to get a move on within the immediate future, and until the matter is settled there will be a very unfortunate period of delay, and we shall not be able to get on with our building schemes. The Royal Housing Commission has made it perfectly clear that they regard the question of land as fundamental, and they have made a recommendation in their Report that we should take the Finance Act valuation of 1909–10. I do not see why the Government should not agree to that. It seems to me that that would be a very simple way out of the difficulty, as a primâ facie value, giving a man an appeal if he thought the figure was not fair.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to go into details which will require legislation on this occasion. We are dealing with the general question whether or not the Government ought to have legislated before now.
  Mr. MILLAR: The point I was trying to make was that the Government has given the local authorities no notice whatever of its intentions with regard to what is going to be done, and, therefore, it is not in a
  2986
  position to estimate what the value of the land will be. This question of housing in Scotland is arousing more attention than almost any other subject. I do not think there is any general desire on the part of the Scottish people to be plunged into a General Election, but if they are to be there is no subject which will be more keenly canvassed than the Government's policy with regard to land, and the women of this country will take the opportunity of speaking out very plainly on the subject. The situation is painful to a degree. There are throughout Scotland many buildings which pass under the name of homes to those who occupy them, but which cannot be regarded as homes in any sense, and there has been during the War an increase of population in many districts. In the Motherwell district we had, in 1915, 238 marriages, and in 1916, 264, and 75 per cent. of those who were married are resident in the houses of their parents or other sublets, and there are thousands of people who are travelling backwards and forwards to their work, at very great loss of time to themselves, owing to shortage of houses in the industrial districts. There will be a shortage after the War on the basis of population in Motherwell of 900 houses. The population, including the demobilised soldiers, will amount to a figure of something like 45,000, and yet no provision whatever has been made for the building of a single house there. I feel sure I am not speaking to unsympathetic Ministers. I have urged this matter repeatedly upon the right hon. Gentleman in the full belief that he would do his utmost to expedite the housing programme for Scotland, but I regret extremely that at this stage we are not yet in a position of feeling that the situation is thoroughly safeguarded, and unless some immediate steps are taken to deal with it we can only look forward in the immediate future to very grave trouble and industrial unrest, which certainly will be very largely modified or reduced if the industrial population of Scotland feels that the Government is in earnest over this reform.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I wish to support the plea which, in the first instance, my hon. Friend put before the Ministry of Munitions in relation to the wages of foremen. These workmen have been in an unfavourable position compared with others in relation to rises of wages during the War. They have worked hard and loyally through these four hard and strenuous years and, while there may have been

  2987
  discontent and threats of strikes among other ranks of the workmen, there has been throughout the utmost loyalty on their part, and it is surely only right that when they put forward a moderate case for an improvement in their position corresponding to the increase in the cost of living, the Ministry of Munitions, using the powers which it has by Statute, should do all it can to satisfy their demands.
  I turn to the second question with which my hon. Friend dealt—the housing conditions in Scotland, and particularly in the Lanarkshire area. The condition of housing was bad in Lanarkshire before the War. It urgently required drastic action. The requirements had become so obvious that investigations took place as to the extent of the evil and as to the measures which would be necessary to deal with them. That inquiry was going on when hostilities broke out. But these admitted evils have been greatly aggravated during the War. You had had in the first place a large increase in the industrial population there, and while this increase has been going on hardly anything has been done to meet the growing demand for houses. This larger population, in other words, has had to be housed under the inadequate and unsatisfactory conditions which prevailed before the War. My hon. Friend is justified in his complaint that further progress has not been made. I am quite aware of the difficulties under which Ministers had to labour. They have been confronted with a shortage of labour and of material and with difficulties of transport and all these things undoubtedly have made it extremely difficult to take in hand the actual provision of houses. But that does not answer the case of my hon. Friend, that a further advance should have been made in the preparation of schemes so that the moment the conditions I have mentioned were eased the work should have been taken in hand. The number of schemes already in preparation seems to be quite inadequate to deal with the situation. I hope, therefore, that one effect of this Debate will be to stimulate administrative action, and that the Secretary for Scotland will do his best to encourage the local authorities which are anxious to deal with the problem, and to stir up those who probably are not showing such a keen sense of their responsibility. If that is to be done, it is obviously necessary that the authorities should receive clear guidance
  2988
  from my right hon. Friend as to the conditions under which the schemes have to be carried out, and particularly as to the finance of those schemes. I think my hon. Friend opposite has shown very clearly that the financial provisions at present prevailing are not such as to encourage local authorities to take action, but are rather such as to discourage action on their part. They are going to involve a very heavy liability upon these authorities, which, naturally, they will be reluctant to take.
  There is a further point in relation to rental which from the public point of view is even more important. Anybody who is conversant with the conditions in Lanarkshire in respect of house rent will agree that a rental of £32 or £34 a year for a two roomed house, with a kitchen, in that locality is a preposterous figure. We must remember that we have in this House set up a standard of rental. By the Increase of Rents Act we stereotyped the rents at the figure of August, 1914, and I think I am right in saying that the figures then prevailing for that class of house averaged £13 to £14. It is surely absurd to suggest that when yon have people accustomed to a rental of that figure; in fact, when you have that statutory figure put before them, and when you are also setting before them the promise that that figure is to continue after the War, it is absurd to suggest that you can call upon these same people to pay a rental of £32 or £34 for houses of the same character! I quite admit that the subject is one of great difficulty, but the enormous disparity between the two figures I have quoted proves absolutely that the rent now suggested in these schemes is a rent at which they cannot possibly be worked with any satisfaction to the public. We must remember that in this matter it is essential to give reasonable satisfaction to the public. The Increase of Rents Act was passed during the War for that purpose. In my own view, as I have said more than once in this House, it was too drastic a measure, and I think that in some respects that Act has aggravated the situation, because the terms which were then laid upon owners of small house property have tended largely to increase the number of slums in these overcrowded areas. There has been practically nothing done in the way of maintenance and repairs, and houses which were habitable houses in 1916 have now ceased to be habitable houses, and were the existing

  2989
  housing legislation effectively carried out a very large proportion of them would be condemned, and will have to be condemned very soon after the War.
  In view of all these facts, it is hardly necessary to press upon either the Secretary for Scotland or the Parliamentary Secretary for the Ministry of Munitions, who is to some extent responsible so far as the housing of the workers is concerned, the extreme urgency of the problem. It is not a symptom of the urgency of this problem to find such a small number of Members representing Scotland, and particularly those areas in Scotland chiefly concerned, taking part in the discussion now. Their absence, I think, is due to other considerations. It seems to me that we cannot better spend the last hours of a dying Parliament than to impress upon Ministers the necessity of immediate action and the necessity of spurring on the local authorities and the necessity of making adequate financial provision from the Treasury, so that when the houses are provided they will be provided at such a rental as will meet the reasonable requirements of the case. It is only in that way that you will satisfy the public. If public sentiment is not satisfied, no matter what is the majority returned to support His Majesty's Ministers at the coming General Election, there will be grave trouble in the country. It is only by immediate and drastic action that these grave troubles will be avoided.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I will deal with the special and local points raised by my two hon. Friends, leaving the Secretary for Scotland to reply on the general question of housing in Scotland. I take, first, the question in regard to the wages of the foremen. I am not behind my hon. Friend (Mr. Duncan Millar) in appreciating the work which the foremen, as a body, in the engineering industries have rendered to the country during the War. Taking his own phrase, which I think was a very just phrase, these men are the non-commissioned officers of our industrial array, and they have shown themselves throughout the War loyal to the cause of the country. They have never under any provocation—and the conditions of the War made provocation inevitable in many cases—done anything but carry on steadily with their work. What are the circumstances in regard to the particular body of foremen in whom
  2990
  my hon. Friend is particularly interested? They have asked that the Government should secure for them a war advance over their pre-war rate of wages of 45s. 6d. a week, that advance to include all class advances. The Minister of Munitions agreed that that is a reasonable request to put forward. He has agreed that an advance of 45s. 6d., taking into account and including any class advances or advances which have been given by the Committee on Production and the 12½ per cent. bonus is a reasonable request to put forward. My hon. and learned Friend said that if that is our view why have we not insisted upon the employers in all cases giving that 45s. 6d. per week advance. It is very doubtful whether a Minister has, power to make an order applying to these men. The legal authorities are doubtful about it. The practical inconvenience of applying an Order to this class of men are of such a kind that we should, if at all possible, avoid them by adopting some other method. If an Order were made in regard to this particular class of men we should be faced with similar demands from men whose remuneration is on a similar basis in practically every munition factory throughout this country. The draughtsman, clerk, or foreman in other munition works would say, "You have been able to make an Order covering the wages of this particular class of man in Scotland; we, want that Order applied to us," and it would run right through the whole of the engineering industry in this country. But it was not on that ground alone that we hesitated as to proceeding by means of an Order.
  Mr. MILLAR: Have not some of the classes to which the hon. Gentleman referred received advances already?
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Nothing that I have said is inconsistent with their having received advances. A great many of those for whom the hon. and learned Member has been speaking have received this advance, but what the Government is asked to do is to make a general Order covering all those who have not received these advances. We think it very much better that the Ministry should use its influence with those employers who have been backward in that respect, and we are doing everything we can in that way. My right hon. Friends the Minister of Munitions and the Member for Blackfriars saw the foremen, who put their case with great reasonableness and force. Following

  2991
  on that, an instruction was sent to the Employers' Association principally concerned. As a result, they circularised the whole of their members in Scotland telling them what was the view of the Ministry and asking them to see that the whole 45s. 6d. was paid. That had a very great effect, and a large number of the foremen have in fact now received the advance. When that was done we then endeavoured to discover what firms had failed to carry out the recommendations of the Ministry. A number of names was sent in to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars. We at once got into communication with those firms, told them that we were informed they were not paying the full 45s. 6d. a week and asked them at once to communicate with us their view of the facts. As soon as we got those facts we should at once proceed to use any influence we can with any firm who have been proved to be backward to secure that the full advance should be made.
  Mr. MILLAR: Can the hon. Gentleman state what proportion of firms have not yet paid this advance? I quoted one or two large firms.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Up to the present I have only received the names of seven firms who have not paid the advance. If there are others I hope that their names will be sent in as soon as possible. It is only by getting the names that we can proceed to act. As soon as we get the names of any other firms who are not carrying out this policy we shall proceed to use what influence we can, as I have indicated. We would like it to be known among the firms that it is the view of the Ministry that the men are fully entitled to the 45s. 6d, a week. I hope the whole of the firms in Scotland who now remain out will fall into line with what I believe to be the great majority, and with what are certainly the firms of the greatest influence in Scotland who have already paid this advance.
  On the subject of housing in Lanarkshire my hon. Friend spoke with characteristic earnestness and fullness. He used an expression to which I take exception. He said that I was the culprit—
  Mr. MILLAR: No; the Ministry of Munitions.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: It is not the Ministry of Munitions. It is the War which is the
  2992
  culprit. There is no use, in approaching this subject, in indulging in expressions of sentiment in which we all share, unless you recognise that what has held up housing throughout the whole of this country is the War—the fact that you cannot get material or labour, and that the labour you do get is inefficient, very dear and exceedingly scarce, and to anyone who has known anything at all about building during the War, one of the great wonders of the War is that we have been able to get any housing at all done. I have figures given me to-day which show in regard to the building of a four-roomed cottage that the actual cost, when you can get it built, is something like 200 per cent. greater than it was prior to the War. When that is the fact, what is the use of talking about the rents charged being excessive. They are bound to be excessive on figures like that, unless you are going to say that the Government should pay a very large part of the rents in these cases. But this is not a new problem in Lanarkshire. The housing in Lanarkshire was a scandal long before the War, and ought to have been dealt with by the authorities responsible, and they cannot put the blame on the Ministry of Munitions. The Ministry of Munitions is not a housing department. It was created to supply munitions for the Army. So far as it has been possible, in the circumstances created by the War, where we have by the introduction of large numbers of munition workers made housing conditions worse, we have dealt with those housing conditions, and Lanarkshire has not done badly. Whether that is due to the eloquent advocacy of my hon. and learned Friend I do not know, but Lanarkshire has done better out of the Ministry of Munitions in respect to housing than any other part of the country—England, Scotland, or Wales. I regret to say that the total number of permanent houses which we have been able to build is only 2,400, but we have housed, by other methods, fully 30,000 persons, and in Lanarkshire we have built 350 houses, and we have assisted the authorities substantially in the building of 200 others, so that my hon. and learned Friend may take comfort in the fact that Lanarkshire, serious as the situation is, has not done at all badly. I wish that we could get on with the other 200 houses, but what is now holding us up in the question of the terms on which those houses could be let after they are built. It is not an easy task for the Ministry, even where material, transport, and labour are available.

  2993
  We have to get past the Treasury, and then we have got to get past the War Priority Committee of the Cabinet, and then we have got to get the work carried out. I would have liked my hon. and learned Friend to show in his speech a little more appreciation of the real difficulty which has faced the Ministry in this problem. I hope that we shall be able very soon in regard to the scheme of 200 houses to come to an agreement with the local authority and set it going.
  I agree with every thing my hon. and learned Friend has said on the housing conditions. Probably I know more about them, at least over a wider area, than he does, because I know that in many parts of the country munition workers have had to be housed under conditions which, if they could have been avoided, were a disgrace to this country. They have been working long hours. They have had to leave their places and sleep where it was impossible for them to secure proper rest, or such rest as would recruit their exhausted strength. And the country will have to recognise that there you have one of the greatest problems facing us. I want to see the workers of this country, the munition workers and the soldiers, housed in a state which is worthy of the great contribution they have made to the security and well-being of tins country. It occurs to me at this moment that in Fenelou's "Essay on the Education of the Dauphins of France," the author said that he desired to see the Kings of France housed worthy of their state, and the Government desire to see the workers of this country housed worthy of their state.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. MUNRO: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions has dealt very fully with the special point which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Lanark has raised with regard to housing and munition areas. With the permission of the House, I should like for a moment or two to deal with the general question raised by him and the Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle) regarding postwar housing in Scotland. I do not in the least complain that that has been raised in the course of this Debate. I desire, on the other hand, to applaud the moderation of my hon. Friends in what they said on that subject. They do not recognise its importance or urgency any more than I or the Government do. The question is one of ways and means, and I am very glad to have this opportunity afforded me of informing
  2994
  the House—and I agree that the state of the House at this moment does not reflect the urgency and importance of this question—I am glad to have this opportunity of stating to the House and to the country, Scotland particularly, what has been done in the way of carrying out the post-war housing policy. My hon. and learned Friend referred to two points—first, the finance of the scheme, and, secondly, he referred to the question of obtaining sites. On the question of finance he said, that the local authorities were called upon to shoulder a substantial share of the deficit. Well, now, if one can accurately term 25 per cent. a substantial share of the deficit, I agree with my hon. Friend. But I suggest to him that he will search in vain for any scheme of housing in the records of this or any other State in which so generous provision has been made as has been made by the Government in this particular scheme, namely, the contribution of the State, which enters into partnership with the local authority, of 75 per cent., and the demand on the local authority for the comparatively small share of 25 per cent. towards the issue in which both are interested. I can hold out no hope at all that these conditions will be revised or modified in any degree. My hon. and learned Friend will recognise that this is not a Scottish question, but an Imperial question. It has been considered repeatedly and carefully by all the advisers of the War Cabinet, by the Local Government Board in England, by the Local Government Board in Scotland, and the intimation which is given of the housing policy of the Government was given after the most careful exploration of the whole subject. I should be a little less than candid to my hon. and learned Friend if I suggested that any substantial modification in the programme which has been proposed could be expected either now or in the immediate future. My hon. and learned Friend went on to refer to the difficulty of obtaining sites. I quite appreciate that difficulty. At the present moment, as I told him in reply to a question, a Committee which has been appointed by the Minister of Reconstruction is sitting on the acquisition of land with particular reference to the question of housing. That Committee, through the courtesy of my right hon. Friend, includes two Scottish representatives, Sir William Haldane and Mr. Davidson of Saughton, names which will commend

  2995
  themselves to my Scottish friends as those of men acquainted with and well equipped for this task. I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Reconstruction that that Committee's labours are wellnigh exhausted, and that it is now in the course of preparing its Report. I hope that Report will be almost immediately available, in which case the difficulty in that regard to which my hon. and learned Friend referred would be met. I appreciate just as fully as he does not only the difficulties of getting on with this matter, but also the desirability of getting on, and while difficulties which have been referred to of transport, of the cost of material and the scarcity of labour have formed a very serious handicap in actual work, nevertheless substantial progress has been made, as I indicated to him, and as I hope to show the House in a moment or two, in the preparation of schemes in Scotland in the last few months. The first step which was taken by the Local Government Board, was to issue a Circular in August of last year to every local authority in Scotland, intimating the Government's intention to give substantial financial assistance where the authorities were prepared to carry their housing schemes. Replies were received to that Circular from 302 out of 310 local authorities in Scotland representing 99 per cent. of the population of the country. Particulars which they sent in showed a shortage of houses of 108,902. I may, with the permission of the House, explain how that was distributed. In the seven large cities, 66,752; in burghs of a population of 15,000 to 50,000, 10,750; in smaller burghs in Scotland, 11,042; in industrial and mining areas, such as my hon. and learned Friend is interested in, 9,020; in agricultural areas, 6,226; in crofting areas, 880; and in the Outer Hebrides, 4,132. That is a very appalling shortage. One recognised that. The Local Government Board directly they had the information as to the express terms of the Government policy, namely, in March of this year, issued a Circular giving particulars of the form of financial assistance which the Government was prepared to offer, and urging authorities to proceed at once with the preparation of schemes. While awaiting replies to the Circular the Local Government Board were not idle in this matter. I want to make it perfectly clear to my
  2996
  hon. and learned Friend and to Scotland that the work of the Local Government Board in this particular matter has been beyond all praise. I would remind my hon. and learned Friend that one of the most active members in this matter is Dr. Leslie Mackenzie, who was a member of the Royal Commission on Housing. I am quite sure he will appreciate that nothing which could be done is left undone by the Local Government Board to get what he calls a move on in this matter. The Board have in the interval of waiting for these replies arranged a consultation among architects for the plans of the houses to be erected. In fact it has been proposed to constitute a panel of architects to advise and assist local authorities in the erection of the necessary houses. Further—and my hon. and learned Friend will approve of this—the Local Government Board appointed a Women's Committee, including working women, upon my suggestion.
  Mr. MILLAR: Have they reported?
  Mr. MUNRO: They have reported. This Committee was appointed to report on the planning of houses from the housewives' point of view, and from the point of view of the working housewife, and I understand the Report is a valuable document on which, I hope, action will follow. A Committee appointed by the English Local Government Board, with a reference which covered Scotland, has also reported on the construction of the houses and on the supply of material. Lastly, in this regard, there has been the reconstruction committee, to which I have referred, on which two Scottish representatives sat, with regard to the acquisition of land for housing and other purposes. The nature of the replies which were received by the Board I indicated to my hon. and learned Friend in answer to two questions which he put to me the day before yesterday, but, with the permission of the House, I should like to give my hon. and learned Friend, who, I know, is interested in this matter, a little more detail than I was able to give in answer to questions. I said, in answer to his questions that several authorities were now preparing schemes for the provision of over 9,000 houses in Scotland, and if my information is not incorrect, that total compares very well with the total for which provision has been made up till now in England. Those 9,000 houses to which I have referred are thus distributed: In Glasgow,

  2997
  6,731; Edinburgh, 744; Dundee, 1,060; Peterhead, 50; Haddington, Western District, 200; Burgh of Rutherglen, 100; Maxwelltown, 100; Hamilton Burgh, 250; Wishaw, 200; Gourock, 60; Hawick, 100; Lochgelly, about 50; and in Perth District, 18; making a total of 9,663. Those are cases where the local authorities are definitely known to have schemes in course of preparation, and where they have selected, or are now selecting, the sites, and where they have the plans already prepared or in course of preparation. In answer to my hon. and learned Friend's question, I told him that there were other authorities who were actively considering at this moment the preparation of schemes. I do not feel justified in detaining the House fey reading the long list of local authorities thus engaged. The total of the houses which are thus being considered is 2,173. I would only add that, so far as the Local Government Board is concerned, by circular, by letter, by interview, and by every other means open to them, they are urging upon the local authorities the necessity of proceeding with the utmost expedition in this matter. I am not more blind to the desirability of that happy result than my hon. and learned Friend, he may rest assured. I am glad to have been given the opportunity of giving the assurance that the urgency and importance of the problem are fully recognised, and that there will be no avoidable delay in carrying out a policy of post-War housing in Scotland which will be adequate to meet the needs of the population.
  Mr. FALCONER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is being done in the purely rural areas to meet the shortage of houses there?
  Mr. MUNRO: My information is that that matter has been under the consideration of the Local Government Board and is now being dealt with in a most careful manner. I am not able without notice to tell him what has been done, but if he will be good enough to put down a question I shall be happy to do so.
  Mr. MILLAR: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can state what the procedure is when those schemes go before the Local Government Board to be advanced and how long does he anticipate it will take before we get the schemes brought into operation? That is what we are anxious to know, and how far the schemes are likely to be carried out.
  Mr. MUNRO: It would be quite impossible for me to give a general answer to that very general question. I think that the length of time necessary to bring a scheme into operation entirely depends on the particular circumstances of the particular locality. It would, for instance, be easier to bring a scheme in Glasgow into operation than, say, in Kinross. I do not think it is possible, and I think my hon. Friend will agree with me on reflection, to give a general answer to such a general question.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I am sure that the people of Scotland will read with great interest the reply which the right hon. Gentleman has made to this vital and most urgent problem of housing. I, for one, gladly welcome it, and I desire to express my gratitude for the serious manner in which the right hon. Gentleman is dealing with the question. I particularly welcome the final assurance that no stone shall be left unturned in order to attempt at least to cope with the present appalling condition of the housing question in many parts of Scotland. I did not rise to pursue this question, but in order to bring before the House another question which is, I think, equally important, and to obtain a statement from the Government upon it. I rose to ask the Government for information as to their intentions respecting political prisoners, in view of the termination of the War? It is difficult to present this matter to the Government, or at least to one representative of the Government, because it overlaps and affects so many Departments. It affects the War Office and the Home Office and the Scottish Office. I can only hope that the Government as a whole, that the War Cabinet, is considering the problem as a whole, and that it will not be left for one Department to place the responsibility for inaction upon some other Department, but that a clear and just policy will be arrived at and carried out. The first aspect of the question to which I wish to refer concerns the conscientious objector. I have throughout this War, throughout the introduction of Conscription in this country, pleaded from my place here for tolerance to conscientious objectors and for justice to be done to them. I need not remind the House how impossible it has been during the War to get a fair or an unprejudiced hearing in this connection. No question, I think, has more easily excited prejudice and passion during the War than the consideration of

  2999
  this question. I hope that that spirit has gone and that the Government is now going to set an example of enlightened statesmanship by getting rid of this difficulty once and for all. I hope that the Government is going to announce a political amnesty and that those men are going to be released now that the War is over. Let me first draw the attention of the Government to the case of those men in prison, who number, I think, something like 1,300, and who are known as absolutists. Those are the men who, having been sentenced to hard labour for a term of years or months, have refused to compound the matter by accepting certain specific service under the control of the civil authorities acting through the Home Office. I do not think that anyone will question the sincerity of those men. They have in many cases been sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labour. Before the War that was recognised as one of the most severe punishments which it was possible to inflict, and it was generally reserved for criminals of the lowest type guilty of atrocious crimes. So heavy was the punishment deemed to be that the law would not permit of a man being sentenced to hard labour for a longer period than two years. These men for obedience to their principles—I do not want to raise any unnecessary controversy now, and I will not go into the question as to whether they were right or wrong; I merely say they believed they were right—these men were acting in accordance with the dictates of their conscience, and no one who has seen that they are willing to undergo this fearful sentence, with all the mental suffering and the prison rules, can doubt their entire sincerity. Not only have these men been sentenced to two years' imprisonment, but when they have served that, or a lesser term, they have been again sentenced, again perhaps to a period of two years' imprisonment with hard labour.
  Major Sir J. B. FALLE: It is twenty-five years in America.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The hon. and gallant Member is wrong, and shows entire ignorance of what is done in America. Instructions have been issued by President Wilson, and a perfectly fair settlement has been arrived at, such as might well have been arrived at in this country. But I do not want to be drawn aside by the interruption of the hon. Member, who has
  3000
  shown in that interruption such a striking ignorance of the facts he intended to quote. I return to the argument with which I was dealing. These men have been sentenced and resentenced to the most severe punishment known to our penal law, and they have borne this with patience, with calmness, and with steadfastness, because of their devotion to their conscientious beliefs. There will, at least, be one gain from the imprisonment of those men who are known by the title of absolutists. They are giving the world a literature, and they are opening the eyes of the public to the inhumanity of certain aspects of our prison system, particularly aspects like the rule of silence and the other accompaniments of hard labour. No one can read Mr. Stephen Hob-house's wonderful article in one of the quarterly Reviews, describing, not in any complaining spirit, the influence of imprisonment upon him, and the influence of the silence rules and the other rules upon him, and his most illuminating study of the influence of the system upon ordinary criminals, without realising that we have got now material by which we shall be able to revise our whole conception of what an enlightened prison system should be. I do not think I am saying anything that is not likely to prove true, when I say that the experience of the men you have now in prison, the records they are now producing, and their influence in future, will lead us to a much more enlightened and much more humane prison system, and through the sufferings of these men the whole country will benefit. That is one aspect of the case. Are you going any longer to keep in prison these men, the absolutists, who have already borne these heavy sufferings for devotion to their conscience?
  But there are other aspects of the question to which I should like briefly to allude. There are the men who have come out of prison, and who are under the Home Office, collected together in the labour centres—the men at Princetown, the men at Wakefield, the men at the other Home Office centres. Are you going to keep the men at these centres, or are you going to allow them to follow their ordinary occupations? Are you not going to give them an amnesty? Again, you have, in proved cases, allowed a number of men, amounting now to some hundreds, to leave on licence the Home Office work centres, and to follow certain approved employment under private employers.

  3001
  These men remain outside the work centres, and outside prison, on condition that they follow the employment under an employer that has been approved by the Home Office. In many cases these men were fit to follow other employment—employment to which they had been accustomed all their lives, but that form of employment it has not been possible for the Home Office to approve during the War, and in some cases the employment that has been approved is employment at a very considerable distance from their homes. Those are some of the conditions attached to their release on licence. It is not necessary now to maintain those conditions, and it would be a great economic gain, apart altogether from the question of justice and of mercy, to allow those men to resume their ordinary lives, and to follow their ordinary occupations. Those are the three main divisions of the problem of the conscientious objector, differing in urgency, but the whole forming one complete problem which should be dealt with as a whole.
  There are a few other points which I desire to bring to the notice of the Government. There are those conscientious objectors who are not under the control of the Home Office, either in prison as absolutists, or in work centres. There are conscientious objectors who are still in the hands of the military authorities who may be in military custody, and there are some conscientious objectors who have not had the choice of leaving prison and going to the work centres, and there are some special problems like the problem that is afforded by the case of Mr. C. H. Norman. Mr. Norman, a man of high character, after being at a work centre, was returned to the Army, and is now suffering in custody in the Army. I need not remind the Under-Secretary for the Home Department that Mr. Norman was recalled to the Army in consequence of a cessation of work for one day, which took place at Princetown in connection with that most mournful of all the mournful incidents this question has created, the unhappy death of C. H. Firth. The House will remember the men at the centre ceased work for a day in memory of him, and in sympathy with his relatives, and I should like to ask the Home Secretary whether that is not a case which should be immediately considered in connection with this general question of an amnesty for political offenders. He has borne a very heavy punishment. It is time that that case, and all similar cases, were reconsidered.
  3002
  I have not touched upon the general question of political prisoners who are not conscientious objectors, but I want to remind the Government, and to get some reply from them, on the general question of prisoners who have been interned without trial, and prisoners who have been tried and sentenced under the Defence of the Realm Act for offences against orders made under that Act. I suggest that the time has arrived when the sentences of those who have been tried should be reconsidered and when those who are interned without trial should also have their cases reconsidered, and in connection with those who are in prison those political prisoners imprisoned as a result of trial. I want specially to bring before the notice of the Government—and here I think the responsibility rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland—the case of Mr. John MacLean, which has often been raised in this House. It is a well-known case, and it is typical of other cases. I am not putting it forward because Mr. MacLean is a well-known man. On the contrary, I think that those prisoners who are less known and who are in a more humble position are equally entitled to have their cases reconsidered and to come under the general amnesty such as I hope will be given. There are certain special features in the case of Mr. MacLean to which I wish to call the attention of the House. Mr. MacLean is a man of high character. He has behind him a great record of honourable work. He has given a great part of his life in the service of teaching, and I do not think I shall be guilty of any great exaggeration if I say that some of the Clauses in the Scottish Education Bill were only made possible through his devoted work in the cause of education. He is a political offender. He has received a sentence which I think is excessive, and if it were carried out it would be of a barbarous character and certainly alien to what I believe is the general feeling of the people of this country. Is there any reason why Mr. MacLean and the other political prisoners should be kept in prison a moment longer in view of the end of the War? I am going to make an appeal to the Secretary for Scotland in connection with the case of Mr. MacLean and I do not base it on the ground that that case is the subject of general agitation. I am going to make my appeal for Mr. MacLean on the ground that the War having come to an end a free and generous country has always in the

  3003
  days of peace shown great generosity to men whom it has attacked and repressed during the passions and strain of war.
  Colonel GREIG: But he refused to help in that strain.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I think the hon. Member has not realised the point I am making. These men have held certain views with great sincerity. They have shown the highest courage when they have preferred to get up against the multitude on behalf of what they believe to be right. I say that these men are men of the highest courage and are entitled to our respect. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland that at the great Labour Conference to-day, which was so sensational in many respects, a resolution was passed unanimously and without a single dissentient voice by delegates representing some millions of people demanding the release of Mr. MacLean. I appeal to the Government on general grounds. I have always failed to understand how extraordinarily difficult it is to get a fair hearing in these matters. The passion of war is such as to prevent justice being done to opponents during the War. But the War is over, and surely the Government do not desire any longer to wage a war of vendetta against these men who are, after all, a minority, who have during the War held the views which they believe to be right and have shown themselves willing to hold those views at whatever risk to themselves. The problem is a most painful and urgent one. It is especially painful to me, because I have daily placed before me records of the sufferings of these men, borne without complaint, and I know of the injury that is being done to them mentally and physically in a great many cases owing to the rigours of imprisonment. It is inexpressibly painful to me because of the sufferings involved upon their wives and children. But the War has come to an end, and I ask, is there any reason why the imprisonment of these men should be continued for a day longer? I appeal to the Government, now that the War is over, to look into this matter at once and to proclaim a general amnesty. By so doing they will not only do an act of simple justice, but they will be acting in consonance with the wishes of the vast majority of the people of this country.
  Mr. MUNRO: With the permission of the House I should like to be allowed
  3004
  to reply to two of the points raised by the hon. Member, leaving the case of conscientious objectors to be dealt with by the Under-Secretary for the Home Office. There were two other questions to which my hon. Friend alluded. The first was the general question of an amnesty for political prisoners. On that I would refer my hon. Friend to an answer given by the Leader of the House on the subject, in which he stated that he could make no statement at the moment, but that the matter was under the consideration of the Government. Further than that I am not in a position to go to-night, except to inform my hon. Friend that that subject is being treated by a Committee of which Lord Cave is Chairman, and he may lest assured that it will have full and fair consideration. I am chiefly concerned however, with the case of Mr. John MacLean. I am afraid there has been a good deal of misconception and misrepresentation outside with regard to the facts relating to Mr. MacLean's imprisonment. I have been represented by not a few as making an attempt to break this man, whereas the truth of the matter is very much the reverse. No prisoner, so far as my experience goes during the five years I have held office under the Government, has received such lenient treatment as Mr. MacLean has received from the time he first committed his offence.
  I want to put this point first of all: It is quite unjustifiable to treat this offence of which John MacLean was convicted as an isolated example apart altogether from previous offences. I say that you cannot deal with this case apart from the two previous convictions which this man unfortunately suffered. When he first committed an offence he was leniently treated. He was tried in a Court of summary jurisdiction and the sentence, given to him more as a warning than anything else, was seven days' imprisonment. Unfortunately, he did not take the warning which was then administered, and within a short time thereafter he found himself in the dock in the High Court of Edinburgh. He was there sentenced, after a fair trial before a jury of his peers—for let the House observe this was not judge-made law—he was convicted by a jury of his fellow-citizens and sentenced to three years' penal servitude. On representations made to me following this second offence I recommended His Majesty to release MacLean before

  3005
  he had served half that sentence. One would have thought that surely would have been sufficient warning. Unfortunately it proved not to be so. On a third occasion he was brought before the same Court and convicted again by a jury of his peers, and sentenced this time to five years penal servitude. Let me put this to the hon. Member: A man who has been sentenced first to a short period of imprisonment, and then to three years' penal servitude, and who is brought up again before the High Court of Justice in Edinburgh, naturally receives a progressive sentence. That is quite in accordance with the practice of the Court. No distinction whatever was made in this case. It was quite in accordance with the practice of the Court that he should receive a severer sentence than on the prior occasion. I do not care who the criminal was, whether of high rank or of low rank, no distinction would have been drawn, nor was it drawn. MacLean was sentenced to five years' penal servitude.
  While he was in prison he was treated with great consideration I permitted him to receive food, which was supplied from outside, in order that he might partake of it, as he objected to take the prison diet. He received that special treatment for a considerable time. On 29th June he announced his determination to eat no food, whether supplied to him from outside or from inside. I was then faced with three possible courses of action. One was to release him. If I had released MacLean because of his refusal to partake of food, I might as well have thrown open the doors of every prison in Scotland, for every prisoner would then know he had only to refuse to take his food to secure his release. I could not possibly take that course, and I did not. The second, and perhaps the logical course, although not the course I did take, was to allow him to die if he refused to take food. I have not adopted that course. I adopted the third course, and the only other course, and that was of feeding MacLean artificially.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: That might have the same result!
  Mr. MUNRO: In point of fact, if my hon. Friend will listen for a few moments he will learn that it was just the other way. If he will allow me to develop the history of this matter he will see that the various points he has in his
  3006
  mind have been met. I decided that MacLean should be artificially fed, which is a very different matter from being forcibly fed. There has been no force employed at any stage of MacLean's imprisonment, for the simple reason that he did not resist being fed. As I said, on the 29th June, having refused to take food, I directed that he should be artificially fed. For four months he has been fed artificially, He has offered no resistance to that course, and most skilled and experienced medical men have looked after him. Really, I do honestly put it to the House that in these times, when the services of medical men are urgently required for other matters, it is rather a pity that one should have had to tell off two medical men to watch over the progress of MacLean and see that he is carefully attended to. That has been done, and the food has been administered most carefully and skilfully by these medical men. His weight, which on the first day that he refused to eat was 133 lbs., is to-day precisely the same as it was four months ago. His health, I am assured by the medical men who attend upon him, is entirely satisfactory. I am glad to record that first of all he took one meal per day without artificial feeding, and that within the last few days he has taken two meals per day naturally, so the present state of matters is a very curious one. This man receives two meals per day in a perfectly natural fashion and has to be artificially fed on the third occasion.
  I desire generally to sum up, and refute, the various allegations which have been made in the public Press, and, I think, on some occasions by letters addressed to Members of this House in regard to Mr. John MacLean. It has been alleged that he was being forcibly fed. That is not true. He has offered no resistance at any time. It has been alleged that he was held down by warders and the food forced down under pressure. That, again, is not true. There has been no holding down by warders at any time. It has been further said that under my direction food was stopped from being supplied to him from outside. That, again, is not true. Food was supplied to him from outside until he announced that he would not take any food, whether supplied from the outside or the inside. It has further been alleged that his food was drugged. That is manifestly absurd, and it is also untrue. It has further been alleged that already his health has

  3007
  seriously suffered. Again, that is not true. Mrs. MacLean visited him the other day, by permission, and her first observation to her husband was to compliment him upon his appearance after four or five months in prison. Lastly, it has been alleged that there was some concealment on my part of the fact that MacLean had been artificially fed. There has been neither concealment nor advertisement of the matter. I will put this to the House for their consideration: I allowed his wife to see him during the last week or two. Is it to be supposed for a moment that if I desired to conceal the fact that MacLean had been artificially fed from the public or her, that one would have adopted the course of allowing his wife to visit him. The visit was permitted before she was entitled by the prison rules to visit her husband. If there is any general amnesty of political prisoners—in Scotland we do not recognise the difference between political and other prisoners—[An HON. MEMBER: "Shame!"]—Will the hon. Member tell me whether there is any distinction drawn in England between prisoners sentenced to penal servitude and political prisoners serving a similar sentence? My own information is there is none.
  Mr. DILLON: More shame for it!
  Mr. MUNRO: Is it suggested that there should be a distinction drawn between those sentenced to penal servitude for political offences and those sentenced for other offences? If there is any general amnesty of political prisoners, of course the case of John MacLean will be considered as one of those to whom a general amnesty might apply. The whole matter is now under the consideration of the Government. I have no feeling in the matter. I only desire to do what is right in the public interest, but at the present moment I see no reason which would justify me in treating this case as exceptional, or as being different from other cases of the same kind in Scotland and other parts of the country. On what ground does my hon. Friend ask me to release this man as distinguished from others who have been convicted of similar offences?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I want them all released. I want a general amnesty.
  Mr. MUNRO: I am dealing with the plea that separate treatment should be applied in this case because there has
  3008
  been an agitation, and I decline to accede to agitation or intimidation. My last word is that if there is a general reconsideration of these cases, this case, of course, will be considered; but until a better reason is alleged than my hon. Friend has put forward for treating this case exceptionally, I do not see my way, as at present advised, to intervene in the matter.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): I do not complain that my hon. Friend has introduced this discussion or of the tone and manner in which he has raised this question. I would point out, however, that the problem is not so simple as he would have the House believe. The problem of the conscientious objector has been before us since the commencement of the War. I am not prepared to contest the argument that the men who have been in prison and suffered are men who are moved by great sincerity according to their conviction; but I do really ask my hon. Friend and those who think with him to try and realise the case of the men who have gone to the front, and on the sea, and who have made sacrifices, and some of them have made the supreme sacrifice, for their country and their country's cause; and I want hon. Members to realise that these men who have fought for their country are equally as sincere as the men who have preferred to go to prison.
  My hon. Friend is asking for an amnesty for these persons whether they are at the work centres or working for private employers. If he is making this claim for them because they are conscientious objectors, surely he cannot establish it as being a greater claim than that of the men who have fought in the battles for their country and their country's cause. If the conscientious objectors are given special treatment by the way of priority—I am now speaking of the men in the employ of private employers, and the men who are at the works centres—then you will be allowing the conscientious objectors to go back home and make use of that opportunity to select their own employment, whereas for reasons of State you cannot give the same treatment to the soldiers who have gone to the front. This is one of the difficulties of the problem, and I want my hon. Friends to realise that that is a phase of the question which is bound to have consideration. If the conscientious

  3009
  objectors are allowed to return to their ordinary occupations while soldiers and sailors and other citizens are prevented because of the necessities of the State from going back to their ordinary occupation, is there not a likelihood that a feeling would be created that special treatment is being given to the conscientious objector which is refused to the men who have fought for their country? I submit these suggestions to my hon. Friends opposite and to the House so that they may appreciate that the problem is not quite so simple as my hon. Friend would have the House believe.
  With regard to the other case mentioned, the man concerned was recalled because he violated the honourable obligation upon which he had entered, and he need not have been recalled had he carried out that obligation. After all there must be some regard paid to these obligations, and this action was taken not because the Government desired to recall these men, but because they failed to carry out their obligations, made when they were released from prison, and therefore it was felt necessary that they should be recalled. I have had this very difficult problem considered carefully. I should have thought that my hon. Friend would have considered it worth while to say that the Committee of which I was chairman also endeavoured to treat these cases without prejudice. In dealing with this problem we have endeavoured to treat it without prejudice, and certainly it has been our intention to give as fair, just, and merciful consideration as it was possible to do under the conditions which control the Committee. As to an amnesty for the men in prison, this forms part of one of several problems involved on account of the suspension of hostilities. This problem, with others, is now under consideration, and I will undertake that immediately decisions have been arrived at, they shall be published and put into operation. I do not think my hon. Friend can expect me to say more, and if he does, I cannot say it on this occasion.
  Mr. DILLON: I desire to say a few words in reply to the speech made by the Secretary for Scotland, in which he stated that this is one of the few countries that makes no distinction between the treatment of political prisoners and ordinary criminals. This question has been raised before, and this is really a modern retrogression on the part of England. In the early days of the last century, when England was supposed to be very reactionary
  3010
  as compared with now, there was a very marked and extraordinary distinction made between the treatment of political prisoners and ordinary criminals. If the hon. Member reads the history of the period which followed the battle of Waterloo, and which was supposed to be one of the most reactionary periods in English history, he will find that it was quite unheard of to treat political prisoners as ordinary criminals. Under what circumstances did the change come about? It was in 1848 that for the first time in the recent history of England, at all events, the principle was introduced of treating political offenders as common criminals. It is absolutely a novel doctrine in English practice. It arose under the Treason Felony Act, specially passed for the purpose of putting down an Irish insurrection. In that Act—a most scandalous law—it is enacted that anybody convicted of treason felony as distinguished from treason is to be treated as a common prisoner. As so many bad things, it had its origin in the Government of Ireland, and sprang entirely out of the desire of the Government of the day to humiliate Irish prisoners. They passed the Act evidently under the impression that there would never be any political prisoners in England, but now the bird has come home to roost, and this barbarous practice, which ought to be removed from the law of England, of course applies. Political prisoners ought not to be treated as common criminals. It may be necessary for the safety of the State to keep them in prison, but it is a monstrous thing to treat a man who has only been convicted of a political offence as if he were a common felon. I regard it as a perfect disgrace to the law of England.
  10.0 P.M.
  Listening to the Secretary for Scotland one would have supposed that it was an immemorial practice sanctioned by the tradition of ages. The real truth is that it is a barbarous practice against which we Irishmen have continuously protested in the past and against which every right-minded man ought to protest. A man who commits an offence against the law for a higher motive than a selfish motive, no matter how wrong or how dangerous his principles may be, ought not to be put on the same level as a criminal or a felon. He ought to receive totally different treatment. In the early part of last century men who were guilty of sedition and were more or less rebels,

  3011
  were treated in a manner more humane than the treatment accorded to political prisoners to-day. Those men had a sitting room and bedroom in the prison, and they were allowed to read newspapers and to write books. The idea then was that a political offender, always providing that he was not guilty of high treason, was only to be deprived of his liberty, and was not to be subjected to any disgraceful punishment at all. It was only at the period that I have mentioned that the whole system was changed by the Act of 1848. I want to ask the Secretary for Scotland a question. I am informed that this man MacLean is being forcibly fed.
  Mr. MUNRO: I am sorry the hon. Member was not here when I addressed the House and dealt with this matter very fully. MacLean has never been forcibly fed and he has never refused to take his food. He has been artificially fed for four months, and his physical condition to-day is just as good as it was at the commencement. I especially welcome this opportunity of saying that there has never been any forcibly feeding.
  Mr. DILLON: I am glad to hear that statement, and, if my information is wrong, I accept the correction. I now turn to another subject which I raised to-day by way of a question. I want to know what is going to be done with the Irish prisoners. Of course, MacLean and the other prisoners who have been mentioned in this Debate have been tried and convicted—whether rightly or wrongly I am not in a position to say—by a lawful tribunal, but you have in prison about 100 Irishmen who have never been tried at all. They were the men arrested in connection with the alleged German plot which everybody now looks upon as a pure invention. I expressed my view at the time about that alleged plot. It has now served its purpose, and has disappeared and we hear no more about it. Supposing there were a German plot, I do not think that now we need trouble about German plots. It is finished, we have done with German plots. That being so, the cause, if ever it existed for the arrest of these men and their imprisonment without trial, is at an end. I beg the Chief Secretary to make up his mind one way or the other, and to let us know if these men are going to be released, and, if so, when. When I put the question before, the answer was, "The matter is under consideration."
  3012
  The Armistice has been signed several days, and the War is at an end. Germany is no longer an object of terror or of alarm to any nation on earth, and least of all to this nation. Surely, therefore, the Government ought to make up their minds whether they propose to continue holding these Irishmen in gaol without trial. I have no authority to speak on their behalf. That is why I have never raised the question before. I do not now speak on their behalf, because neither they nor any of their relatives or friends have given me authority to do so. I am speaking entirely in the interests of Ireland. The Irish people are entitled to know what is the policy of the Government with regard to them. There is no doubt at all that already a great number of them have been nominated for Irish constituencies. The Chief Secretary the other clay said that as soon as the election was announced this matter would be seriously considered. The election has now been announced, and it is to take place in four weeks' time. What is the intention of the Government with regard to these prisoners? Do they propose to allow them out for the election or to hold them, and, if so, how long and on what grounds. The position I take up is that the arrest of these men and their detention in gaol has contributed enormously to the troubles in Ireland. It has undoubtedly very seriously injured our election prospects, although that is a minor consideration. It has contributed to the unrest and general trouble in the country. When this question was raised before, the Chief Secretary replied in a mysterious way that there were certain terrible dangers in releasing these men on account of the German plot and, I suppose, insurrection in Ireland. He cannot pretend for a moment that that reason exists to-day. I maintain that any man who is in a responsible position who continues to detain 100 men in gaol, with no charge of any sort or kind ever alleged against them, and with no trial, is bound to justify his action. We are now approaching the end of the Session. It will be over in two or three days, and there will be no other opportunity of calling upon the Chief Secretary to justify his action. It is a most out rageous thing for the right hon. Gentleman to adopt this attitude of reticence and say that he is considering it and cannot make up his mind. What fresh element can arise within the next week or two that will enable him to make up his mind,

  3013
  which he has not before him at the preterit moment? I impress upon him that he is bound to make up his mind and say frankly whether he proposes to release or detain these men. If he does not announce his intention to release them, he is bound to justify his action in detaining men now that the Armistice is signed and all the pretence of danger from Germany is at an end. I would ask the Chief Secretary to let me know, either to-night or in answer to a question I have on the Paper for tomorrow, what is the policy of the Government.
  Mr. TREVELYAN: I wish, in a few sentences, to remind the House, after what we have heard from the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), that there is not only a certain number, 100 or more, of Irishmen in prison without any trial at all, but there are, I believe, seventy or more British subjects from England and Scotland who are in prison without any trial at all, but simply by the will of the Home Secretary, taking the advice of a secret Committee. I am not sure about the numbers, but I have seen it stated several times that there are something like seventy of them. The allegations and the charges against these people are unknown. They have been interned or imprisoned under a Regulation of the Defence of the Realm Act which enables men to be put in if they have enemy associations. I have personal knowledge only of one or two of these cases. One was that of a young lady who happened to have met and talked to an Indian student who very likely had revolutionary ideas towards the British Government in India. That was enough to keep her in prison for two years. She is still there. Another case of which I know was that of an English country gentleman, who happened to write a very silly letter which I happen to have had the chance of seeing. He, I believe, has been interned for a couple of years. The point for Englishmen, Constitutionalists and Liberals, is that seventy or more British citizens are in prison without any form of trial at all known to the British law, but simply by the order of the British Government under a Regulation. Their offences are not known. Everybody knows that the War is over and that the Armistice means peace. Why should not these people be let out at once? Liebknecht is out in Germany. All other countries are beginning to amnesty their offenders. Why should
  3014
  not we amnesty ours, and begin by amnestying those who have never been charged or tried?
  Colonel GREIG: Liebknecht was right!
  Mr. TREVELYAN: The rulers in Germany thought Liebknecht was wrong. The leaders in Britain think these people are wrong. It is time we put an end to all these practices, of which no liberal-minded Briton approves. I have objected to them all along. I quite understand the attitude, although I do not agree with it, of men who say that in war-time you have to do very exceptional things. They say you have to drop your Liberalism in wartime. But it is no longer war-time. It is time we went back to the real British securities. It is time we went back to habeas corpus and the other securities which have been traditional in Great Britain. I see no reason why the Government, whatever other amnesty it is hesitating about, should not let out at least those people who have had no trial of any sort or kind.
  Mr. KING: What a contrast these last two generous speeches are to the contemptible, shuffling excuses we have had from the Treasury Bench! The gentlemen on that bench call themselves the Ministers of England. Take first the Secretary for Scotland. He jumped up three times in succession before the case was stated against him, and has had to repeat what he said. Even now the case of John MacLean has not been fully or adequately stated. Others wished to state it, but he did not allow them to get up. Then, by shuffling off with platitudes and omitting many important points, he thinks he has secured a rhetorical victory. I shall leave it at that. The people on the Clyde who know John MacLean, his magnificent learning, his sacrifice of years in the cause of education, his generous impulsive desire to please and benefit his fellow men will respect and love him when they have condemned the memory and record of the Secretary for Scotland. [Laughter.] It is an easy thing to laugh at anybody who is sincere in these days. There is no sincerity on the Treasury Bench, and they do all they can to make their silly sheep follow in their flock. I would thank the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) and the hon. Member for the Elland Division (Mr. Trevelyan) for their generous, high-spirited and noble-minded protest on behalf of those who, through the cowardice of the Government,

  3015
  are shut up in prison, without being able to say a word in their own defence, or even communicating with their friends.
  I will proceed to another subject, of which I have given notice of my intention to call attention. I refer to the remarkable case of Mr. Lockhart, our Consular-Agent in Russia, who returned to this country on 19th October and whose report upon very important events is not yet available. Now let the House realise who this Mr. Lockhart is. He has been paraded as a martyr for his patriotic efforts and it has been assumed that his life has been in grave peril and danger, that he had suffered untold miseries, and that he had been a hero in the Allied cause. What are the real facts about Mr. Lockhart? Mr. Lockhart was a young Consular servant of known popular democratic opinions, and when the Soviet Government came into power Mr. Lockhart was sent on an undefined mission to Russia. How did he go! He went with a letter of recommendation from Mr. Litvinoff. Mr. Litvinoff, with whom he was acquainted, gives him a letter of recommendation to Mr. Trotsky, and the recommendation—Litvinoff's letter to Trotsky—about this fellow Lockhart was to this effect: "This will introduce to you a gentleman of popular democratic opinions. He is a good fellow. Treat him well." He therefore went with Mr. Litvinoff's recommendation to Trotsky. After he had been there a very little time Mr. Lockhart proceeded, unfortunately, to receive instructions from England, which were that he was to use secret service money with the object of overturning the man to whom he had brought the recommendation. This Mr. Lockhart proceeded to do. Well, anybody who knows Russia at all ought to know that you cannot carry on those sort of intrigues, which might be successful in Germany and Austria, without the very gravest danger. Of course, what anyone who is acquainted with Russia might have feared did happen. Mr. Lockhart offered money to this man and that. He was the centre of an agency for sending officers with diplomatic posts to Archangel, and so forth. He went to a Lettish officer and offered him a large sum if with his soldiery he would place Mr. Trotsky and Mr. Lenin in his power. The Lettish commanding officer did exactly what any one of us would have done under the circumstances.
  3016
  He received the money, got documentary papers which proved the case, went and told his master, and handed over the man who was using secret service money to betray his friend, which Lockhart, our agent, did. He handed this traitor over to justice. Naturally, Mr. Lockhart found himself in a difficult position. The facts, as I state them, are known to the Foreign Secretary; he knows them, because I told him; and when I told him he told me that he knew them before. Well, there are the facts, and now the House knows why it was that Mr. Lockhart, when he returned to this country on the 19th October, only presented his report a couple of days ago. We may be quite sure it is not going to be communicated to this House before the General Election. So much for the case of Mr. Lockhart. I challenge anybody on that bench to say that the story I have told is not correct. Now I take the case of Mr. Crombie. Mr. Crombie, as far as I know, is the only British subject who has lost his life in Russia recently. A great many people say, and I notice it was one of the phrases which adorned the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Asquith), that Russia is in the hands of cut-throats and that our subjects are in peril every moment of their lives. How many Englishmen have lost their lives there? One. Mr. Crombie. Why did he lose his life? Because he shot down two men first, and he would have shot down a lot more unless he had been shot down himself. These facts are known, and those people who go abroad saying or believing that Englishmen are in danger of being killed in Russia ought to know that so far as anyone has yet been able to say, even the wildest detractors of Russia and the Russian revolution, only one Englishman is known to have lost his life and he admittedly had first killed two Russians who came to his house. What were the circumstances? Mr. Crombie told persons who are well known and easily accessible—even I have access to them—that he was carrying out a most dangerous business and that he had every moment to be armed, and that he knew the peril in which he was. Mr. Crombie, when he died, knew he was undertaking a most risky and dangerous business. He was passing, with diplomatic passes, as a Consular servant, Russian officers through the lines to Archangel, where they were being gathered together in view of the attack

  3017
  on our troops at Archangel under the counter-revolution being started there. Mr. Crombie was not an Ambassador. He was a Consular Agent, and Consular Agents' persons, premises and papers are no more inviolable than those of any other private person. It has been represented that Mr. Crombie was, in some sort of way, an Ambassador, and that the house where he was was an Embassy. We had for months been stating that we had no Embassy in Russia, and did not intend to have one. Mr. Crombie, at best, was only a Consular Agent and was only there on a definite and unaccredited mission, because he was not accredited in any sense to the Russian Government as an Ambassador. He was engaged in passing secret service money supplied by this country. In recent months we have immensely increased the amount of secret service money, and there are papers on record which show that one officer alone passed £120,000 in one week in Russia with the purpose of getting a counter-revolution. That is the way the money goes.
  These facts, which are, of course, well known to anyone who has gone into the circumstances, are amply established if you only read certain portions of the Press. If you read, for instance, the report of Réné Marchand, the French attaché, which has been published in France, and the report of Captain Sadon, of the French Navy—if you get documents which have already been published in France, and bring them into line with these facts, they support and confirm one thing in the most remarkable way. I protest against this thing, and for this reason. What is the position now at Archangel? What are all these operations which our Government do not dare for a moment disclose to us, but which any man who chooses to ferret out should know about. Why and wherefore have they been done and what is the result? What is the position of our troops at Archangel to-day? We have had reports from time to time. The troops have made advances. The Bolsheviks have fled in confusion; guns and positions taken; German officers made captive, and so on. You might imagine that our Archangel expedition had been advancing. The fact is that at the present time it is cooped up in Archangel. It is in danger at Archangel. Where is its commanding officer? He is in London. Why is he not at Archangel? He is in London asking the War Office for instant reinforcements.
  3018
  This expedition, which we are told in the false and misleading accounts of the War Office is progressing, is really in peril, and its commanding officer is in London demanding a large reinforcement to save the situation, I am told, and I hear it from more quarters than one. Remember that if you get officers coming back from Archangel, honest men of any sort, they will not let the truth be hidden when it is dangerous that it should be hidden. It is a dangerous position. Here you have Poole coming back to the War Office and asking for 60,000 or 100,000 men to go off at once to Archangel to save the position, and we are supposed to be at peace all the time. What is the position? Frost is setting in. The salt sea water is becoming hard ice. It may be kept open for another month with the aid of the powerful ice-breakers which in previous years kept Archangel open well into December. Ate we to send now, when the War is over, 60,000 men to spend three or four months at Archangel in the cold of winter—and for what? To make an Eastern Front, we were told, against the Germans. What is the necessity of it now? Why should it be done? I protest, on behalf of the men who are there, against this miserable plot against the revolution in Russia, endangering and playing and gambling with the lives of British soldiers when war is over, in horrible danger, in a horrible climate, and under abominable conditions. I detest it! What is to happen if we send 60,000 or, 100,000 men now? They will have to spend three or four months there waiting, because operations cannot possibly begin till March or April. Shall we be able to feed them? It was thought that when we were landing troops at Murmask, which is always open, even in winter, to shipping, we should be able quickly to get the railway round the White Sea, and by the railway support our forces at Archangel; but we have not secured that railway. In a month or six weeks' time Archangel will be closed and our troops will be in the cold. Where are they to be provisioned from? If we send another 50,000 there how are they to be provisioned and maintained until March is over? If I had a son there I should, knowing what I do of the situation there, contemplate the question of his possible return with fear and trembling.
  This is not a matter for the sneers and laughter of the hon. and gallant

  3019
  Gentleman (Colonel McCalmont). I am ashamed of him, laughing and sneering at these men who will be kept out there this winter in danger of their lives. This is the sort of spirit which we get from an Ulsterman who sits at home while his countrymen are in danger. What is going to happen even if reinforcements are sent to Archangel, and spend the winter there? Are we in March or April to begin a big offensive? Are we to begin operations to conquer the whole of Russia? This is what it amounts to. That is evidently the policy which the Government contemplate. I saw what was evidently an inspired article in the "Pall Mall Gazette" to-day—"Russia's turn next," and the object of the article was to outline a policy of complete domination by military force on the spot of the whole of Russia. I protest that the War was not waged for that purpose, nor can it now be waged for that purpose. It may suit the international financiers, the profiteers and the concession mongers to carry on war for that purpose, but I protest, and I shall continue to protest as long as I am in this House against such wicked gambling with the lives of my countrymen, such squandering of our resources, and such a hypocritical pretence that we are seeking to uphold a great cause.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Shortt): I must apologise to the hon. Member who has just sat down for not dealing with the points which he has raised in his speech. May I say in explanation that when I saw him about to rise I thought that he was going to continue the Debate begun by the hon. Member for East Mayo. In dealing with the point raised by the hon. Member for East Mayo I do not propose to go into the question, which has been argued ad nauseam in this House, as to whether there was a German plot, or what these people are in prison for. They are in prison because they are dangerous people, and it is a very difficult problem to decide when the time comes for their release. It does not stand alone. It is part of the whole question The Cabinet will decide the whole question, and I can only say, so far as I am concerned, that I am unable to make any definite statement to-night. When I make that statement no one will expect me to take up the time of the House by dealing further with the question. Everyone desires, as soon as possible, to return to a real state of peace. You cannot do that
  3020
  in a week, after the four years through which we have gone, but if any hon. Member, whether from Ireland or North Somerset, who has any sort of influence with these prisoners will induce them to give an undertaking to refrain from acts of incitement to physical force, then the question of their release would be immensely simplified.
  Mr. DILLON: I have no manner of influence with these people, and I think the right hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken in thinking they will give undertakings.
  Mr. KING: May I say that I have repeatedly asked for permission to visit these prisoners and have been refused, and as I am not allowed to come into personal touch with them how can I use the influence, the great influence of course, which I possess with them.
  Mr. SHORTT: I do not think that it quite correct, because the hon. Member has had permission.
  Mr. KING: Only once.
  Mr. SHORTT: I cannot recall any occasion on which he has been refused.
  Mr. KING: Yes, I have.
  Mr. SHORTT: He has at any rate been allowed once. With regard to what the hon. Member for East Mayo said I may say that two or three of them are out to-day, having given those undertakings and because they have given them.
  Mr. DILLON: I am very much surprised to hear it.
  Mr. SHORTT: That shows that the hon. Member does not know quite so much and is not so infallible in his knowledge of Ireland as he would lead one to suppose. If others adopt the same wise and sensible course it would immensely simplify our task.
  Mr. MOONEY: I have listened with considerable amazement to the speeches addressed to the House by the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Trevelyan) and the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King). They dealt with very different subjects, but, fortunately or unfortunately, they dealt with two subjects of which I have personal knowledge, and a greater travesty of the facts I have never listened to than those two speeches on those subjects. The hon. Member for Elland referred to the case of people who had been interned under Order of the Home Secretary, known as 14B. He stated that

  3021
  those people had been brought before a secret tribunal, and that they had no knowledge of the charges against them and no opportunity of rebutting those charges. I desire to say that that statement is absolutely untrue.
  Mr. TREVELYAN: I never said that they did not know, but that the public did not know.
  Mr. MOONEY: There are certain charges which have been made and which it was not considered in the interests of the State should be disclosed, but I go further, and I say that every person charged under that Order had the charges read to them, and their witnesses were told the charges against them. The hon. Member for Elland was one of the witnesses in the case referred to, and he was told what the charge was. The hon. Member for North Somerset was, I think, before a similar tribunal. In the two cases referred to by the hon. Member for Elland the people were told what the charge against them was and the witnesses they called were told, and they were asked to explain them and they had no explanation. I do not think it is fair—
  Mr. TREVELYAN: I want to know whether it is fair to have people tried by secret tribunals?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to argue. I thought he rose only to explain.
  Mr. MOONEY: My answer to that is that those people are tried under an Act of Parliament. When this Act was passing through the House the then Prime Minister (Mr. Asquith) stated that to safeguard the interests of the people a Committee would be appointed which would have the confidence of the House and the confidence of the country.
  That Committee included two judges of the High Court; a right hon. Gentleman who was a distinguished Member of this House, and is now a Member of the House of Lords—Lord Lambourne; the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means; and myself. I do not think you could select a committee of persons holding more divergent views. I do not think it is fair to talk about secret committees. The House of Commons agreed to the appointment of the Committee. That Committee, rightly or wrongly, represented every form of opinion in this House, and on the evidence before us—and I say it advisedly—we had no alternative but, in the interests
  3022
  of the State, to put these people under preventive arrest—none whatever.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset has referred to the case of Mr. Lockhart. I listened to him with great interest. I do not know what his sources of information are. I understand him to say that Mr. Lockhart went out to Russia with letters of introduction to M. Litvinski, and was treated as an honoured guest. I do not know Mr. Lockhart.
  Mr. KING: I thought you had personal knowledge in this case!
  Mr. MOONEY: But I do know what happened to Mr. Lockhart, because one of my own personal friends was a member of Mr. Lockhart's staff. I have had the opportunity of seeing my friend since his return from Russia. The hon. Member for North Somerset said these people were extremely well treated. I do not know what his ideas of hospitality are. They were arrested, and were imprisoned in a cell about 6 feet square. They had about one meal a day. They were taken out to be shot ten times. They were lined up against the wall. At the last moment they were told they were not going to be shot that day. They were taken back. That happened ten times. I do not know whether that squares with the information of the hon. Member for North Somerset, but that was the information from a man who went through it. And they were not released on account of any representations that were made by the hon. Member for North Somerset. They were released because the Russian Government thought, after consideration, they had made a mistake in arresting them, and that by their arrest they were retarding the spread of the Bolshevist movement in England. That is the real reason why they were released, and all I can say is that, while I quite sympathise with every country fighting for its freedom, I do not think that methods such as those are likely to accelerate the freedom of any country. As the hon. Member for the Elland Division and the hon. Member for North Somerset have raised two cases of which I have intimate knowledge, I thought it only right to let the House know the facts within my own knowledge, or otherwise a wrong conclusion might have been drawn.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.

  CONSTABULARY AND POLICE (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  This is a short Bill to provide for an increase in the pay of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and of the Dublin Metropolitan Police. The details are neither numerous nor complicated. The House will remember that the police in Ireland are the creatures of Statute, and their rates of pay can only be altered by Statute. That is the reason why this Bill is necessary. The Act of 1882 substantially regulated for many years the rates of pay and pension for the members of both forces. There have been amending Acts since then which have to some extent increased the pay of these forces. But, in common with the police in England, Scotland and Wales they have felt very severely the increased prices which are the result of the War. They have had bonuses granted them from time to time, but they have felt, and in my opinion rightly so, that they ought to have not only the war bonus but a considerable increase in their pensionable pay and a corresponding increase in their pension rates. The object of this Bill is to give effect to that claim, a claim which I believe all hon. Members for Ireland will admit to be right and just. The Bill, first of all provides for changes in the rates of pay and they are briefly these. For the Royal Irish Constabulary the increase in the case of the county inspectors is £50 per annum, and in the case of the district inspector £40, while in the case of the constable, which includes all ranks below the district inspector it is 11s. per week. In order to avoid any misunderstanding I should mention that in the case of the county and district inspector we have been obliged to provide that as they get an increase of £50 and £40 respectively their war bonus must be the same as that of other members of the force who are in a different rank.
  With regard to the Dublin Metropolitan Police the constable, a term which covers all ranks up to chief superintendent, will have his salary increased 12s. per week; the chief superintendent's salary will be increased to £335, rising by £20 to £455, and the superintendents will start at £285, rising by £14 to £355, while the inspectors start at £160, rising by £8 to £200.
  3024
  All the constables defined in the term "constable" have the increase of 12s. per week. When it comes to the question of pensions, one of the grievances of the police in Ireland, as was the case of the police in England, is that of widows' pensions. These were settled under the Act of 1883. Undoubtedly they were very small—£10 yearly. There were other grievances. We have endeavoured to preserve the proportion in the raising which has always been borne in respect to the English police. But, as I said last night, you cannot absolutely compare the two, because the conditions of the two sets of police are quite different. An endeavour, however, has been made always at an equivalent. So here the same principle has been adopted of trying to preserve the same proportion with the police in England in the case of the pensions of widows. We have therefore provided in this Bill that the widows' pensions in Ireland should be the same as in England. The Bill provides that
  "a constable who was serving in the police force on the first day of September nineteen hundred and eighteen."
  And here I may interpolate the observation that all this increased pay will be antedated as from the 1st of September this year—
  "Anyone Serving in the police force or in the service of the Crown for the purposes of the War, and anyone who joins after that date, but has been a constable five years, his widow shall be entitled to a pension."
  Hon. Members may notice in Clause 2, Sub-section (1) the words that the pension will be given "if they think fit"—that is, the police authorities. These were the words in the English Act, but we propose to follow here the example of the Solicitor-General in respect to the English Act, and we propose to amend the words by substituting "shall." These are the really material points of the Bill. There are other details having regard to the pensions of officers. They are increased. I would remind the House that they have always been given by the Lord-Lieutenant in proper cases; but the maximum has been increased from £30 to £50, and it may be increased a further 50 per cent in the case of an officer who dies as a result of following his duty. There are other provisions in the Act, but I do not think it is necessary for me to deal with them now. There has been in Ireland for some time a feeling that the police are improperly and insufficiently paid and I think everybody in Ireland is of that opinion.

  3025
  They are a body who, no matter what people's politics are, who command very-high respect, and they do their duty loyally and carefully, and I think everybody gives them credit for doing their best under very difficult circumstances. I do not think there is a single person in Ireland who will begrudge the police this not too great—as great as I could obtain—improvement in the rates of pensions. I ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading, and I hope to get through the Committee stage to-morrow, and then I can deal more in detail with any sins of commission or omission.
  11.0 P.M.
  Mr. BRADY: The right hon. Gentleman has correctly stated that all shades of Irish political opinion are agreed that the members of both the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police Force are well entitled to the increases of pay proposed in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has omitted to tell the House, however, that notwithstanding urgent representations made to him not only from these Benches, but I am glad to think also from other parts of the House above the Gangway, he has ignored the claims of pensioners in both these forces to a revision of their pensions which he could easily have provided for in the present Bill. In my remarks earlier to-day on this subject I am vain enough to think that I carried the House with me in the contrast which I drew between the pension system in this country and Scotland, and in Ireland, and I think that I satisfied hon. Members that a grave injustice would be done to both these police forces if this occasion was not availed of to increase their pensions. I pointed out that these pensions were fixed by Act of Parliament in 1883, and I think to state that fact is a sufficient reason for a revision. In this matter as in others, the right hon. Gentleman will no doubt give us his sympathy, but he gives us no more and it will be very little satisfaction to the members of these two forces to simply have the sympathy of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to their application for an increased pension. I do not wish to say anything exaggerated or offensive, But I do say that I have never heard a poorer case offered to the House than that made out by the right hon. Gentleman as his reasons for not acceding to this demand. The right hon. Gentleman substantially agreed that these unfortunate men had a most genuine and legitimate grievance, and that their pensions
  3026
  ought to be increased, and then he tells us that this cannot be done. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he is governed in his action by the Treasury, but we have been told not only on this occasion, but in other matters, that if there was unanimity of opinion in Ireland we had only got to come here and get that unanimity given effect to in the form of a Statute. There is absolute unanimity in this matter, and the right hon. Gentleman meets us with a blank refusal. As far as I am concerned—and I think I speak for my Friends on these benches—I am determined up to the very latest stages of this Bill to press on the attention of the Government the claims of these men for a revision of their pensions. Earlier in the evening I understood that there was some hope on the Treasury Bench that the Bill would pass through all its stages to-night. I do not lay claim to any very intimate knowledge of the procedure of this House, but I was advised that would be impossible under the Rules of the House, and I was confident, if an attempt of that kind were made, that you would rule it out of order. We are not, however, concerned with that now, because the right hon. Gentleman has told us that it is not his intention to ask the House to consider this Bill in Committee to-night, but when he moves the Committee stage, as I understand he will do to-morrow, I shall certainly avail myself of such opportunity, as I have to bring these pensioners within the ambit of the provisions of the Bill, and I hope, to use a popular phrase, the right hon. Gentleman will keep on it. Perhaps, in the meantime, he may have an opportunity of consulting the representatives of the Treasury with a view of granting the concession for which we ask. To be quite fair, that was evidently his original intention, because the title of the Bill indicates that it was intended to deal with the question of pensions. Of course, he will say that the Bill does deal with pensions, but it only goes back as far as 1st September last. The right hon. Gentleman made a great point of that fact and that the widow's pension would be of the same amount as obtained in England. I do not think there is anything very much in the nature of a substantial concession in that proposal. I notice, from Clause 2, Sub-section (2), that a constable who has completed five years' service will be entitled to pensionable rights. In the

  3027
  ordinary course of events, now that the War is over, the cost of living will have considerably decreased in five years' time. These young constables will be able to retire five years hence and reap the advantage of these decreased prices, but the unfortunate constable who has given his entire life—
  Mr. SHORTT: May I point out that the hon. Member is dealing with the widow's pension?
  Mr. BRADY: The same argument would apply to the widow's pension, because an existing pensioner might die to-day or tomorrow, and his widow could not enjoy the same rate of pension as the widow of a young constable will enjoy after her husband has served five years. I earnestly implore the right hon. Gentleman, even at this eleventh hour, to confer with the Treasury, and to see if something cannot be done to meet as just a claim as can be put before this House.
  Mr. NUGENT: I wish to call attention to the title of the Bill, which is,
  "A Bill to deal with the pay and pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police, and for other purposes in connection with those forces."
  I desire to deal not only with what the Bill contains, but with what it omits. One of the serious blots on the Bill is that it does not remedy in regard to the Dublin Metropolitan Police a grievance of a very serious nature, in regard to which the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor regretted that the Act as it stands did not give him power to grant a sworn inquiry. On many occasions I have had to bring before the House grievances in connection with that force. They were only brought to light when the men agreed to an organisation. The Chief Secretary promised in this House that no one should be penalised because of that organisation. That guarantee was broken, and five members of the force were dismissed because their comrades asked them to bring forward their grievances. That was afterwards admitted and dealt with in a Bill in this House. Will the Chief Secretary deny that the first officer dismissed was a man who had seventeen years' service? What was the cause of his dismissal? I have challenged the Chief Secretary time after time to deny that it was the result of a conspiracy on the part of the superintendent and a sergeant, who met in a public
  3028
  house on the 7th November. The date and hour were supplied to the Chief Secretary. These two men hatched a conspiracy to have these men dismissed. We were told by the Chief Secretary that there is ample opportunity for the men to bring forward their grievances. What is the fact? The superintendent makes a charge—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not quite follow what connection that has with this Bill, which deals only with pensions and pay.
  Mr. NUGENT: I suppose that the Bill deals not only with pay and pensions, but other purposes.
  Mr. SPEAKER: What other purposes?
  Mr. NUGENT: Other purposes which are not purposes in the Bill.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It must be a purpose connected with pensions and pay.
  Mr. NUGENT: I beg your pardon, Sir. It does not say "connected with pensions and pay," but
  "for other purposes in connection with those forces."
  Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, but that must mean in connection with the pay of pensions of those forces.
  Mr. NUGENT: That is not quite clear.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is the ordinary construction of the law.
  Mr. NUGENT: I am not a lawyer and am unable to follow the technicalities of the Bill, but it says
  "in connection with those forces."
  I can only complain that it was not included in the Bill, and that there is no opportunity of exposing these men's grievances, and discontent exists and will exist as the result of it.
  Widowers are permitted to live outside with their families and they have a lodging allowance of 13s. a week. But the moment the widower's youngest child comes to sixteen years of age he is deprived of his lodging money, and is compelled to pay 4s. 4d. barrack rent. Is that fair and reasonable? Surely that is not a thing that any human person would attempt to defend. This is either a Bill to do an act of justice or a Bill which has been forced on the House through agitation. If it is an act of justice, surely that justice should apply

  3029
  all round. Surely it should not be made manifestly clear that the policy pursued is that of the sucked orange, and that men who have spent years in the service and whose widows are granted the princely sum of £10 are to continue with no more than that sum, while in future the widows of men who have died are entitled to £26. Was there ever a more grotesque or scandalous thing presented in any Bill? You hold out the inducement of £26 for the widows of those who die after the passing of the Act to satisfy discontent. Will it not create discontent in the minds of every one of the widows who are trying to get an existence upon £10? If you want to allay discontent, you must make some attempt to show that it is not the result of agitation. These unfortunate widows have no one to make a fight for them. The pensioners were retired the moment they had spent twenty-five years in the service. There is a feeling among these people that they have been treated badly. They have been soured and made bitter. You are going to perpetuate that so far as the existing pensioners are concerned.
  In the Act of 1914 provision was made that certain counties could be grouped together for the purpose of economising county inspectors as those counties became vacant. It is a strange thing, that when one of these counties becomes vacant a county inspector is appointed who has never been in the county from that day to this. Why did this gentleman get promotion, drawing, I assume, the salary of a county inspector, and all his other emoluments? Because he was one of those who organised a conspiracy to have imprisoned the hon. Member for Mayo and the hon. Member for West Belfast. The county inspector of Car-low to-day is the notorious Major Price. What is the meaning of this? Is it not a pure piece of jobbery? It is conduct of this character that sinks into the minds of the people and satisfies them that so far as fair play and justice are concerned, there is none meted out to the people in Ireland. The Chief Secretary is responsible as head of the force. I suppose he will give us his sympathy. He tells us that he sympathises with all these people, but so far as anything practical is concerned the sense of justice and fair play is absent. This will convey an extraordinary lesson to the people of Ireland. The Bill has been rushed in practically at the conclusion of
  3030
  the War. Two Bills have been necessitated in two years. The Government are now at last making some attempt to bring the pay of the policeman up to the same standard as that of an ordinary labourer in the city of Dublin or in any other large centre. The maximum salary he receives now is such that nobody would say he is treated in any way generously, and the Government should at least raise the wage to a standard sufficient for the men.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: I desire to congratulate the Chief Secretary upon having brought forward this long-deferred measure of justice for the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police in regard to their pay and pensions. Some time ago I went in considerable detail and with some care into this question, and I satisfied myself that considerable alteration was necessary in the statutory pay and pensions at that time. I am glad the Chief Secretary has found it necessary and desirable to bring forward this Bill; but in saying that I desire to associate myself with the hon. Member (Mr. Brady) in an expression of profound regret that he has not thought it advisable to deal with the question of pensions of retired members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police. The very fact that this Bill has been introduced for increasing the pensions of the existing members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police is in itself an admission that the pensions of the retired members is insufficient. I do not know where the difficulty arises against bringing forward a reasonable provision for these old pensioners. If it is from the Treasury, I would ask my right hon. Friend to exercise his influence with the Treasury to rectify it. It is notorious, and I do not think the Chief Secretary would deny, that the existing pensions of the members of these forces are entirely inadequate, having regard to the present cost of living and the standard of prices. This has been recognised in regard to many matters which have arisen in this House.
  We know the great services that have been and are being rendered by the members of these forces, and why these men should not receive justice I cannot understand. I appeal to the Chief Secretary to answer the unanimous expression of opinion in Ireland, and the sympathetic desire of all

  3031
  English and Scottish Members who have considered the question, and before the Bill comes to the Committee stage to consider the question so that we may introduce an Amendment which will remedy this undoubted injustice. If a further Resolution in Committee is necessary I have not the slightest doubt that it will receive sympathetic consideration in this House. I trust that the Chief Secretary will be able to assure us that he will use his influence with the Treasury to remedy the injustice which has been explained to the House.
  Mr. DILLON: I regret that I cannot congratulate the Chief Secretary on this Bill. The granting of the increases of pay and pensions is regarded by, I suppose, all in Ireland as a long-deferred act of justice to these forces. Though I have come into collision with these forces on many occasions I recognise fully that they have done their duty in very difficult circumstances, and the Dublin police especially are a body of men who deserve every consideration at the hands of the Government. But I cannot congratulate the Chief Secretary on this Bill because I regard it as another example of a most dangerous principle which has been adopted by the present Government on many occasions lately—a principle which is sowing the dragon's teeth in this country as well as in Ireland. The hon. Member who has just sat down said that he could not understand where the difficulty arose in dealing with former members of the police force, whose claims are as strong as those of the men now serving—in some respects even stronger, because many of them served at a time when the difficulties of the Royal Irish Constabulary were considerably greater than they have been in recent years. What makes it more difficult to explain the leaving out of these men is that the sum of money at stake is comparatively trifling, and it would be a gradually diminishing sum, which in a few years would disappear entirely. But why is this Bill, which is the recognition of a long-deferred claim, brought forward now? It is brought forward now because of the strike of the London police. That is the real and only ground for this Bill. The strike of the London police forced the hands of the Government to increase the pay of the police here, and this Bill was promised because of the fear that the Dublin Metropolitan Police and Royal
  3032
  Irish Constabulary would follow their example. That is the whole explanation of the Bill, and I do not believe the Dublin police or the Royal Irish Constabulary would have had the slightest chance of getting this Bill if it had not been for the action of the London police. That is a most deplorable state of affairs. The pensioners are left out because they cannot strike. How could they. The only way they could would be to refuse their pension, and that would not be a profitable way. The Treasury and the Government adopt the principle which they have adopted on many occasions, and will not concede anything to men who do not make themselves dangerous, but the moment there is a dangerous strike they immediately concede what they have even refused to consider before. That is a horrible principle for any Government to adopt. I regret to say it has been pursued not only in the case of the London police, but in the case of many large bodies of men during the last few years. That is the whole explanation of this Bill. The Chief Secretary is unable to say, and has not attempted to argue that this Bill is founded on justice as regards the treatment of the pensioners as compared with the treatment of the men now in the service. He cannot do so. All he says is that he cannot get any more, or in other words, that the Treasury and the Government will not consent to justice being done. Why is that so? It is because they are afraid that the Dublin Metropolitan Police and the Royal Irish Constabulary would follow the example of the London police, and that he dare not face that, but the pensioners have a remedy. I think it is really a monstrous thing, and all we can do is to warn the Chief Secretary that at every stage of this Bill he will have to fight us on this question. He cannot stand up at this Box, because he has not got a single word to say in defence of this principle.
  Major NEWMAN: Whatever principle may have induced the Government to bring forward this Bill, I am perfectly certain it will be welcomed generally by public opinion in Ireland. I welcome it especially for one small reason, and that is that the pensions of widows of county inspectors and district inspectors has been increased from the beggarly sum of £30 to the small but bigger sum of £50. I had a series of pathetic letters from those poor ladies asking me to do what I could, and I am very glad to see that in some

  3033
  way the Chief Secretary has recognised their claim. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he might do one small thing in the case of the county and district inspectors and allow them to get their petrol at the same price as doctors. While I welcome this Bill I regret very much that it has been brought up at this late stage. We have had to debate it on two succeeding nights. I am sorry for that, because I think a Bill of this importance might have been debated some afternoon with a full House or full Committee present. I am also sorry that this Bill, like many other Irish Bills, has not been referred to some Standing Committee sitting in Dublin with Irish Members, and perhaps some Irish Peers thrown in. If this Bill had been carefully looked into by such a Committee, it would, of course, have had to cut its coat according to its cloth, but it is perfectly certain that it would have looked at the particular title of this Bill, and would have explored every possible way of relieving not alone those who are the younger men in the force, but the older men, the old pensioners, and I am convinced that that Grand Committee would have explored very carefully a region which I doubt myself the Chief Secretary has explored. They would have gone into the question of the Constabulary Fund. I used to endeavour to get the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor in office to make some survey of that fund. I used to put a great many questions on that point, but I never got a satisfactory answer. I gave up harrying the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but the subject is well worth exploring.
  The benefit branch of that fund is absolutely wrapt in mystery. It is a very old fund. It dates from 1836. It was established by an Act known as the Drummond Act, and was called the Police Reward Fund. It was laid down that this was a fund to accumulate for the payment of rewards, gratuities, bounties, pensions, and other allowances. In 1891 something happened. The fund was divided into two parts—a reward branch and a benefit branch. I am not a lawyer—the right hon. Gentleman is—but I understand there are very grave doubts if that could be done legally. In other words, I doubt if a test case had been brought before the Courts as to the division of the fund into two distinct branches that it could have stood. Of course the object was to open the reward branch to non-subscribers. The Drummond Act directed quite plainly that
  3034
  everyone who participated should be a subscriber and therefore it is open to doubt if that division were legally made, and if large sums were not diverted from this fund which ought to belong to these old pensioners. Undoubtedly lavish money was given as rewards to county and district inspectors out of this fund. For instance, when an inspector-general went his tour round Ireland and called to inspect the barracks of a particular county, having found everything right there, that the buttons of the men were clean, their brass nicely kept, and so on, he gave out of this reward fund a tip to the county inspector or the district inspector as the case might be. In that way, again, large sums were diverted from the pensions, and the result was that some time—I think it must have been about 1891—£150,000 had to be allocated, apparently to make the pension part of this fund solvent, but though that was done it was forgotten that some years previously £42,800 had been taken from this fund and passed to the Consolidated Fund, and no payment was given for that. There has been a Committee in Ireland for some time past of these police pensioners, called the Royal Irish Constabulary Pensioners' Association. They have gone very carefully into the question of this fund which is, of course, restricted to the payment of widows and orphans of subscribers. They first of all want to know, as I want also to know, to whom is the surplus to go when the last widow and the last child is dead?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise on this Bill.
  Major NEWMAN: I am going to make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman that he might, without asking the Treasury for further funds, meet the claims of these pensioners. They suggest

  "1. To pay to the subscriber and his wife, conjointly, the amount of gratuity payable at death to the widow.

  2. To pay to the widower subscriber and his children, conjointly, the deceased mother's full share—same as paragraph 1.

  3. No grants claimed for children under eighteen born in the service, as it is presumed they would all pass over the limit before claims would mature in the ordinary course.

  4 Single men (subscribers) still serving and lapsed subscribers now on pension to receive back their full contributions to the Fund, with reasonable interest added."

  Mr. SPEAKER: It would require a special Bill to deal with that particular point. It involves a grant of money out, of the Consolidated Fund.
  Major NEWMAN: Will the Chief Secretary introduce a Bill on this matter? If so, that will satisfy me.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise on this Bill.
  Major NEWMAN: Then I have nothing more to say.
  Mr. DUNCAN: As one who was directly connected with the recent police strike in London, I should like to say a word on this question. I know, of course, the different reasons for the recent disturbances. From what has been said by the Irish Members, and especially by the hon. and learned Member for York—whose speech I thought was very reasonable—it does seem to me that there has been a case made out for some further consideration, especially of the pensions which come within the scope of this Bill. It has been pointed out that there are possibilities of trouble in Ireland with the police, as there have been in this country. I feel that just as much as the Chief Secretary for Ireland. In this House I have heard the highest possible testimonials given to the Royal Irish Constabulary, and that makes me desirous, as I am sure every hon. Member is, that these men should be kept thoroughly loyal and looked after in the best possible way as far as their wages and conditions of service are concerned. I am convinced that the grievances of these men have not been attended to as they should have been, and it is not altogether an oversight, because the attention of the authorities has been drawn from time to time to these matters. The men have had to contend with the enormous increase in the cost of living, and it is really impossible for them to tolerate the existing conditions any longer. There need be no surprise at all if those who have to deal with the wages and conditions of these men would only put themselves in their place, and consider seriously what these men have to face in order to eke out an existence. I would only humbly add my word of appeal that when this Bill goes to Committee some little further consideration may be given to this matter.
  Colonel McCALMONT: Unlike some other measures, this Bill does not benefit anybody who has a vote, because the Royal Irish Constabulary have, I think, no votes. I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given this excellent body quite sufficient credit. He
  3036
  has compared it with the police force of this country, but various points of difference make the Royal Irish Constabulary much nearer a military force and takes away their independence, and therefore, in my opinion, necessitates their being very much better paid than the English policeman. The latter lives, it may be, in his own place, and merely turns out once a week or a fortnight when asked by someone to arrest somebody. That is a very different life to the life of the Royal Irish Constabulary. I should like to pay a very brief tribute to the Irish constable as being connected very closely with the regiment in which I have the honour to serve; for had it not been for the men we got from the Royal Irish Constabulary during the present War the regiment would probably have ceased to exist. For that reason I am very anxious to see the conditions of this force improved. I hope the Chief Secretary thoroughly realises what sort of force they are as compared with the ordinary police force. I am bound to say that I agree with some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for East Mayo in regard to the causes which have given rise to this Bill. I think it has been extracted from the Government very unwillingly. I think it is a not very generous Bill. I am bound to say—and I think in this matter I speak for my party—that, in the matter of ignoring the claims of pensioners, and especially the old pensioners, a mistake has been made. Anything we can do, short of looking a gift horse in the mouth, to co-operate with hon. Members below the Gangway in order to press the claims of the pensioners on the Government we shall most certainly do. Several matters may require to be altered in the Bill in Committee. I think the powers given to the Inspector-General in the matter of money require revision. Like the hon. Member who has spoken from below the Gangway, we feel that the pension question is an urgent problem, and we feel it has been very seriously neglected in this Bill.
  Mr. BOLAND: The Chief Secretary had plenty of warning before this Debate came on as to the weak points of this Bill. We could not help noticing that in introducing the Bill that he very carefully-skated over points to which reference has been made and dwelt upon the other provisions of the Bill. He must be perfectly-aware of the strong feeling in all parts of the House that as regards the position of the old pensioners the Bill does not do

  3037
  justice. I would like, however, to call attention to this: During the course of the War, in the case of separation allowances and increases of pensions a great deal has been made—and rightly made—of the increased cost of living. So much so, unless I am very much mistaken, that when the case of soldier pensioners who have fought in previous wars was made out for an increase of pension that was taken into account. These police pensioners are in precisely the same position. They are men who have ceased to serve but whose cost of living has been increased in precisely the same way. Tonight the Chief Secretary has heard the strong expression of opinion from all sides of the House upon this point, and I hope that before the Committee stage is reached to-morrow he will consult with the Treasury authorities and meet the general wish of the House.
  Mr. BOYLE: I should like to join with other hon. Members on these benches and with hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway in expressing appreciation of the Royal Irish Constabulary as a body and of their services. If they deserve well of anybody, they deserve well of the Government, to whom, in very difficult and trying circumstances, they have always given loyal service. For many years I was associated with police administration in a large city in England. When the Chief Secretary talked about the police in Ireland being advantageously placed because they live in barracks, he surely overlooked what the hon. and gallant Gentleman above the Gangway (Colonel McCalmont) referred to, the fact that one can hardly imagine anything more trying than the life of an Irish constable in a country station. He has to answer the roll call and appear in all circumstances and at all hours of the day, as well as answer the last roll call at night, and always has to pass the supervising eye of his sergeant. A constable in England is exempt from all that. He lives in his own home, and except for his eight hours on duty he is in everything a free citizen. The Royal Irish Constabulary should be placed on an exact equality with the constables in the English police services, both in regard to pay and pensions. The Chief Secretary referred to the fact that because they lived in barracks they were exempt from the payment of rent, to which the English constabulary were subject. In most cases in the English
  3038
  police force an allowance is made for rent. In the force with whose administration I was connected there was, in addition to the rent allowance, a travelling allowance to enable them to reach their homes.
  I do not know how the Government are going to escape from the dilemma in which the Debate has placed them in regard to the pensions of retired constables. A pension is, in the strict sense of the word, deferred pay. If the constables now serving are entitled to an increase because of the additional cost of living, the same argument applies to the pensioner, who has to live and pay out of a very small competence for the commodities that sustain life. I join with my colleagues on these benches, with hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway, and with the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) in the appeal to the Chief Secretary to secure reconsideration of this question. It is a pity that the Treasury is not represented here to-night, in order to hear the unanimous appeal made on this question from all parts of the House. I have no doubt the Chief Secretary has exerted every effort to get the Treasury to accede to this demand, but evidently he has not been successful. On an occasion like this the Treasury should be present to listen to the case that is made for a reconsideration of the question. The Royal Irish Constabulary who have retired have served through strenuous times in the last thirty years in Ireland. They have given loyal service to the Government, and, although in many cases they have come into conflict with the party with which I am associated—fortunately, I was never in conflict with them myself—we say that does not matter. Justice is justice, and it is deplorable that these men who have given the best years of their life should in their later years be abandoned by the Government they have served so loyally and left to live on a small pittance that is unable to keep them in respectable conditions. Old age pensions have been increased, and there is a demand that they should be still further increased, but these policemen and their widows are left without consideration. It is ungrateful, unkind, and lacking in generosity on the part of the Treasury not to respond to the appeal which I am sure the Chief Secretary has made to them and to sanction this item, along with the rather tardy and belated advance that is being made to the men both of the Royal Irish Constabulary and

  3039
  the Dublin Metropolitan Police. We all hope that before the Committee stage the right hon. Gentleman, in view of this Debate, will make further representations, and that the heart of the Treasury may be melted and they may meet this appeal which is made from all quarters of the House on behalf of a class of men who deserve well of everybody, and especially of those who speak in this House for the Government.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Captain Gilmour.]

  NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS BILL.
  Considered in Committee.—[Progress, 6th November.]
  [Sir DONALD MACLEAN (Deputy-Chairman) in the Chair.]

  NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS BILL.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Power of Minister to Appoint Additional Members of Committees).
    Notwithstanding anything in the principal Act or in any scheme made under that Act, the Minister may appoint such persons as he thinks fit to be additional members of a committee, so, however, that the additional members appointed by the Minister shall not at any time exceed one-fourth of the total number of the members (including additional members) of the committee.
    Amendment made: At end, add the words
    "and that the Minister in making appointments shall have regard to the desirability of preserving the representative character of the committees."—
    [Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Power to Make Regulations as to Proceedings of Committees, etc.)
    The Minister may make Regulations for any of the following purposes:

    (a) For regulating the procedure of committees, including the proceedings at meetings of committees

    (b) For regulating the appointment, removal, duties, and remuneration of officers of committees, and the provision of offices by committees.

    (c) For authorising and securing the attendance of officers of the Ministry of Pensions at meetings of committees, and for enabling such officers to summon and examine witnesses on any matters the administration of which is vested in the Minister.

    3040

    (d) For enabling officers of the Ministry of Pensions to inspect and take copies or extracts from any books or other document kept by or in possession of committees, and for that purpose to enter any premises where any such books or documents are kept, and for requiring committees to furnish to any such officers such information as may be reasonably required by those officer for the performance of their duties.

    (e) For prescribing the times at which, the manner in which, and the period for which, estimates of administrative expenses are to be submitted by committees.

    (f) For regulating the constitution of subcommittees.

    (g) For authorising or requiring the delegation to district committees and sub-committees, subject to any conditions or restrictions specified in the Regulations, of any powers or duties so specified and for making void the delegation of powers and duties otherwise than in accordance with the Regulations.

    (h) For prescribing the form in which the accounts of committees are to be kept, and providing for the audit of such accounts (including the disallowance of any items in such accounts, the surcharging of any items disallowed, and the recovery of any amount surcharged).

    (i) For prescribing anything which under this Act is to be prescribed, and generally for carrying into effect the provisions of the principal Act;

    and it shall be the duty of committees and their officers to comply with any Regulations made under this Section, so far as they are affected thereby.
    Amendments made: After the word "make" ["The Minister may make Regulations"] insert the word "general."
    Leave out paragraph (a).—[Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen.]
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Sir A. Grifflth-Boscawen): I beg to move, in paragraph (b), to leave out the words "regulating the appointment, removal, duties, and remuneration of officers of committees," and to insert instead thereof the words
    "determining what classes of officers are required by committees for the proper discharge of their functions, and defining the general duties of the officers of committees and the conditions under which officers may be appointed or removed by committees, and regulating the remuneration of such officers."
    Sir MONTAGUE BARLOW: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "the" ["the conditions under which officers may be appointed"], to insert the word "general."
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am not quite sure where my hon. Friend wishes to insert this word. Perhaps he will explain to me.
    Sir M. BARLOW: I desire to insert the word "general" before the word "conditions," so that the form should be "general conditions," the object being that there should not be conditions made with regard to any specific officer.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I accept it.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Proposed words, as amended, there inserted.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words.
    "especially with a view to providing that ex-Service men and their dependants shall be given priority in all appointments to officers under these committees."
    I think it is desirable to have an explanation why this Amendment cannot be accepted.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I cannot accept the words in this form, but am quite willing to accept a proviso as follows:
    "Provided that the Regulations shall provide that in all appointments of officers of committees preference shall be given to suitable candidates who have served in the naval, military, or air forces during the present War or to the dependants of men who have so served."
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I am quite willing to accept those words.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words,
    "Provided that the Regulations shall provide that in all appointments of officers of committees preference shall be given to suitable candidates who have served in the naval, military, or air forces during the present War or to the dependants of men who have so served."
    12.0 M.
    Sir R. NEWMAN: I should like to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he could not see his way to insert the word "present"? It seems to me very hard that a man of middle-age who has served in the Boer War should be debarred from getting an appointment of this sort. The word "present" would make a candidate who had served in South Africa unqualified. It would give a bad impression. He would be passed over possibly for another man who happened to be wounded in another war in the service of his country.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Such a man would not be debarred. He would merely not have a preference.
    Sir R. NEWMAN: I think any man who has been wounded in the service of his country, whether in the South African War or in this War, should be on an equal footing. I really cannot see, unless there are some better reasons than I have heard, that a man should be placed at a disadvantage because perhaps he was wounded, or, at any rate, served his country, in the South African War and might be over age in the present War. Preference should be given to any soldier who had served in a war or something of that kind. A man who fought in the Boer War, who might think the post one which would suit him, might be told he would have his claim considered after the claim of another man, who, I quite agree, deserves our full sympathy, but surely not more so than a man who served his country in the South African War! We ought not to forget the older soldier.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: My hon. Friend does not quite realise the position. These committees are set up specifically to deal with cases in the present War. The whole system of pensions is derived from the present War. There was a system before, but probably more than 99 per cent. of the cases are cases in the present War, so preference should be given to those men and their dependants who have suffered in it. At the same time, we do not in any way debar any soldier who has suffered in a previous war.
    Colonel McCALMONT: I wish to support my hon. Friend (Sir R. Newman) very strongly indeed. I can see no reason why preference should even be put in the Bill for men in the present War. No one wants another war, but it does not follow that the only deserving men are those who have fought in this War I cannot see the right hon. Gentleman's point in wanting to put in the word "present." What is his objection to taking it out? The argument of my hon. Friend is a perfectly sound one, and there are very many men who have served in previous wars who, under the terms of this Bill, certainly would not be debarred, but whose claims would be prejudiced by this word being left in.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: I think the hon. Gentleman has very largely taken this from the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge),

    3043
    and he has adopted the words, "during the present War," from that Amendment. It seems to me he is quite justified in so doing. These are the men who will be out of work, and who will have sacrificed their positions now. They are likely to be most useful, and I do not think the men who were wounded seventeen or eighteen years ago are likely to be in need of this consideration.
    Colonel Sir J. HOPE: I do not quite understand the Amendment, but I have a very short and simple Amendment providing that no officer of committees shall be appointed who has not served in His Majesty's Naval, Military, or Air Forces.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We are not talking on that, but on a manuscript Amendment, which has been put in.
    Colonel Sir J. HOPE: I shall not be allowed to move my Amendment which is on the Paper if this be carried, but surely I may speak on it?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If it is relevant to the Amendment before the Committee—certainly.
    Sir J. HOPE: My Amendment is to insert the words
    "Provided that no officers of committees shall be appointed who have not served in His Majesty's Naval, Military, or Air Forces."
    I submit that this is a very simple Amendment, which covers the whole subject, and which allows the men who have served in the Navy, Army, or Air Force to be appointed as officers of these committees, and no other persons. There are 7,000,000 men in this country, I believe, who have served in the Army, Navy, or Air Force, and surely officers of these new committees should be appointed from these men and no others. I cannot, for the life of me, see why the old soldiers who have served in previous wars—there may not be many of them—should not also have an opportunity of being appointed. If there are 7,000,000 of these men who have served in the forces, surely it is not too much to ask that they should have the right of serving as officers of these war pensions committees? It seems to me that in the administration of the pensions you should have officers who understand from personal knowledge the soldiers, sailors and members of the Air Force, and can deal with the administration of the pensions in a sympathetic manner, having served with the men as
    3044
    comrades and knowing how to deal with them. One of the main objects of this Bill is to prevent unsuitable persons being appointed as they have been in the past. Many have been pushed into jobs as pensions officers because they had some other job under local bodies and so forth. We ought to avoid that. I suggest that my Amendment is the most suitable of the Amendments on the Paper.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I cannot accept this Amendment. It would limit officers entirely to those who have served in the forces. That is really impossible. We want to give preference where there are suitable men who have served, but in some cases we are unable to get them, and we have to get other men who are suitable. To tie us down entirely to those who have served is really unnecessary. I think I have made a fair compromise.
    Mr. T. WILSON: I think the hon. Member has met the situation fairly, and I do not think anyone can complain. I am quite satisfied, and, so far as men who have served in the forces are concerned, they will be quite willing to loyally abide by the Government Amendment.
    Colonel McCALMONT: I am not in the least satisfied. I regard this as another attempt to "do down" the old soldier in favour of the new soldier, who happens to be in front of the public now. The old soldiers are very few and far between, and I am entirely unrepentant and unconvinced. I do not know why the hon. Member has ignored the dependants who are mentioned in the Amendment on the Paper. Does he mean to ignore their preferential claims altogether, or do I understand that the dependants are in his Amendment?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: They are in the Amendment.
    Colonel McCALMONT: I am very glad to hear it, but I am still entirely unconvinced by the hon. Member's argument. I have not heard a single argument yet in favour of giving a preference to soldiers of the present War as against the old soldiers in the previous wars. This is a grievance which old soldiers in previous wars very often suffered from. We hear a great deal about the present War, but the old soldier is entirely forgotten.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I do not think there is much between us, and if it will satisfy hon. Members I am quite

    3045
    willing to amend my Amendment by leaving out the words "during the present War."
    HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment to leave out the words "during the present War."
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Words, as amended, there inserted.
    Further Amendment made: In paragraph (c) leave out the words "and securing."—[Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen.]
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to move to leave out the words,
    "and for enabling such officers to summon and examine witnesses on any matters, the administration of which is vested in the Minister,"
    and to insert instead thereof the words,
    "and for providing that the records of the committee shall be accessible to officers of the Ministry.

    (d) For enabling officers of the Ministry of Pensions on the directions of the Minister to hold local inquiries with respect to any matters the administration of which is vested in the Minister, and for the purpose of any such inquiries to summon and examine witnesses on oath."

    Sir M. BARLOW: I should like to be quite clear how we stand. I and some friends of mine who represent the Parliamentary Pensions Bureau have put down the following Amendment—to leave out the words after the word "committees," and to insert instead thereof the words,
    "For enabling officers of the Ministry to hold a local inquiry into any matters affecting the administration of local committees specifically referred to such officers of the Ministry for that purpose on the ground of negligent or inefficient administration; and when such inquiry is held in public to summon and examine witnesses on oath for the purposes of such inquiry."
    The Second Reading of the Bill was granted on the understanding that the Ministry of Pensions would consider the matter with the representatives of the Parliamentary Pensions Bureau. The Amendment which has been put down on behalf of the Ministry of Pensions we feel does not quite carry out our wishes. We feel that an inquiry of this kind is a very serious matter. It should only be directed where there is a primâ facie case of misconduct of some kind. The Ministry should only direct an inquiry where there is a reasonable case of impropriety of conduct either on the part of the committee or some officers of the committee. The
    3046
    point of my suggested Amendment is that no inquiry should be held except where there is a primâ facie case of inefficient and maladministration, and, secondly, where the oath is administered that the inquiry should be in public. I think the hon. Gentleman is prepared to meet us as to the first point, but that he has some difficulty as to the second. If the oath is administered it is in the nature of a judicial inquiry, and, according to common sense and justice and the canons of English law, it should be in public. The penalty for breach of the oath is two years' imprisonment, and it would be very unsatisfactory to have it administered under circumstances entirely private. I suggest the hon. Gentleman would be well advised to accept our Amendment.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am afraid I cannot meet my hon. Friend. I tried to meet him and his Friends on many difficult points, but this would really hamper us very considerably and is quite unnecessary. The Local Government Board inspectors have the right now to administer the oath at an inquiry, public or private. It is found very useful, though it is not often used, to have the power to do so. If we were to adopt the suggestion and make inquiries public, it would mean great delay by public exhibition of notices, and would probably hang up the inquiries for weeks. There is no reason why the limitation should be put on us, as it is not put on the Local Government Board. My right hon. and learned Friend (Sir G. Hewart) tells me that sworn declarations and affidavits are constantly made in private. Why on earth should we be placed in a worse position in this respect than the inspector of the Local Government Board?
    Sir M. BARLOW: Do I understand the Minister to say he is willing to accept the first portion of my Amendment—namely, that the inquiry shall only be held where there is a primâ facie case of maladministration?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: What is the real object of that? My Amendment is limited in this way. An inquiry can only be held in respect of matters of administration which is vested in the Ministry, and we are not likely to order an inquiry unless we have a primâ facie case. Why should we? It is only where we think that things have not been done quite correctly that we should ask for an inquiry.
    Sir M. BARLOW: May I say we have been in consultation with representatives of local authorities, who are very nervous. They are, in fact, afraid inquiries may be directed into their administration on all sorts of points which do not involve maladministration. I do not want to press the point too much, but it is one which gives rise to anxiety to those authorities which are concerned with the question of pensions. If the Minister will state that his intention is to direct inquiries only where maladministration is alleged or suspected, I cannot understand why there should be any difficulty on his part in accepting these words. The representatives of the local authorities and of the local pensions committees say that they are afraid that the inquiries will be directed into their ordinary administration and not merely into cases where the administration has been inefficient or where the officials have shown themselves incapable. But if the hon. and gallant Gentleman is prepared to accept some words—I am not tied to the particular form of words I have suggested—if he will introduce analogous words to show that the inquiries will only be held where there is a primâ facie case of improper management he will satisfy a very large amount of anxious opinion on the part of local people on whom he has to rely for administrative work all over the country. I am saying this, not merely on my own authority, but on the authority of a very large and representative body from all parts of the United Kingdom—coming from Glasgow, Edinburgh, Birmingham, Newcastle-on-Tyne, and other centres It would ease matters very much if the hon. Gentleman would put in some words—limiting words—to show that it is only intended to exercise this right of holding inquiries when there really is some ground on which to do it, because of impropriety of action on the part of some persons.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: The Under-Secretary has given us no indication of the kind of charge or accusation which would be held to justify the holding of an inquiry. If he anticipates such a serious position, then I think we ought to have greater safeguards to ensure that the inquiry shall only be held in cases where some form of negligence or maladministration is alleged.
    Mr. COTTON: I should like to know if the hon. Gentleman proposes to accept
    3048
    the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Midlothian, providing for the investigation of complaints from discharged soldiers, sailors and airmen, and their wives, widows or dependants?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We had better deal with the Amendment now before the Committee.
    Mr. COTTON: Will such complaints as are indicated in the Amendment I have referred to come within the scope of the Amendment now under consideration? I have the utmost sympathy with that large and exceedingly nervous body of opinion of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has spoken, but there is another body of opinion which is equally nervous and which is represented by the discharged soldiers and sailors and their wives and dependants. I have had quite a number of cases put into my hands lately where local committees have wrangled over some question for six months before deciding it, and I am very anxious while the authorities are considering questions of maladministration, that complaints from the classes I have mentioned should not be lost sight of but should be included within the scope of the proposed inquiries.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir J. HOPE: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (c), to insert the words,
    "And for enabling such officers to visit the office of each sub-committee at least once in each year and to there investigate and make a report to the Minister on any complaints which discharged soldiers and sailors and airmen or the wives or widows or dependants of sailors and soldiers and airmen may personally bring forward."
    I am fully aware that the Ministry for Pensions is anxious to remedy any defects of administration, and are therefore sending inspectors all over the country in order to see whether the local pensions committees are carrying on their work efficiently. I would like to point out that to a great extent these inspectors of the Ministry of Pensions go down naturally to the offices of the local pensions committee and there they see the local secretary and hear what he and the other local officials have to say. They find the accounts are in order and well kept, that the office is nicely kept, and that the secretary of the local pensions committee is a tactful man, who at any rate gets on with the inspector. The result of all this is that a good report is sent in, and nothing more is done. What I am anxious to see is that the inspector gets into personal touch

    3049
    with these people whom this House desires to benefit by the pensions provisions, and I want every soldier and sailor to have the opportunity of making an independent complaint practically direct to the Ministry of Pensions. Such a course would save Members of this House a good deal of work. We get under present conditions endless complaints from our Constituents as to maladministration, and we often send them on to the local committees, which sometimes take time to answer, and sometimes send back foolish answers which show that they do not even know their own regulations. I want this system carried out. I would like to remind the House, that under the old Army system, once a year at a general inspection, a general after inspecting a regiment asked, on parade, if a man had any complaints to make against his commanding officer, officer or non-commissioned officer of the regiment, and if there were any he resorted to the orderly-room and made his complaints. A soldier understands that, and I think that the same principle might be applied here, and that every aggrieved person should have that right once a year of making a complaint direct to an officer. I hope, therefore, that this Amendment will go through. I submit that it provides a safety valve which will prevent the maladministration of the Pensions Act, and give confidence to the soldiers and the sailors and their dependants. Some of the ex-soldiers and their dependants may be uneducated, and do not understand their rights, hardly knowing how to write a letter and put their case to the authorities, but if they are assured that once a year an officer comes down with whom they can have a talk across the table so that they can put their whole case to him freely, they would be greatly relieved. It would give them a much better opportunity. Then if the officer goes down, has been to every local committee and receives no complaints from the dependants, then let him report good upon the local committee, but if he finds that in every district he gets a complaint about the administration of pensions, then let him put in a bad report against the local committee and let there be the local inquiry under the Sub-section we have just passed, with evidence taken on oath.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not press his Amendment. It really is absolutely unnecessary. He suggests that once a year an inspector should have a sort of
    3050
    solemn inquiry into the grievances of pensioners and so on. As a matter of fact the inspectors of the Department are doing it practically every day.
    Sir J. HOPE: Oh, no.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Oh, yes. I beg my hon. and gallant Friend's pardon. The first duty of an inspector if there is a grievance, is to go to the local committee, and if what they say does not give him satisfaction, he writes to the Ministry, and hardly a day passes that I do not myself refer to an inspector some grievance where a man alleges he cannot get satisfaction from his committee. I assure him that the system is going on daily and weekly, and to have a sort of solemn assize once a year is, to my mind, an unnecessary proceeding and really in its results nothing more than we have at the present time, when the inspector can and does go out to look fully into complaints. I am sure my hon. Friend has nothing to gain from his Amendment, and I hope he will not press it.
    Mr. T. WILSON: I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not press this Amendment.
    Sir J. HOPE: Why not?
    Mr. WILSON: I am certain that if he does he will not get the local committees to work. I would like to say one word about his reference to the old Army system, namely, that it is extremely unsound to suggest that the private soldier was absolutely safeguarded in making complaints against his superior. When they make complaints they are often court-martialled.
    Sir J. HOPE: No!
    Mr. WILSON: I have letters every day in connection with this matter and, therefore, I know they dare not make the complaints.
    Sir J. HOPE: I never heard of one.
    Mr. WILSON: I am afraid my hon. and gallant Friend shows some innocence of the old Army system. At any rate, I say that they dare not make complaints. They are always writing to me about what happens when they make complaints, about their not being listened to and about their being punished. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] In the interests of good administration I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not press this Amendment,

    3051
    because it will not make for good management and is not likely to give satisfaction to the people concerned.
    Colonel McCALMONT: I do not think that what the hon. Member has just said should be allowed to pass unchallenged. I think he has made what is a serious reflection upon the Army, and I do not think his statements are true.
    Mr. WILSON: Then will the hon. and gallant Member allow me to give some cases in point?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I suggest that the hon. Member sees the hon. and gallant Member in private.
    Mr. WILSON: I will do that should he wish.
    Colonel McCALMONT: I will be very glad to have them, and if the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for War were here I think he would take the matter up more warmly than it has already been taken up from this side of the House. Whether my hon. and gallant Friend presses his Amendment to a division or not—and I do not know what his intentions may be—I should support it very strongly. The hon. Member who has just sat down says he knows more about the Army than my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Mr. WILSON: I must protest against any such statement; I said nothing of the kind.
    Colonel McCALMONT: You may not have said so in those exact words.
    Mr. WILSON: I did not say it at all.
    Colonel McCALMONT: You certainly said that my hon. and gallant Friend showed great innocence of what went on in the Army. I venture to say that this is an Amendment which would give a great deal of satisfaction to the persons who may have grievances as to the administration of the Pensions Act, and that is the object of my hon. and gallant Friend in proposing it. Really, to hear how some of those Amendments are being received in the House one might imagine that they were only put down for the purpose of obstructing the Bill now before the House. I honestly believe that this Amendment would benefit the dependant who wishes to have his or her grievance—in most cases I think it will be "her" grievances
    3052
    —seen to. I therefore hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will not withdraw it.
    Mr. COTTON: I also support this Amendment. I hope, however, if an inspector is going down he is not going to be of the type of a major-general or other high military officer. If I might put myself in the position of the wife or widow or a dependant and the inspector comes down of the type which the hon. and gallant Member opposite has been speaking of—no doubt admirable in his own sphere of life but I should imagine quite unsuitable for a thing of this kind—I would not go to him with any great confidence. We do not want people like major-generals or holding the views of major-generals to go down and investigate complaints; what we want is the ordinary human being who will be able to put himself in the position of a discharged soldier suffering from a sense of injustice, and kept hanging about for a year or two, or who may enter into the feelings of a wife or dependant who complains of bad treatment. It may have been due to the fact that my mind does not travel sufficiently quickly for the Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Pensions, but I confess I could not quite grasp the force of his argument when he says that he is constantly referring cases to the inspectors for investigation. From the short experience I have had of the Ministry of Pensions I am convinced that the present system works with a certain amount of indifferent success, and as I should like a change, I should like to support the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Midlothian.
    Sir J. HOPE: I do not want to go over the points again, but the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Pensions Department suggests that what I am seeking is a sort of annual assize. But I would ask the hon. Member to see again the terms of the Amendment, and he will appreciate that all I am asking for is that officers of the Department shall visit the office of each sub-committee at least once in each year, and there investigate and report to the Minister on any complaints which discharged soldiers and sailors or their wives, widows, or dependants may personally bring forward. Is it not clear that the object of my Amendment is not to have a grand assize but to ensure that the officer will not merely go to the offices of the local pensions committee, as I believe they now do, but that they will

    3053
    visit all the country districts and see the people who have complaints to make? When they are about to visit any district they will announce their intention before hand. This will give the uneducated people who cannot write a satisfactory letter—the old soldier, for instance, who is shy of writing to his Member of Parliament, or to the Minister of Pensions as is suggested he might do—a proper opportunity of explaining their case by word of mouth and not on paper. They would put it much better by word of mouth. I am not suggesting an assize, but only that the inspectors should visit all the districts so that every man, woman and child, who should benefit by the Pensions Act, may tell their complaints to the pensions officers who should report direct to the Minister of Pensions and not to the local pensions committee. I do not see that the local pensions committee can in any way object to that. I really thought that we should have some concession from the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of the Pensions Department, and if we did not get that I had determined to carry the matter to a Division to show that I and those who agree with me are serious in our contention.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment made: Leave out paragraph (d).—[Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen.]
    Sir J. HOPE: I beg to move, in paragraph (f), after the word "for," to insert the words
    "ensuring that every sub-committee provides an office open to the public for at least one hour on at least two days in each week, and for."
    I really hope that we shall get some concession from the Ministry of Pensions.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: May I interrupt my hon. and gallant Friend for a moment. I have put on the Paper a new Clause to carry out what, I think, he wishes to do by this Amendment. I quite agree with him about the time of opening the offices, but if he will look at the new Clause which I have put down dealing with the committees he will see that it is proposed that every committee shall prepare rules for regulating their proceedings, including quorum, time and place of meeting, records, and the exercise generally of their powers and duties, and shall submit the rules for the approval of the Minister. Under that Clause we can and we shall insist upon a committee doing precisely what my hon. and gallant Friend wishes.
    Sir J. HOPE: But there is nothing even in the Clause which you have read and which you intend to move to show, as far as I can see, that there is to be an office for every sub-committee open to the public for at least one or two days a week.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend will agree that we realise the necessity of all that, and it is in order that we shall be able to compel the local committees to do that very thing and a great many other things that are equally necessary that we are going to take these general powers. If we are going to have all these things specified in the Bill we should have to have a measure as long as my arm, but we intend to insist upon such conditions of working as my hon. and gallant Friend asked for.
    Sir J. HOPE: Might I ask for an assurance that a rule will be issued by the Pensions Ministry that every sub-committee must have an office open to the public for at least one hour on at least two days in each week. In my view it is absolutely essential that that should be put in as a minimum. It is quite clear that in some districts there must be an office open for at least four or five hours on every day of the week, but what I am pleading for is that every country district should have its office open to the public for this minimum. The Minister of Pensions himself said, though not in connection with this Bill, that he knew of a case where the office was a private house of a member of the local sub-committee, and that when this house was occupied the applicants had to be interviewed outside. I know a case in my own Constituency where at present the office is open for payment only on one day, and the consequence is that there are queues of people waiting outside. It is with that condition of affairs that I want to deal, and I should like to hear from the Ministry of Pensions that they were laid down definitely in the Regulations that every sub-committee must have an office open to the public for at least one hour on at least two days a week, and I therefore ask the hon. Member if he will give me an assurance on that subject? Otherwise, I must ask the Committee to divide on this Amendment.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I would make an appeal to my hon. and gallant Friend. I do not think that

    3055
    he realises the great difference and divergenciesa that there are between the conditions and desires of the different committees. I know some committees in the small villages where they have possibly only got one or at the outside half a dozen cases. To insist that a committee like that should be open two days every week would really be ridiculous, and you will not get people to work committees under these conditions. On the other hand, there are great committees which ought to be open every day and night of the week, and when you have a Ministry of Pensions you really must trust us to lay down such conditions as are applicable to the different kind of committee's in different parts of the country. To give a definite pledge that every committee will be open at certain hours is to ask a thing which I venture to suggest to the House is not reasonable.
    Colonel McCALMONT: Will my hon. Friend give this pledge, that in his rules he will provide that there will be a condition that it will be at some time or other open. It is well known that some people complain that they never know where to find their pensions committee. If my hon. Friend will say that in these rules that committee is to have an office it will satisfy my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Every committee will have an office of some sort and have it open at suitable times.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendments made: At end of paragraph (f), insert the words,
    "appointed by committees for any special parts of their areas."
    Leave out paragraph (g).—[Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen.]
    Sir M. BARLOW: I beg to move, in paragraph (h), after the word "any" ["any items in such accounts"], to insert the word "illegal."
    I understand this is not opposed by the Ministry. If the Committee will meet us on the point I shall be glad.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: We cannot very well accept this word. The word "illegal" is hardly applicable. I think that the word we want is something like "irregular." I have got the words down.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Further Amendments made: In paragraph (h), leave out the words "in such accounts," and insert instead thereof the words
    "of expenditure in such accounts irregularly and unreasonably incurred."
    After the word "recovery," insert the words,
    "or remission at the discretion of the Minister."
    At end of Clause, add
    "(2) Every Regulation under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith, and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such Regulation is laid before it, praying that the Regulation may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the Regulation, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder."—[Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 5 (Representation of Ministry of Pensions on Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Amendment as to Constitution of Special Grants Committee.)
    (1) Fifteen shall be substituted for twelve as the maximum number of the members of the special grants committee for the constitution of which provision is made by Section two of the Naval and Military War Pensions, etc. (Transfer of Powers) Act), 1917.
    (2) The Minister may make Regulations with respect to the following matters:

    (a) The term and tenure of office of members of the special grants committee.

    (b) The resignation of members of the special grants committee and the appointment of persons to fill casual or other vacancies on the committee.

    (3) A person who has vacated office as a member of the special grants committee shall be eligible for reappointment.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (2, a), after the word "term," insert the words "not being less than three years."—[Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen.]
    Sir G. TOULMIN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2, a), to leave out the words "and tenure."
    I should like to know the effects of the words "and tenure."
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The sole reason for leaving out the words "and tenure" is that the Minister may have the power to remove a member who does not attend. He is laying down certain

    3057
    rules as to tenure as for example that a man who does not attend for six months should ipso facto vacate office.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (2 b), leave out the words "The resignation of the members of the special grants committee and."
    At end of Clause, add
    (4) If any persona belonging to the staff of the Ministry of Pensions are assigned to the service of the special grants committee the persons so assigned shall as regards that service, but not otherwise, be subject to the directions of the committee.—[Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 7.—(pension of Pensions in Case of Refusal to Undergo Treatment.)
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Duty of Minister to Provide for Cart of Neglected Children of Men Dead or on Service.)
    (1) It shall be the duty of the Minister to make provision for the care of any children (including illegitimate children), being the children of men ill the Naval, Military, or Air Service of His Majesty who have died from causes arising out of their service during the present War or who are on active service, who by reason of their mothers being dead or for any other reason are suffering from neglect or want of proper care, and the Minister may out of any funds at his disposal for the purpose make grants for the purpose of making such provision as aforesaid.
    (2) The Minister may, subject to such conditions as he thinks fit, provide for the performance by committees of his duty under this Section.
    (3) Any question which may arise with respect to the amount of any grant to be made under this Section shall, if the Minister so directs, be referred to the special grants committee for report.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "children" ["being the children"], to insert the words "and young persons."
    It appears to me that some more clear definition is required as to what is meant by children. The definition of children differs in various Acts of Parliament. It is different in the preceding Act, to which this is a supplementary Bill. My point, briefly, is this, that care should be exercised over children beyond the age when they are technically termed children. It is in order to enable the Ministry to
    3058
    have a complete scheme for young persons as well as children that I think he requires to broaden the words in the Bill. I beg to move.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I do not think that this Amendment is really necessary, because my hon. Friend will see that Clause 8, page 6, line 27, the right hon. Gentleman has put down an Amendment which says, "For the purposes of this Section a child means any child to or in respect of whom a pension, allowance, or separation allowance is payable." So we take, therefore, the definition of a child, a child under the age of sixteen. If a child is invalid it could go as high as twenty-one. I think that would cover what my hon. Friend has in mind.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: It would, if I saw that the hon. Gentleman had power. I think it is hardly reasonable that we should have to discuss these important points at one o'clock in the morning. The statutory definition of a child in the previous Act is someone who has not attained the age of sixteen. If, therefore, you are going to give, say, educational care to young persons who are above the age of sixteen, the Amendment to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is not relevant, because the Amendment to which the right hon. Gentleman refers on the Paper which he is going to move later refers only to a child as defined in the previous Act, which is a child under sixteen. Therefore I want to know how you are going to get authority to give educational and other care to young persons between sixteen and eighteen.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I think it is quite clear from the words on the Paper—
    "for the purposes of this Section a child means any child to or in respect of whom a pension allowance or separation allowance is payable."
    It is done in terms of the Royal Warrant. In certain cases, where a child is invalid, these allowances are paid up to a higher age, which I believe is twenty-one.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment made, in Sub-section (1), after the word "of" ["children of men"], insert the words "officers or."—[Colonel McCalmont.]
    Sir G. TOULMIN: I beg to move to leave out the word "suffering" [" suffering from neglect"], and to insert instead thereof the words,
    "in circumstances which may cause them to suffer."

    3059
    The purpose is rather to increase the power, which the Ministry has, to keep guardianship of these children. As the Clause is drawn it appears to me that it only authorises the Ministry to come in when the children are suffering from neglect. I think it is reasonable, with the father being away and the mother dead, when the circumstances of the child change, to try to exercise some oversight at once without allowing the child to fall into circumstances in which it will suffer. Those who have experience of the Poor Law know how a child is taken if there is money attached to it, particularly if the child is able to earn a certain amount of money. I should like the Minister to say whether he could not adopt some words which would strengthen his powers with regard to the oversight of these children who have no parents.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I entirely sympathise with my hon. Friend in his desire to see that there are no children in this position who suffer, and the whole object of the Clause is to provide against that. After all, I do not think we can go beyond this to ascertain whether in fact the child is suffering. I do not think we can act on a mere suspicion. As my hon. Friend says, there are liberal allowances now, and there is no reason why a child should suffer. We propose to have a very vigilant outlook on this matter, and where we are convinced there is suffering to exercise our powers under the Bill.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not stand to that opinion. It would be injurious in a case of this sort. The point has arisen for years in connection with the Cruelty to Children Act. The law could do nothing if the child was saved from suffering by the action of some kind neighbour, and it was absolutely necessary to bring in words, and that is the intention of my hon. Friend here; and without standing exactly to his words, I hope the Government will accept some such words. Otherwise they will be in this absurd position, that they cannot interfere in the case of a child who has been hopelessly neglected if a kind neighbour has taken it in and the neglectful mother is able to say, "My child is not suffering, because a neighbour has taken it in, and therefore the law cannot interfere." I hope we shall have the words suggested by my hon. Friend or simply the words "or likely to suffer."
    1.0 A.M.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: Could the hon. Member tell us how he is going to exercise the vigilance which would prevent a child getting into these circumstances in which she will suffer? How is he going to know? This Clause makes it the duty of the Pensions Minister to make provision, but that does not take place until the child is suffering. What I want is the machinery by which the oversight of these children will be begun after the mother is dead or in the asylum, or, at any rate, when the child is removed from guardianship.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The machinery is provided by the local war pensions committee, which will report on these cases, probably in the first place to the Minister, who will, no doubt, refer them to the Special Grants Committee of the Ministry, which is setting up special machinery to deal with these cases. Either the child is suffering or not suffering, and if we give the right to interfere when the child is not suffering it would be open to criticism. If the child is suffering we shall intervene, and I cannot undertake to go beyond that. It would be contrary to public policy to do so, and I am sure my hon. Friend will see that we have gone as far as we can.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: Is there to be a system of visiting these children?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Yes.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Mr. Chairman, may I, on a point of Order, ask whether you will accept the Motion that the Committee do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We could not accept that Motion until we have taken this Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    There are still thirteen pages of Amendments to the Bill left, and some of them deal with points of great educational importance which some Members desire particularly to discuss. It is unreasonable, I think, to expect a Committee to sit later than one o'clock, and I am quite sure it will not hold up a Bill, but would rather greatly facilitate the Government in getting it through if we might allow the

    3061
    remainder of the discussion to stand over. I therefore move, "That the Committee report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I earnestly hope the Committee will not assent to that. This is an important Bill on which the welfare of a very large number of disabled soldiers and their dependants will largely depend, because unless we have the further powers we are asking for, we cannot see to it that the committees are doing their work as they should. We are right at the end of the Session. It is not my fault that the Bill is going on at this late hour. I was anxious to have it through earlier to-day and last night, and I must not be blamed because it was not done. I am quite sure it will really jeopardise the Bill; and with regard to the Motion of my hon. Friend, I will just say this: That, although there is a long list of Amendments still on the Paper, the majority of them are agreed Amendments, and most of the Clauses are put down to carry out undertakings I have made to hon. Friends in this House.
    Sir M. BARLOW: On the Second Reading it was arranged that the matter should be referred to the Parliamentary Pensions Bureau for consideration. The Ministry have met us on a large number of Amendments, and I do think that, though there appears to be a great deal of printing on the Paper, there is not a deal of substance in it. In consideration of the fact that we have agreed to a very large number of points. I do hope this Motion will not be accepted, and that we shall proceed to the consideration of the Amendments that stand on the Paper.
    Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and negatived.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "may" ["The Minister may"], and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
    This Amendment is a preliminary Amendment and hangs together with the Amendment that follows it on Clause 8, and it must, therefore, be read with the subsequent Amendments. The effect of them is to direct the Minister that the duties of this Section shall be referred to the special grants committee. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would deal with the question by which the policy involved in the various Amendments upon this one
    3062
    Amendment, which will save the time of the Committee. I desire briefly to point out that the duties in question are at present performed by the special grants committee. No reference, however, to the special grants committee is made in the Sub-section in question. It simply reads that the Ministry may provide for the performance of these duties by committees under this Section. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accept this Amendment, which introduces no new feature into the policy of the previous Act and of this Bill, but simply provides for the Special Grants Committee continuing to do the work which they are now doing.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I would like to reply on this Amendment to the general argument of the hon. Member. I cannot understand why you should take away those powers from the local committees. What we want is to employ the special grants committee, but we want them to get their information, in the first instance, from the local committees. The duty is laid by the Bill, and by an Amendment which I am going to move myself later, on the special grants committee, which we wish to use as our central body. But they must get the information from the local committees as well as recommendations and by this Clause we wish to impose certain duties on the local committees. As I understand the hon. Member's Amendment, he would take that power away, and I think that the scheme of the Bill is more effective than the scheme which he would set up by the Amendment.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: May I take it, then, the hon. Gentleman has no intention of interfering with the duties at present performed by the special grants committee, and that they will continue unimpaired?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Quite right.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Then I will withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2) after the word "by" ["performances by committees"] to insert the words "special grants committees and others."
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Is it not the same point as we have been discussing?
    Sir G. TOULMIN: I am not sure whether the Minister would like it to be the special grants committee.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I cannot accept the words. I have an Amendment down which I think covers the point.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: I understood when we had this matter up that it was necessary to put the special grants committee into his Clause. It does not come under the definition of committee.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The question of the special grants committee arises under Sub-section (3). If my hon. Friend will look at Sub-section (3) he will see that it comes up there. It does not apply at this point. When I reach Subsection (3) I shall move the Amendment to which I have referred.
    Sir M. BARLOW: I am not quite sure that we are quite ad idem about this. Subsection (2) says:
    "The Minister may, subject to any conditions as he thinks fit, provide for the performance by the committee of duties under this Section."
    That is to say, he may delegate his duties to committees. Our point with regard to that is that if he is going to delegate to committees the word "committees" should be allowed to include the special grants committee. When we get to Subsection 3—I will not deal with it now, because I do not want to get out of order, as I should do if I did—it is quite a different thing. Any question which may arise with regard to the amount of any grants under the Section shall be, as the Minister directs, referred to the special grants committee. It is a different point altogether. We are not dealing with the reference by the Minister to the special grants committee. We are dealing with the question of delegation by the Minister of his rights to the committee. Where the Minister does that we want the word to include the special grants committee. That is really quite simple.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am quite willing to meet my hon. Friend. I do not think it is quite necessary, but I am quite willing to agree to it. Only it must be the special grants committee, and not the special grants committees.
    Sir M. BARLOW: I agree. I do not think we put it in the plural.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), after the word "by" ["performance by committees"], insert the words "special grants committee and other."—[Sir G. Toulmin.]
    In Sub-section (3), after the word "to" ["referred to "], insert the words "and determined by."
    Leave out the words "for report."
    At end, add
    "(4) Any child for the care of whom it is the duty of the Minister under this ejection to make provision may be committed to the care of the Minister by an Order made under Section twenty-one of the Children Act, 1908, as if the Minister were named in that Section as a person to whose care a child or young person may be Committed.
    (5) For the purposes of this Section a child means any child to, or in respect of, whom a pension, allowance, or separation allowance is payable."—[Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen.]
    Sir J. HOPE: I beg to move, after the word last inserted, to add the words,
    "The Minister or, where the duty of the Minister under this Section is being performed by a committee, the committee shall in any case in which it is proposed in pursuance of the provisions of this Section to place any child in any institution or under the care of any person endeavour to ascertain the religious denomination to which the child belongs, and no child shall be placed in an institution or under the care of a person not belonging to the same religious denomination as the child unless the persons having the management of the institution or the person under whose care the child is to be placed, as the case may be, give or gives such undertaking as seems to the Minister or the committee sufficient that the child shall be brought up in accordance with its own religious persuasion.
    Where such an undertaking as aforesaid given by the persons having the management of any institution or by any person is not observed the Minister or committee, as the case may be, shall as soon as may be remove the child from the institution or from the care of that person."
    This Amendment is only to ensure that the religious denomination of the child shall he respected.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I accept.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 9 (Pensions in Certain Cases not to be taken into Account for the Purposes of Poor Law Belief) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 10.— [Amendment of s. 3 of 7 & 8 Geo. 5. c. 14.)
    Notwithstanding anything in Section three of the Administrative Expenses Act, any local committee established under the principal Act for a borough or urban district shall, if the

    3065
    Minister at any time so directs, exercise the functions of a local committee set forth in paragraph (f) of Section four of the principal Act, but unless the minister so directs, those functions shall continue to be exercised as espects the borough or urban district by the local committee for the county in which the borough or urban district is situate, except so far as those functions may be delegated by the local committee of the county to the local Committee of the borough or urban district.
    Amendments made: Leave out the words
    "Notwithstanding anything in Section three of the Administrative Expenses Act."
    Leave out the words "under the principal Act," and insert instead thereof the words
    "by virtue of the provisions of Section three of the Administrative Expenses Act."
    Leave out the word "Minister," and insert instead thereof the words
    "after consultation with the local committee for the county."—[Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 11 (Inclusion of Airmen on Committees,) and 12 (Power to take Possession of Land) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 13.—(Application to Scotland.)
    In the application of this Act to Scotland the expression "county borough" means a Royal, Parliamentary, or police burgh with a population of nut less than fifty thousand, and the expression "borough" or "urban district" means a Royal, Parliamentary, or police burgh.
    Amendment made: Leave out the words "'county borough' means a Royal, Parliamentary, or police burgh with a population of not less than fifty thousand, and the expression 'borough' or 'urban district' means a Royal, Parliamentary, or police burgh," and insert instead thereof the words,
    "'board of guardians' means 'parish council.'"—[Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 14 (Short Title, Interpretation, and Repeal) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Power of Minister to Require Information for Purpose of Determining pre-War Earnings.
    (1) Where it is necessary, in order to determine the amount of any pension, grant or allowance to be awarded under any Order in Council or Royal Warrant to or in respect of a disabled person, to ascertain the pre-war earnings as defined by the Order or Warrant of that person, it shall be the duty of any person who was an employer of the disabled person during the
    3066
    period in respect of which the pre-war earnings of the disabled person are to be ascertained and of any other person having any knowledge with respect to the financial circumstances of the disabled man during that period, on being so required by notice issued by or under the directions of the Minister, to furnish in accordance with the directions of the notice any infomation in his possession relating to those earnings or circumstances and to produce to the person so specified any wages-books, records, or other documents in his possession containing any entries with respect to those earnings.
    (2) If any person fails to comply with the provisions of this Section or furnishes any information which is false or calculated to deceive, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.—[Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen.]
    Brought up, and read the first and second time.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert
    "(2) Where the applicant for pension required to furnish proof of his pre-war earnings is unable to do so it shall be the duty of the Minister of Pensions to assume a reasonable amount assessed on other available circumstances."
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I do not think this is necessary. That is our practice at the present time. I spoke to the Member for East Edinburgh about this, and I understand he was satisfied.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of 7 and 8 Geo. 5, c. 54, as to Minimum Number of Disabled Men to be Included Among Members of Committees.)
    For the purpose of securing the adequate representation of disabled men on committees the Minister may by order direct that such number as may be specified in the Order shall as respects any committee be substituted for two as the minimum number of disabled men who are to be included in committees under Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (3) of Section one of the Naval and Military War Pensions (Committees) Act, 1917, and where any such Order is made that Act shall have effect accordingly.—[Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen.]
    Brought up, read the first and second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to Defray Expenses in Connection with Association of Committees.)
    In the event of the formation of a local war pensions committees association having objects and a constitution approved by the Minister, a local committee may pay as part of its administrative expenses such sum as may be prescribed, not exceeding five pounds, as a contribution towards the expenses of such association and also, up to an amount approved by the Minister, the

    3067
    expenses of the attendance of representatives of the committee at meetings of the association.—[Mr. Hodge.]
    Brought up, read the first and second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Rules of Committees.)
    (1) Every committee shall prepare rules for regulating their proceedings (including quorum, time and place of meeting, records, and the exercise generally of their powers and duties), and shall submit the rules for the approval of the Minister.
    If within such time as the Minister may allow a committee does not prepare rules, or such rules as the Minister approves, the Minister may himself make rules for the committee, which shall have the like effect as though they were prepared by the committee and approved by the Minister.
    (2) For the purpose of facilitating the preparation of rules the Minister shall prepare and issue a form of model rules.—[Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Sir J. HOPE: I think this is the Clause which the Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions said included dealing with

    SCHEDULE.—ENACTMENTS REPEALED.

    Session and Chapter.

    Short Title.

    Extent of Repeal.

    5 & 6 Geo. 5, c. 83

    The Naval and Military War Pensions, etc., Act, 1915

    Sub-section (9) of Section two.

    7 & 8 Geo. 5, c. 14

    The Naval and Military War Pensions, etc. (Administrative Expenses), Act, 1917

    Section one; Section three from "so however" to the end of the Section; in Sub-section (1) of Section eight the words' Local Government Board means the Secretary for Scotland"; Sub-section (2) of Section eight and Section nine.

    Amendment made: Leave out

    5& 6 Geo. 5, c. 83

    The Naval and Military War Pensions, etc., Act, 1915

    Sub-section (9) of Section two.

    —[Sir G. Toulmin.]

    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
    Bill reported.
    Ordered, "That the Bill be recommitted, to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of an Amendment, to be moved on behalf of the Government."—[Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen.]
    Bill (re-committed) considered in Committee.
    [Sir DONALD MACLEAN, Deputy-Chairman, in the Chair.]

    CLAUSE 1.—(Administrative Expenses of Committees.)
    (1) The administrative expenses of any local or joint committee (including the expenses of any sub-committee thereof), to an amount approved
    offices. I do not see anything which refers to offices. Is not this the Clause to which he refers?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I think if my hon. and gallant Friend will look at the words of the Amendment he will see they empower committees to prepare rules for regulating their proceedings, and exercise generally their powers and duties. I am sure the words "exercise generally their powers and duties," include the providing of offices, and keeping them open at certain times.
    Sir J. HOPE: Will you not consider put-ting in "provision of offices," or some words of that sort. I do not understand why "place to meet" can be put in specifically, and "provision of offices" should not be put in. There are certain soldiers who wish to go to a public office.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I do not think it is necessary. I would appeal to my hon. Friend not to press it.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause added to the Bill.
    by the Minister shall, instead of being defrayed in manner provided by Section one of the Naval and Military War Pensions, etc. (Administrative Expenses) Act, 1917 (hereinafter referred to as "the Administrative Expenses Act"), be as from the first day of April, nineteen hundred and nineteen, defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to move in Sub-section (1) to leave out the word "April," and to insert instead thereof the word "January." This will merely antedate the period from which the new financial arrangements come into operation, and the Bill cannot be carried out unless this alteration is made.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill, as amended in Committee and on re-committal, considered; read the third time, and passed.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time.
  This is a quite simple and short Bill in two Clauses. It is designed to remedy certain facts which have emerged regarding the Representation of the People Act. The first Clause of the Bill provides for an extension of time between the close of the poll and the counting of the votes from eight to eleven days, and the purpose of that is to secure that as many ballot papers as possible filled up by soldiers who may be in France or Belgium may be returned to the returning officer, and included in the count. I am sure the House will agree that that is a desirable end to achieve. Under the existing Act, the poll must take place on the ninth day after the day fixed for nomination, and accordingly if an Order in Council wore made giving the maximum allowance given by the Representation of the People Act, for the reception of the ballot papers, there would be a period of seventeen days in all between nomination and count. During that time ballot papers have to be printed, they have to be sent out to soldiers who may be in France and Belgium and they have to be returned to the returning officer. The view of the Postmaster-General is that the period is insufficient to allow the papers to be sent to soldiers and returned to returning officers and included in the count. In his opinion eleven days are required to secure that result instead of eight. Clause 1 of the Bill gives effect to that view. Advantage has been taken of this opportunity to remove doubt as to the meaning of the word "day" in Subsection (3) of Section 23 of the Representation of the People Act. The doubt is whether "day" means clearly to exclude Sunday, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day as the Ballot Act provides, and I think the House will agree it is better to have that matter settled beyond all doubt here and now than to have it settled afterwards
  3070
  by reference to the Law Courts. Section 2 of the Bill deals with the Rules Publication Act, 1893. The provisions of that require that in respect of statutory rules they shall be published for forty days in the "London Gazette," and that during that period opportunity should be afforded to public bodies to make representations regarding the proposed Order. On that point I would like to say to the House that, in the first place, that provision does not apply to Scotland. In the second place, it will readily guess the "London Gazette" is not widely studied by persons who reside in the country, but, moreover, as the Representation of the People Act provides under Clause 40 that all those Orders which are issued should lie on the Table of the House for a specified period in order that representations may be made against them if that is thought fit, it will be seen that the protection afforded by the Bill as it stands is sufficient. The operation of this Act has been excluded in the Military Service Act of 1918, in the Trades Board Act and the Munitions of War Act, and, inasmuch as it was not intended that the Act of 1893 should apply to Orders under the Representation of the People Act, and as there is certain doubt as to whether they do or do not apply it has again been thought desirable to avoid controversy by excluding the application of that Act to the Representation of the People Act, 1918. There have been certain administrative inconveniences which have followed upon the compliance of the terms of the Act of 1893, and accordingly Section 2, following precedents which I have already referred to, proposes that the Act of 1893 does not apply to Orders issued under the Representation of the People Act. I do not desire at this late hour to detain the House with a more elaborate explanation of this simple Bill, and I hope that with this the House will give it a Second Reading.
  Mr. G. HOWARD: I am sure the House will welcome this Act if it will enable soldiers at the front to vote more efficiently than under the original Bill. Many of us who have studied this absent voters provision are aware how many pitfalls it contains, and how small a percentage of votes will be polled, and we welcome anything that will enable votes to be in the ballot box. I am afraid this will have one unfortunate result, first of all, to keep the candidates in suspense, and will not aid them to enjoy Christmas as much as they

  3071
  otherwise would. I am afraid it may upset postal arrangements, although I am afraid that that is not really serious, as in time of war unfortunately the Christmas post will be interfered with, and it is one of the many inconveniences which the General Election will impose.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a second time.
  Resolved, That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill.—[Mr. Munro.]
  Bill accordingly considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  POLICE (PENSIONS) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir D. MACLEAN (Deputy-Chairman) in the Chair.]

  POLICE (PENSIONS) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1:—(Extension of Power to Grant Pensions to Widows of Constables.)
    (1) Where a man to whom this Section applies, that is to say:

    (a) a constable (including a re-engaged pensioner) who was serving in a police force on the first day of September, nineteen hundred and eighteen;

    (b) a member of a police force who having been called out as a reservist, or having entered or re-entered, enlisted or re-enlisted in any of His Majesty's naval, military, or air forces for the purposes of the present War was on the said first day of September serving in any such force;

    (c) a constable who having joined the police force after the said first day of September has completed five years' approved service,

    dies, or has, on or after the said first day of September, died, whilst serving in a police force or in any of His Majesty's naval, military, or air forces for the purposes of the present War, or whilst in receipt of a pension from a police authority, or in consequence of any disease or injury on account of which he retired from the police force, the police authority may, if they think fit, grant out of the pension fund to his widow (being a woman whom he married before he retired from the police force) a pension of twenty-six pounds a year, or if the constable had attained the rank of inspector thirty-two pounds a year, or if the constable had attained a rank higher than that of an inspector, forty pounds a year:
    Provided that if the widow is in receipt of a pension payable out of naval, military, or air-force funds in pursuance of any Royal Warrant or Order in Council, then—

    (i) if the pension payable out of such funds is equal to or exceeds the amount proscribed by this Section, no pension shall be payable under this Section;

    3072

    (ii) if the pension payable out of such funds is less than the amount prescribed by this Section, the pension payable under this Section shall be equal to the difference.

    (2) Where a pension is granted under this Act to the widow of a constable to whom a gratuity has been granted on retirement from the police force, the pension shall be payable as from such date after the death of the constable as the police authority may determine.
    (3) For the purposes of this Section, the expressions "police authority," "police force," and "pension fund," as respects the City of London mean the mayor, aldermen and commoners of the City of London in common council assembled, the city police force, and the superannuation fund.
    Mr. WILES: I beg to move, in Subsection (1, a) to leave out the word "constable," and to insert instead thereof the words "a member of a police force."
    I desire to move this Amendment, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend, because it will make it agree with the next Sub-section. In Sub-section (a) it reads "constable," and in the next Sub-section a constable is described as "a member of the police force." I would suggest to the Solicitor-General that to the ordinary lay mind it would be much clearer if you either called him a constable in both Subsections or called him a member of the police force in both. Personally I would suggest that to call him a member of the police force would be best in both instances, and I therefore suggest that here we should leave out the word "constable" and insert the words "members of the police force."
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): This Amendment is based upon a mere misapprehension. The word "constable" as it is used in the Police Acts includes all ranks—constables, sergeants, inspectors, superintendents, and chief constable. So it is, for example, in Section 1 of the Police Act, 1890, which gives pension rights to every constable in the police force. There has never been any doubt on the point that the rights belong to all ranks. It seems to me that if the present Amendment were adopted the effect, and the only effect, would be to throw some doubt upon the question whether the pension rights under that Act extend to sergeants, inspectors, and the higher ranks. My hon. Friend who has moved the Amendment, based his argument on the ground that in the next Sub-section of this Section the term "member of a police force" is employed. It is employed in that Sub-section for this reason only

    3073
    that the men to whom it refers are not at the time serving as constables but are serving in the Army or the Navy.
    Mr. WILES: If my right hon. Friend assures me that it covers all the cases I am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment, but I may tell him that as it is put in that way a good deal of question has been caused among members of the police force.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move to leave out the words "may, if they think fit," and insert instead thereof the word "shall."
    This is a concession which my right hon. Friend the late Home Secretary agreed to make, and it is in pursuance of his undertaking that I move the Amendment.
    Mr. WILES: May I ask my right hon. Friend a question so that this matter may be clearly understood by the police force? It is as to whether it is quite clear that members of the police force who, as often happens, have been serving in different counties, will not lose their pension rights by moving from one county to another or from one borough to another, or from a borough to a county, or a county to a borough. Can he assure me that in cases of this kind the pension will be awarded to the widow without any doubt.
    Sir G. HEWART: Yes, Sir; I understand there is no doubt upon that matter.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. COTTON: I beg to move to leave out the words "thirty-two pounds a year, or if the constable had attained a rank higher than that of an inspector."
    My object in moving this Amendment is to remove a difficulty of nomenclature. All grades of inspectors in the Metropolitan and City Police forces have, as a matter of fact, a position higher than that of most superintendents of constabularies, but it so happens that the county authorities choose to call their official by the name of superintendent and the result of that will be that the widow of that officer will receive a higher pension than the widow, for example, of a chief inspector of the Metropolitan Police, who will merely count as an inspector. Therefore, the chief inspector will receive a less pension than a superintendent of the county constabulary, although he has been
    3074
    paid about twice the rate of superannuation contribution as compared with the superintendent of the county police while his responsibilities are greater and his rates of pay higher. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that Amendment, in order to remove a grievance which is much felt in the Metropolitan and the City Police.
    Sir G. HEWART: As I understand it, there is really no substance in this suggested Amendment. The hierarchy of the police force is systematized as follows: After the constable the next rank is sergeant, then inspector, then superintendent, and then chief constable.
    Mr. COTTON: There is the chief inspector.
    Sir G. HEWART: If my hon. Friend will pardon me, I will explain. There are some inspectors who are called chief inspectors, but they still belong to the category of inspectors; and the proposal of the Bill is that there should be this rising scale in the case of the widow of a constable, an inspector, and of the higher men. The effect of the Amendment would be that the chief inspector would be lifted to the rank of superintendent, although the chief inspector is not a superintendent, but an inspector.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. WILES: I beg to move, after the word "year" ["forty pounds a year"], to insert the words
    "and in the event of there being no widow, or of the widow dying before any child or children of the marriage have reached the age of sixteen years, the pension, or such proportionate part thereof as the police authority may decide, shall be paid in respect of such child or children until they reach that age."
    I move this in the absence of the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks). I cannot help thinking that those who were responsible for this excellent little Bill, which will give great satisfaction, have forgotten to include in it the policeman who dies and who does not leave a widow but leaves children. Those, it seems to me, should certainly be included, and there seems to be no excuse for leaving them out. If you are going to accept responsibility for the widow who is left behind, it seems even more important to make provision for the children when there is not a mother left to make or attempt to make proper provision for them. I hope, therefore, my right hon.

    3075
    Friend the Solicitor-General will accept this Amendment, and I am rather disappointed that I do not see his name at the top of this Amendment. I do appeal to him, in the interests of the children who are coming on to follow in the work of the world, that he will accept this Amendment.
    Sir G. HEWART: I can assure my hon. Friend that there has not been, as he suggests, any forgetfulness in this matter. The point is that this Bill does not touch gratuities for children.
    Mr. WILES: I do not mean gratuities; I mean the pension until they are sixteen years of age.
    Sir G. HEWART: Be it so. Even if the mother is left the pension of £36 or £26 a year would be to provide for her maintenance. If the widow is not left, she has not to be maintained, and it is hardly to be conceived that the pension which was to be left for her maintenance could go to the children. If the widow is not left, there is no reason, as I understand it, for passing the sum on to the children, inasmuch as the Bill does not affect the existing provisions for children.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. COTTON: I beg to move, after the word "year" ["forty pounds a year"], to insert the words
    "Provided that for the purposes of this Section the rank of a chief inspector in the Metropolitan police force and the City of London police force shall be deemed to be a rank higher than that of an inspector."
    I desire to move this Amendment because I have not yet abandoned the hope that my right hon. Friend will accept the contention I have already ventured to put forward. I would like to point out to him that the chief inspector in the Metropolitan and of the City Police—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. Gentleman going to state the same point that he has already put in Committee?
    Mr. COTTON: Yes.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We cannot have it over again.
    Sir F. HALL: I beg to move, after Subsection (2), to add
    "(3) When a pension has been granted by a police authority before the 1st day of September, 1918, the police authority shall substitute for such pension a pension calculated under the provisions of and upon the same terms as this Act."
    3076
    What I desire to do is to bring the position of the police who have to retire previous to 1st September into the same position as those who leave on or after 1st September, 1918. I welcome this Bill, because I am sure it will be recognised that at last something has been done to provide a pension for the widows and increased pensions for the men themselves. I would like to draw the attention of the Solicitor-General to the fact it is some considerable number of years since there has been any increase which has been granted to the police which carried with it an increase in pensions. The increase in 1917 was given as a war measure, and does not add to pensions. It has been pretty hard on a lot of these men. Immediately after an unfortunate strike occurred there was an increase to inspectors, station-sergeants, sergeants, and constables. I find that the station-sergeants now get the same as inspectors did, that constables get more than sergeants did, and as much as station-sergeants obtained. That seems to prove that at all events it was recognised that some considerable increase should be given to the police. That having been recognised, I venture to hope that at all events the Government will consider that it is necessary at the same time to put the pensions of those who left previous to September on a footing to those who left after. A man resigns on 31st August, another on 1st September. He is placed in a very different position, added to which the widow does not get anything at all of the man who retired on or before 31st August, whereas, I am glad to say, there has been some pension granted to those who leave on and after 1st September. There are cases of those men who had retired who placed their services at the disposal of the authorities and for some reason the authorities were not able to utilise them. I do not want the House to lose sight of the importance of this measure. It is all very well, because it is a quarter to two, to say, "We will hurry this thing." I hope attention will be given to this matter. It is the first time we have got any pension for these men and their widows. If the Government cannot give me everything I have asked for, at all events I do hope that they will give us something additional for the men who were compelled to retire previous to 1st September, 1918.
    Sir G. HEWART: When the arguments of my hon. Friend appear in the guise of a disinterested claim for widows my sympathy

    3077
    tends to increase. But I must point out that he puts the case against his own argument a little too strongly. He said this is the first time that the House has granted a pensions to the widows of police officers. That is not quite accurate. Pensions to widows of police officers have been granted before. It would be true to say that this is the first time that Parliament is granting pensions to the widows on the generous scale which is provided by this Bill, and in those circumstances my hon. Friend makes complaint that what is done does not go far enough. He asks, as Oliver Twist asked, for more—a request with which most of us are disposed to feel sympathy. But if the Bill is to be made retrospective in regard to widows, one cannot logically stop there. It must be made retrospective also with regard to other pensions, and one cannot logically stop even there. It is not only police officers and their dependants who might say the cost of living has increased, but everybody who is in receipt of a pension granted by the State might offer the same argument. I fear we cannot accept this Amendment. The Bill makes new, and, I venture to think, generous provision, and much as one would like to be generous, I fear that as things now stand it is impossible to go further than the existing provisions of the Bill.
    Sir F. HALL: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has admitted at all events the reasonableness of this proposition, if he is not able to grant everything I ask for, which, I admit, was reopening the case of the whole of the pensions. But if there is an admitted grievance and he cannot see his way to give me everything I want, may I press him at all events to say this, that the Government are prepared to place the widows of men who were pensioned previous to 1st September, 1918, in the same position as pensioners who left the Service on and after 1st September, 1918? That cannot be a very important point, and it would cost a few thousands a year. It is not often that one presses an important matter like this, because it must be admitted by everybody that the widow is going to have the sympathy and should get the support of this country after the men have done the best they can for them. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will say that, at all events between now and the Report stage, he will consider the case
    3078
    of the widows, and see whether it is not possible to do something with regard to them.
    Captain BARNETT: I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will see his way to do something. It seems to me there is a grievance on the part of the widow. It might be possible to meet them without opening the larger questions, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has already said are too large to be opened under this Bill.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: On the Question that the Clause stand part, I very much regret the Government did not see their way to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend with regard to carrying over of the pension of the widow for the benefit of the children. I hope that on the Report stage the Government will reconsider that, because it seems to me quite clear that if the woman is dead somebody has to look after those children, and the money is needed to pay that person for looking after the children. It would therefore be a very desirable concession if the Government would on the Report stage accept that Amendment. Not a very large sum would be involved, but it would be a very great help in those cases where the woman was dead.
    Sir F. HALL: I should like to add a word with regard to the children. Surely with regard to the children and the widows who are left under this new scheme, what we ask is that if the pension cannot go to the widow it should go towards assisting in bringing the children up till they are sixteen. It is going to cost practically nothing, and I cannot help thinking that at all events this very small mite might be given by the Government. I hope, at all events, the right hon. Gentleman will say to the House he will consider that between now and the Report stage and lend us some hope that this small donation will be granted.
    Sir G. HEWART: If I may add one word in answer to the appeals which have been made to me, I should like to say this. Both of my hon. Friends have assumed that there is going to be some interval between the present stage and the Report Stage. That is not the hope of the

    3079
    Government. Our hope is that this Bill may be carried into law before this Session comes to an end, and may be passed through all its stages to-night. Therefore the period for consideration is not likely to arise. In regard to the first question my hon. Friend opposite, contrary to his usual practice, appears to have missed the point of what was said. The point was, if the widow is alive, the provision or pension is provision for her, and it is not to be imagined that out of the 10s. a week there would be much, if anything at all, left for the children. If she is not alive, she has not to be provided for. With regard to the second point, the submission winch I sought to make is this: If one accepts the retrospective effect which my hon. Friend desires, one cannot logically stop there. I do not know; my hon. Friend may know what the extra cost might be, but I can assure him it would not be limited to the scope of this Bill, or to this particular proposal. Every orphan of a Metropolitan police officer is at present provided for in the orphanage, or otherwise, and there is very wide provision for such orphans outside London in the other parts of this country.
    2.0 A.M.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman has not been so successful as usual in taking the meaning. If the widow is left there is 10s. for her and allowances for the children, and she looks after the children. My point was that if she is dead and the 10s. ceases, then there is no one to look after the children and something has to be paid and there is no money to pay that sum. The suggestion I make is that the justification for the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks) is that something will have to be paid, and if the 10s. is passed on for the benefit of his children it can be applied very naturally in paying somebody to look after them, so that the provision for the children stands as a provision for the children. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment when we come to the Report stage. It is true that there is not a long interval between this stage and the Report stage, but I am quite sure that if he will consider the Amendment it will not take him long to see that there is a strong case to be made out for this change.
    Sir F. HALL: I do not think that there can be any difficulty on one point, and that
    3080
    is that the Government consideration of this Amendment ought not to be adversely affected by the mere question of time between this stage and the next. In the ordinary course of events we might have had a little time between this stage and the Report and Third Reading stages. As far as we are concerned we do not want to hang the Bill up or delay it in any way, though I cannot understand why the Report stage cannot be left over until Monday, so that my right hon. Friend will have a chance of going into the question and seeing what it is going to cost. In my view it is not going to cost much, but by Monday he would be able, perhaps, to tell us whether the Government is prepared to give this small amount in what I think is an exceedingly useful case. As my right hon. Friend has stated, when the mother is dead someone has got to look after the children, and I hope that no excuse will be put forward for not agreeing to this Amendment merely on account of the short time which will be left between now and the later stages of the Bill. At any rate, I hope that the Report stage will not be taken before Monday or until the matter has been gone into.
    Mr. WILES: May I address one further remark to the Solicitor-General? He has suggested that no orphans have a right to go to the police orphanage—an excellent institution whose work we all appreciate, and which I am sure we are all endeavouring to help. But it is not a question of the rights of these orphans to go to these very excellent institutions. They are only admitted if possible, and what we asked for is lot charity for the police, but that at least some provision shall be made as the right of the children. It should be given to them not as charity, but as a right, and I hope that the Solicitor-General will consider this, and carry out the appeal which has just been made.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Further Provisions as to Pensions to Widows of Constables.)
    (1) Paragraph (6) of the First Schedule to the Police Act, 1890, as amended by any subsequent enactment, shall have effect as if the amounts of pension specified in Section one of this Act were substituted for the amounts of pension specified in that paragraph, and in Sub-section (3) of Section two of that Act the words "within twelve month" shall be repealed.
    (2) Where the widow is one to whom a pension or gratuity may be granted under Section two of the Police Act, 1890, the police authority

    3081
    shall not grant her both a pension or gratuity under that Section and a pension under this Act.
    (3) A pension payable to a widow under this Act or under Section two of the Police Act, 1890, shall, if at any time she re-marries, be suspended, but in the event of her again becoming a widow shall be restored on proof to the satisfaction of the police authority that her circumstinces are such that the pension is necessary for her support, and that she is of good character and deserving of bounty from public funds, and accordingly in paragraph (9) of the First Schedule to that Act the words "remains a widow," and shall be repealed, and that paragraph as so amended shall apply to pensions payable under this Act.
    Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "as amended by any subsequent enactment."
    The effect of this Amendment is not in any way to niter the substance of what is proposed. It is to remove a mere ambiguity which might otherwise arise from the mode of expression.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "both" ["grant her both"].
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Cannot we have some explanation of this? This seems a complicated case where the widow is entitled either to a gratuity or to a pension of 10s. a week, if I understand it aright. What I want to be assured of is that the widow shall have the right to choose the one which is more advantageous to her, and that whether she has the one or the other shall not be decided by some outside authority.
    Sir G. HEWART: My right hon. Friend is quite right. Under the Sub-section as it is proposed to be amended the widow will have the choice of taking that which is more to her advantage. Under the Police Act of 1890 there is a discretionary provision. Under this Bill, when it becomes an Act, there will be a certain automatic allowance if it remains. What is provided here, if the Amendment is adopted, is that the whole pension may be granted under Sub-section 2. The police authority shall not grant her a pension or gratuity under the Section of the earlier Act unless it be in lieu of a pension under this Act. In other words, she may take that which is better for her.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In Subsection (2), leave out the word "and" ["that Section and a pension"], and insert instead thereof the words,
    "unless she accepts the same in lieu of."
    [Sir G. Hewart.]
    Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, at the end, to insert
    "(4) Sub-section (2) of Section fifteen of the Police Act, 1890, shall, in England and Wales, subject to the necessary modifications, extend to a pension payable whether under that Act or under this Act to the widow of a constable who has served in more than one police force."
    This is a purely ministerial Amendment to provide that Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Police Act, 1890, shall in England and Wales, subject to the necessary modifications, extend to a pension payable under the Act or under this Act to the widow of a constable who has served in more than one police force. That Amendment goes back to what was said just now by one of the speakers regarding the case of a constable who has served first in one county and then in another. This is a mere provision for the apportionment in such a case of pension payments.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 3 (Repeal of Limitation on pensions payable to Constables Appointed to Offices Remunerated out of Public Fund) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Reckoning of Service in Naval, Military, and Air Forces as Approved Service.)
    The consent of the Chief Officer of Police referred to in Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2) of the Police Constables (Naval and Military Service) Act, 1914, as amended by the Police (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1916, may, in the case of any man who has entered, re-entered, enlisted or re-enlisted in any of His Majesty's Naval, Military or Air Forces, be given after the time when he so entered, re-entered, enlisted, or re-enlisted, and when given after that time shall, for the purposes of the enactments relating to pensions and gratuities, have the same effect as if the consent had been given before that time.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, to leave out the word "may" ["Act, 1915, may"], and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
    I hope the Government will accept this Amendment. At any rate, I would like to know what is the objection.
    Sir G. HEWART: We have accepted the word "shall" for "may" in an earlier part of the Bill, but in this particular Sub-section

    3083
    I suggest it is desirable that the word "may" be retained in order to give a discretion to the chief officer of police. No doubt, in the great majority of cases consent will be granted, but there may be some particular cases—I do not want to dwell upon them or even to specify them—in which consent may be withheld. It is the view of the Government that it should be left to the discretion of the chief officer of police.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Application to Scotland.)
    This Act shall apply to Scotland with the substitution for references to the Police Act, 1890, and particular provisions of that Act of references to the Police (Scotland) Act, 1890, and the corresponding provisions of that Act.
    Amendment made. After the word "shall" ["This Act shall"] insert the words
    "except as otherwise expressly provided."—[Sir G. Hewart.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    CLAUSE 6 (Short title and construction) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported; as amended, considered.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Extension of Power to Grant Pensions to Widows of Constables.)
    (1) Where a man to whom this Section applies, that is to say:

    (a) a constable (including a re-engaged pensioner) who was serving in a police force on the first day of September, nineteen hundred and eighteen;

    (b)a member of a police force who, having been called out as a reservist, or having entered or re-entered, enlisted or re-enlisted in any of His Majesty's Naval, Military, or Air Forces for the purposes of the present War, was on the said first day of September serving in any such force;

    (c) a constable who having joined the police force after the said first day of September has completed five years' approved service,

    dies, or has on or after the said first day of September, died, whilst serving in a police force or in any of His Majesty's Naval, Military, or Air Forces for the purposes of the present War, or whilst in receipt of a pension from a police authority, or in consequence of any disease or injury on account of which he retired from the police force, the police authority may, if they think fit, grant out of the pension fund to his widow (being a woman whom he married before he retired from the police force) a pension of twenty-six pounds a year, or if the constable had attained the rank of inspector thirty-two pounds a year, or if the constable had attained a rank higher than that of an inspector, forty pounds a year.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, after the word "year" ["forty pounds a year"], to insert the words
    "and in the event of there being no widow, or of the widow dying before any child or children of the marriage have reached the age of sixteen years, the pension, or such proportionate part thereof as the police authority may decide, shall be paid in respect of such child or children until they reach that age."
    This is the Amendment we discussed just now. I do very earnestly desire to press it upon the Solicitor-General. I will not go over the arguments again, but I feel so strongly about it that I feel bound formally to move the Amendment which stood in Committee in the name of the hon. Member for Woolwich. I hope the Solicitor-General will see his way to accept them, and if he cannot do that, that he will at any rate promise that the point shall be very carefully considered before the Bill goes to another place, with a view to its being met.
    Amendment not seconded.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time," put, and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Electoral Divisions.)
    (1) For the purpose of such elections, the Secretary for Scotland shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, by Order divide each education area into electoral divisions, and in determining the boundaries thereof, he shall have regard, so far as may be, to the boundaries of wards in scheduled burghs, and districts, burghs and parishes in counties.
    (2) Before making an Order under this and the following Section, the Secretary for Scotland shall cause the proposed Order to be published in such manner as to make the same known to all persons interested, and shall, after considering any objections and representations respecting the proposed Order, and causing a local inquiry to be held if he sees fit to do so, thereafter make the Order and cause the same to be forthwith published in the "Edinburgh Gazette" and in a newspaper circulating in the education area.
    Lords Amendments: In Sub-section (1), after the word "and" ["burghs, and districts"], insert the word "of."—Agreed to.
    At end of Sub-section (1), insert as a new Sub-section,
    (2) The Secretary for Scotland shall also by Order determine the number of members to be elected to each education authority, and shall

    3085
    apportion them among the electoral divisions of the education area. In making such determination and apportionment the Secretary for Scotland shall have regard to the population, area, and other circumstances of the scheduled burgh or county, as the case may be, and the electoral divisions thereof.
    Agreed to.
    In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "and the following."—Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Constitution of Education Authority.)
    Lords Amendment: Leave out the Clause.—Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 4—(School Management Committees.)
    (1) It shall be the duty of every education authority to prepare and submit to the Department for their approval a scheme or schemes for the constitution of committees (in this Act called "school management committees") for the management of schools or groups of schools under their control throughout their education area.
    Provided that a school management committee having under its management a secondary school shall have all the said powers and duties not subject to any such regulations or restrictions:
    Lords Amendment: After the word "that" ["Provided that a School Management Committee"], insert the words "in the case of a county."—Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 14.—(Expenses of Education Authorities.)
    (1) The expenses of an education authority (including the expenditure incurred by school management committees in the performance of their duties and approved by the authority) shall be paid out of the education fund of the education area, which shall come in place of the school fund referred to in Section forty-three of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1872, and of the district education fund referred to in Section seventeen of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908.
    Lords Amendment: After the word "committees" ["school management committees"], insert the words "and local advisory councils."
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is a privilege Amendment, which would impose a charge. The question is whether the House will waive its privilege.
    Mr. MUNRO: I hope the House will take that course, and I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 16.—(Continuation Classes.)
    Sections nine and ten of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, are hereby repealed and in lieu thereof—
    (b) has attained the age of seventeen years and is shown to the satisfaction of the education authority to have completed a course of instruction equivalent in value to the post-intermediate course:
    (8) If it appears to an education authority that any young person of the age of fifteen years and upwards is neglecting or failing without reasonable excuse to comply with any such requirement of the authority, it shall be lawful for that authority after due warning to such young person and to his parent and employer (if any) to summon the young person, with or without his parent or employer, to appear before the authority at any meeting thereof, and to require from him or them every information and explanation respecting such neglect or failure; and if such young person or his parent or employer, or some person on his or their behalf, either does not appear, or appears and does not satisfy the authority that there is reasonable excuse for such neglect or failure, it shall be lawful for the authority to order in writing that such young person shall comply with such requirement, or with such other requirement as to attendance as the authority may direct. The authority shall cause a copy of any such Order to be sent to the young person by registered letter, and if the young person fails to comply with the Order he shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a penalty not exceeding five shillings.
    (14) If a young person or the parent of a young person under the age of sixteen represents in writing to the local education authority that he objects to any part of the instruction given in the continuation school which the young person is required to attend, on the ground that it is contrary or offensive to his religious belief, the obligation under this Act to attend that school for the purpose of such instruction shall not apply to him, and the local education authority shall, if practicable, arrange for him to attend some other instruction in lieu thereof or some other school.
    Lords Amendments: In Sub-section (6), par (6), after the word "course" ["post-intermediate course"], insert the words,
    "or
    (c) has satisfactorily completed a course of training for, and is engaged in, the sea service, in accordance with the provisions of any national scheme which may hereafter be established, by Order in Council or otherwise, with the object of maintaining an adequate supply of well-trained British seamen, or, pending the establishment of such scheme, in accordance with the provisions of any interim scheme approved by the Department."
    Agreed to.
    In Sub-section (8) leave out the words "sent to the young person by registered

    3087
    letter" and insert instead thereof the words "served by post on the young person to whom it relates."—Agreed to.
    In Sub-section (14) after the word "person" ["young person or "], insert the words "over the age of sixteen."—Agreed to.
    Leave out the word "school" ["continuation school"], and insert instead thereof the word" classes."—Agreed to.
    Leave out the words "or offensive."—Agreed to.
    After the word "belief" ["religious belief"], insert the words "or likely to give offence to his religious feelings."—Agreed to.
    Leave out the words "that school" ["attend that school"], and insert instead thereof the words "those classes."—Agreed to.
    Leave out the words "attend some other instruction in lieu thereof or some other school," and insert instead thereof the words "receive other instruction in lieu thereof or attend other classes."—Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 17.—(Amendment of Employment of Children Act, 1903.)
    The Employment of Children Act, 1903, so fat-as it relates to Scotland shall be amended as follows:
    (1) For Sub-section (1) of Section three the following Sub-section shall be substituted:

    A child under the age of thirteen shall not be employed on any clay on which lie is required to attend school before the close of school hours on that day, nor on any day before eight o'clock in the morning or after six o'clock in the evening, nor shall any child who is of the age of thirteen, he so employed unless he has been exempted under the Education (Scotland) Act, 1901, from the obligation to attend school.

    Lords Amendment: At end of Sub-section (1), insert the words
    "Provided that any local authority may by by-law vary these restrictions, either generally or for any specified occupation."
    —Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 19.—(Transfer of Voluntary Schools.)
    (6) This section shall not apply to any residential institution which is either

    (a) a school for blind, deaf, or defective children, shown to the satisfaction of the Department to be attended mainly by children whose parents or guardians are resident outwith the education area in which the orphanage or school is situated, or

    3088

    (b) an orphanage shown to the satisfaction of the Department to be required for the proper education of children destitute of efficient guardianship.

    (8) In any case where the Department are satisfied, upon representations made to them by the education authority of any education area, or by any church or denominational body acting on behalf of the parents of children belonging to such church or body, and after such inquiry as the Department deem necessary, that a new school is required for the accommodation of children whose parents are resident within that education area, regard being had to the religious belief of such parents, it shall be lawful for the educational authority of that area to pro vide a new school, to be held, maintained, and managed by them subject to the conditions prescribed in Sub-section (2) of this Section, so far as those conditions are applicable; the time set apart for religious instruction in the new school being not less than that so set apart in schools in the same education area which have been transferred under this Section.
    (9) If at any time after the expiry of ten years from the transfer of a school under this Section, or from the provision of a new school as aforesaid, the education authority by whom the school is maintained are of opinion that the school is no longer required, or that, having regard to the religious belief of the parents of the children attending the school, the conditions prescribed in Sub-section (2) of this Section ought no longer to apply thereto.
    Lords Amendments: In Sub-section (6, a), after the word "Department" ["satisfaction of the Department"], insert the words "by the person or persons vested with the title of the school."—Agreed to.
    Leave out the word "mainly," and insert instead thereof the word "largely."—Agreed to.
    Leave out the words "orphanage or."—Agreed to.
    In paragraph (b), after the word "Department," insert the words
    "by the person or persons vested with the title of the orphanage."
    —Agreed to.
    In Sub-section (8), leave out "(2)," and insert instead thereof "(3)."—Agreed to.
    In Sub-section (9), leave out "(2)," and insert instead thereof" (3)."—Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 25.—(Dismissal of Teachers.)
    (1) No resolution of an education authority for the dismissal of a certificated teacher from their service shall be valid unless—

    (a) written notice of the motion for his dismissal shall, not less than three weeks before the meeting at which the resolution is adopted, have been sent to the teacher and to each member of the education authority; and

    3089

    (b) the resolution is agreed to by two-thirds of the members of the education authority present and voting.

    Lords Amendments:
    At the end of paragraph (a), insert the words
    "(b) Not less than one-half of the members of the education authority are present at the meeting; and)"
    —Agreed to.
    In paragraph (b), leave out the words "of the education authority present and voting," and insert instead thereof the words "so present."—Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 26. (Advisory Councils in Education Areas.)
    It shall be the duty of every education authority within three months after the first election thereof to establish an advisory council, consisting of persons qualified to represent the views of bodies interested in education, for the purpose of advising the authority on matters referred to the advisory council by the authority, and the authority shall take into consideration any advice or representation submitted to them by the advisory council.
    Lords Amendments:
    After the word "council" ["to establish an advisory council"], insert the words
    "in this Act called a 'local advisory council.'"
    —Agreed to.
    Leave out the words "referred to the advisory council by the authority," and insert instead thereof the words
    "of educational interest relating to the education area."
    —Agreed to.
    After the word "the" ["to them by the advisory council"], insert the word "local."—Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 28.—(Approval and Carrying Out of Schemes.)
    (2) If the Department are of opinion that a scheme does not make adequate provision in respect of all or any of the purposes to which the scheme relates, and the Department are unable to agree with the authority as to what Amendments should be made in the scheme, they shall offer to hold a conference with the representatives of the authority, and if requested by the authority shall hold a public inquiry in the matter.
    Lords Amendment:
    At end of Sub-section (2) insert the words
    "The expenses of any such inquiry as certified by the Department shall be paid by the authority."
    Mr. SPEAKER: This also is a privilege Amendment, as it involves a charge on the rates.
    Lords Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 31.—(The Department.)
    In future the Scotch Education Department shall be known as the Scottish Education Department.
    Lords Amendment:
    Leave out the words "in future."—Agreed to.

  SECOND SCHEDULE.
  (Meetings.)
  8. An education authority shall meet at such times as the conduct of business may require. There shall be at least one general meeting of every education authority in each month, except in two of the months of July, August, and September.
  Lords Amendments:
  Leave out the words "except in two of the months of July, August and September," and insert instead thereof the words,
  "provided that it shall not be necessary to hold more than one such meeting between the end of June and the beginning of October."
  —Agreed to.
  Insert as a new paragraph,
  "14. Local Inquiry.—Section ninety-three of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889 (which relates to local inquiry, etc.), shall apply in any case where the Secretary for Scotland is authorised or required by this Act to make any Order or to hold any inquiry: Provided that the costs of any inquiry held in pursuance of the Section of this Act relating to electoral divisions and constitution of authorities shall be deemed to be expenses incident to the first election of the education authority for the education area to which the inquiry relates."
  Mr. SPEAKER: This, again, is a privilege Amendment, which would involve expenditure of certain money.
  Lords Amendment agreed to.

  THIRD SCHEDULE.
  4. A member of a committee may resign on giving to the committee one month's notice in writing of his intention so to do.
  12. A committee shall observe such regulations and restrictions as the education authority may from time to time prescribe, including any regulation or restriction relating to finance; and no expenditure by or on behalf of a committee shall become a charge on the education fund unless or except in so far as it has been authorised or sanctioned by the education authority.
  Lords Amendments:
  In paragraph 4, after the word "the" ["to the committee"], insert the words "education authority and the."—Agreed to.
  At the beginning of paragraph 12 insert the words "Subject to the provisions of this Act."—Agreed to.

  FOURTH SCHEDULE.
  11. Section one hundred and twenty of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889 (which relates to compensation to existing officers), shall, with the necessary modifications, apply to officers transferred under this Act or by this Act declared to be entitled to compensation, who by virtue of this Act or anything done in pursuance or in consequence thereof suffer direct pecuniary loss by abolition of office or by diminution or loss of fees or salary, subject as follows:

  (a) References to the county council shall be construed as references to the education authority.

  (b) The reference to the Acts and rules relating to His Majesty's Civil Service shall be construed as a reference to the Acts and rules which were in operation at the date of the passing of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889.

  (c) In the proviso to Sub-section (2), "the passing of this Act" shall, except in the case of abolition of office, mean the date of transfer, and in the case of abolition of office the date of such abolition.

  (d) Any expenses shall be paid out of the education fund of the education authority.

  (e) Sub-sections (8) and (9) shall not apply.

  Lords Amendments.
  In paragraph (a) after the word "council" insert the words:
  "and to the convener or vice-convener."
  —Agreed to.
  At end of paragraph (a), insert the words "and to the chairman respectively."—Agreed to.
  In paragraph (c), leave out the words "of transfer," and insert instead thereof the words "when the loss arose."—Agreed to.

  FIFTH SCHEDULE.
  3. In the Education of Blind and Deaf-mute Children (Scotland) Act, 1890—
  In Section three, for the words "sixteen years" there shall be substituted the words eighteen years."
  4. In the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908—

  (a) For paragraph (3) of Section three there shall be substituted the following paragraph:

  "In bringing opportunities for education within easier reach of children in outlying parts of their education area,
  3092
  either by providing means of conveyance, or by paying travelling expenses for teachers or pupils, or by providing lodging or board and lodging in convenient proximity to a school, or by defraying the cost of such means of conveyance or lodging or board and lodging, or otherwise, on such terms and conditions in every case as having regard to all the circumstances (including the circumstances of the parents of the children) the authority consider reasonable."

  (b) The expenses which may be sanctioned by minutes of the Department under paragraph (7) of Section three shall include—

  (i) travelling expenses necessarily incurred in attending meetings of an education authority or any committee thereof;

  (ii) an allowance at uniform rates to be prescribed by the Department in respect of other personal expenses necessarily incurred and time necessarily lost from ordinary employment in attending such meetings; and

  (iii) contributions by any education authority to any association of such authorities concerned in the consideration of educational questions.

  5. The Department may by Order at any time after the passing of this Act make such further adaptations in the provisions of any Act (including any local Act and any Provisional Order duly confirmed) as may seem to them necessary to make those provisions conform with the provisions of this Act, and any Order so made shall operate as if enacted in this Act.
  Lords Amendments:
  At the end of paragraph (3), insert the words
  "and in Section five the words 'except in the case of a deaf-mute child under seven years of age' shall be omitted."
  —Agreed to.
  Insert as a new paragraph:
  "4. In the Employment of Children Act, 1903, in Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section five, for the words 'age of sixteen' there shall be substituted the words 'age of seventeen.'"
  —Agreed to.
  In paragraph (4, b, i), at the end, insert the words,
  "or meetings of a local advisory council."
  Mr. SPEAKER: This also involves a charge, and is a privilege Amendment.
  Lords Amendment agreed to.
  In paragraph (4), insert as a new sub-paragraph:
  "(c) In Section five, for the words 'age of sixteen years' there shall be substituted the words 'close of the school session in which they attain the age of sixteen years.'"
  —Agreed to.
  In paragraph (5), leave out the words "and any Order so made shall operate as if enacted in this Act," and insert instead thereof the words
  "Any Order so made by the Department shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith; and unless an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after the Order

  53 & 54 Vict., c. 43

  The Education of Blind and Deaf-Mute Children (Scotland) Act, 1890

  In Section five the words "except in the case of a deaf-mute child under seven years of age."

  —Agreed to.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon, it being after Half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER
  3094
  is laid before it, praying that the Order may be annulled, the Order shall have effect as if enacted in this Act."
  —Agreed to.

  SIXTH SCHEDULE.

    ENACTMENTS REPEALED.
    Lords Amendment:
    At the end, insert,
    adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order, until to-morrow (Friday), pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.
    Adjourned at Twenty-two minutes after Two o'clock.

  MODERN LANGUAGES COMMITTEE (REPORT).
  MODERN LANGUAGES COMMITTEE (REPORT).
  AFFORESTATION.
  AFFORESTATION.
  TRANSFUSION OF BLOOD (SOLDIERS' SELF-SACRIFICE).
  TRANSFUSION OF BLOOD (SOLDIERS' SELF-SACRIFICE).
  CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONERS.
  CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONERS.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  DEPARTMENT OF OILS AND FATS.
  DEPARTMENT OF OILS AND FATS.
  BACON.
  BACON.
  MEAT.
  MEAT.
  BUTTER.
  BUTTER.
  FEEDING-STUFFS.
  FEEDING-STUFFS.
  COMPENSATION CLAIM.
  COMPENSATION CLAIM.
IRELAND.
  INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT.
  INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT.
  CLOSING OF SHOPS ORDER.
  CLOSING OF SHOPS ORDER.
  MILITARY EQUIPMENT (SEIZURE).
  MILITARY EQUIPMENT (SEIZURE).
  MINISTRIES OF HEALTH BILL.
  MINISTRIES OF HEALTH BILL.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  ARMY ORDNANCE DEPOT, DUBLIN.
  ARMY ORDNANCE DEPOT, DUBLIN.
  INVERKEITHING AERODROME (EMPLOYES).
  INVERKEITHING AERODROME (EMPLOYES).
  OATH OF ALLEGIANCE (DOCKYARD WORKMEN).
  OATH OF ALLEGIANCE (DOCKYARD WORKMEN).
  ADMIRALTY EMPLOYES (MINIMUM PAY).
  ADMIRALTY EMPLOYES (MINIMUM PAY).
  ROYAL NAVY (ENGINE-ROOM ARTIFICERS).
  ROYAL NAVY (ENGINE-ROOM ARTIFICERS).
DEMOBILISATION.
  AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.
  AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.
  BUSINESS MEN.
  BUSINESS MEN.
MILITARY SERVICE.
  CASE UNDER INQUIRY.
  CASE UNDER INQUIRY.
  SPECIALLY ENLISTED MEN.
  SPECIALLY ENLISTED MEN.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  WOUNDED SOLDIERS (HOSPITALS).
  WOUNDED SOLDIERS (HOSPITALS).
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  POOR LAW INSTITUTION, PEMBURY.
  POOR LAW INSTITUTION, PEMBURY.
  OFFICER CADET BATTALIONS.
  OFFICER CADET BATTALIONS.
  RAILWAYMEN'S CONVALESCENT HOME, WALLASEY.
  RAILWAYMEN'S CONVALESCENT HOME, WALLASEY.
  RIFLE RANGES
  RIFLE RANGES
  TERRITORIAL FORCE EFFICIENCY MEDAL.
  TERRITORIAL FORCE EFFICIENCY MEDAL.
  WOUNDED OFFICERS (PAY).
  WOUNDED OFFICERS (PAY).
  TORPEDOED STEAMERS (COMPENSATION TO SURVIVORS).
  TORPEDOED STEAMERS (COMPENSATION TO SURVIVORS).
  WOUNDED SOLDIERS (RELATIVES' VISITS).
  WOUNDED SOLDIERS (RELATIVES' VISITS).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  MANUFACTURERS (FINANCIAL AID).
  MANUFACTURERS (FINANCIAL AID).
  METROPOLITAN POLICE AREA (ACCIDENTS).
  METROPOLITAN POLICE AREA (ACCIDENTS).
  METROPOLITAN POLICE
  METROPOLITAN POLICE
GENERAL ELECTION.
  FREEMEN.
  FREEMEN.
  MOTOR-CARS.
  MOTOR-CARS.
  MOND NICKEL COMPANY.
  MOND NICKEL COMPANY.
  COAL SUPPLIES (BREWING TRADE).
  COAL SUPPLIES (BREWING TRADE).
  MOUNT PLEASANT POST OFFICE (STAFF).
  MOUNT PLEASANT POST OFFICE (STAFF).
  PRISON TREATMENT (JOHN M'LEAN).
  PRISON TREATMENT (JOHN M'LEAN).
  HOUSING SCHEME, BORGIE.
  HOUSING SCHEME, BORGIE.
  SASINE OFFICE, EDINBURGH.
  SASINE OFFICE, EDINBURGH.
  CHINESE LABOUR BATTALIONS.
  CHINESE LABOUR BATTALIONS.
VISCOUNT CAVE.
The Right Hon. Sir George Cave, Knight, one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, having been created Viscount CAVE of Richmond, in the County of Surrey Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD STERNDALE.
The Right Hon. Sir William Pickford, Knight, President of the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice, having been created Baron STERNDALE of King Sterndale, in the County of Derby—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

WAR DECORATIONS.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Earl the Parliamentary Secretary of the War Office, a Question on which I have given him private notice. Your Lordships may know that in the name of Lord Dunraven there is a Question down for November 21, whether any decision has yet been arrived at regarding the award of a decoration for the Gallipoli Campaign of 1915. My noble friend Lord Dunraven is not in the House, but as I understand the War Office are now able to give an answer to this Question I take the liberty of asking my noble friend opposite if he will kindly inform the House what is being done.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE WAR OFFICE (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I am glad to be able to say that an agreement has been reached, which has received the approval of the War Cabinet and of his Majesty the King, which, I am assured, is satisfactory to those principally concerned. The settlement of this matter has been complicated owing to the diversity of the interests involved, and has been delayed by the need for consultation with the Dominion authorities.
In the first place, the 1914 Star will be reserved for its special purposes. A Star on the same model and with the same riband but bearing distinctive marks as to dateߞnamely, the years 1914–15ߞwill be given
88
to all officers and other ranks of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, who prior to December 31, 1915, served in a ship of war at sea, and all officers and other ranks of Military and Air Forces who served in a theatre of war prior to the same date. In every case, the officer or man must have served on duty and with proper authority, and no officer or man will receive the 1914–15 Star in addition to the 1914 Star.
Thus, in the same way that those who first bore the brunt of the attack in France and Flanders received a special mark of recognition by the award of the 1914 Star, so those from our Dominions and Colonies, as well as British and Irish troops who first responded to the call of duty and served in a theatre of war, will receive special recognition. The House will recollect that it had been originally proposed and sanctioned that the Governments of Australia and New Zealand should present their troops with a special medal for the operations on the Peninsula. They have now agreed to the new proposal, so that all troops, British and Indian and those from the Dominions, who shared the same dangers and hardships, shall receive the same award. The date chosen—namely, December 31, 1915—forms a definite break in the operations, and all concerned have accepted it on the understanding that it is final. It will interest the House to know that there will be included, in addition to all those who fought on the Gallipoli peninsula, the Canadian troops who fought at the second battle of Ypres, the battle of Festubert, and subsequent operations of that year in France and Flanders, all those who fought at the battle of Loos, the troops engaged in the defence of Egypt, the troops who conquered German South-West Africa under the command of General Botha, as well as all who were engaged in other parts of the African continent, the Australian Force which captured the Bismarck Archipelago, and those who fought so gallantly under General Townshend at Kut.
The Committee arrived at this solution after consideration of a number of alternatives, which they had to reject for a variety of reasons. Thus the adoption of a special medal marked "Gallipoli" would have landed us in claims which could not have been withstood for medals for other theatres of war or special operations; and, moreover, the recognition of locality as marking special operations will be made in due course in

89
the form of clasps to whatever war medal is adopted
The "Dominion Star," which had already been approved for Australia and New Zealand, could not have been accepted and worn by Imperial troops; and, moreover, the Canadians did not want, nor indeed did the Australians and New Zealanders want, a decoration which was not to be shared by their brethren of the United Kingdom. Thus the Committee reached the position that whatever was given must be common to all who had shared the same dangers and hardships, and as one medal and not a multiplicity was the only practicable solution, the Committee had to seek a common basis of services for all which would entitle to the award.
They found this in the principle underlying the 1914 Star—namely, services in a theatre of war within limits as to dates. The 1914 Star is limited to one theatre and is for services during a limited time and of a certain limited special significance. The Committee decided to avoid depriving that Star of its special value. They took it, however, as their model for the solution of the problem before them. They adopted the plan of a Star on the same model but with the marked distinctiveness of a different date—namely, 1914–15—instead of that which now appears on the 1914 Star.
As to the limits of time, they first selected the first year of the war, the idea being to reward those who first came forward and served against the enemy, but this period would have ended on August 5, 1915, would have excluded many whom they wished to see rewarded, and, moreover, would not have answered to the description on the medal of the year 1914–15. They therefore, after consultation with the Dominions, adopted the date December 31, 1915.
As to the riband, they considered the advisability of a special riband, but they found that if the model of the 1914 Star were not followed, a diversity of ribands to meet the particular wishes of the Dominions would have had to be adopted. A suggestion was considered of using the same riband but marking that of the 1914 Star with a thin red line. This, however, presented difficulties of manufacture, and, moreover, would certainly have led to claims that both ribands and Stars might be worn by the same officers and men. As it, was desired not to issue two medals, it
90
was necessary for the Committee to confine themselves to the same riband as that of the 1914 Star.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I understand, from the answer given by the noble Earl, that members of the Territorial Force will be put on exactly the same footing as members of the Regular Army.
EARL STANHOPE: Anybody who served in a theatre of war with a Territorial Force or the New Army.

REPATRIATION OF PRISONERS OF WAR.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given private notice to my noble friend Lord Newton. Is he able to give the House any information as to the arrangements which have been made or are in contemplation for bringing back the British prisoners of war?
THE ASSISTANT UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, arrangements have been made for the repatriation of prisoners from all the countries with which we have been recently at war. With regard to Austria, a certain number has already arrived in Italy or at. Trieste, and the Earl of Cavan has been instructed, and the Italian Government have been requested, to take all the necessary steps to secure the early repatriation of such as desire or are entitled to return. With regard to Bulgaria, all the British prisoners, with the exception of, I believe, something between forty and fifty, are already in British hands. As regards Turkey, a considerable number of prisoners have already arrived in Egypt and other districts under our control. A certain number have also been exchanged across the lines, both in Mesopotamia and in Palestine. The bulk of the British prisoners in Turkey are concentrated in the neighbourhood of Salonika, and arrangements have been made to bring them from Salonika in British vessels. In the meanwhile the authorities in Egypt have been instructed to see that everything necessary for their comfort is supplied.
As regards the prisoners in Germany, our information is that the number of prisoners who have arrived in Holland up to

91
the present date are not believed to exceed, roughly speaking, 1,000. Our Minister at The Hague has appointed, with the approval of His Majesty's Government, a Committee consisting of the Consul-General at Rotterdam, our Military Attaché at The Hague, and General Bruce, who has himself been a prisoner in Germany, to act as a Committee charged with the welfare of our prisoners arriving in that country and their earliest possible repatriation. Extra medical supply and transport staffs are being sent out, and besides a very large stock of emergency parcels from the Central Prisoners of War Committee, 30,000 full kits and 30,000 rations for a month will be sent immediately as a first instalment. All Red Cross workers, V.A.D.'s, and medical personnel now in Holland will be retained for the present to cope with the emergency if required. Besides such Dutch ships as may be available, seven ships capable of carrying 9,000 persons have been ordered to Holland to bring back the prisoners, and three of them sailed yesterday. I may add that, independently of these arrangements, a small party is expected in England to-day or to-morrow. And I might observe, in connection with this, that the statements in the Press with regard to the arrival of British prisoners appear to be totally inaccurate.
In addition to these arrangements, arrangements are being made in order to evacuate prisoners from the Baltic, if necessary, or from Copenhagen. In connection with these measures 10,000 kits and 10,000 rations for a month are being sent, and it is hoped to effect the repatriation of prisoners east of the Elbe by neutral ships from Baltic ports. For such of our prisoners as may return via Switzerland, like orders are being given. For these prisoners it is proposed to draw on the British Army in France for supplies of food, and a large supply of clothing has been placed at the disposal of General Hanbury Williams, our representative on the spot. For any prisoner who may be returned directly across the lines in France and Belgium, instructions are being sent to expedite their passage to the Channel Ports and to do everything possible for their comfort on the way.
The whole question of moving the prisoners from the camps in Germany under the Armistice will be dealt with at an international conference which opens tomorrow at Spa, at which Major-General Sir
92
John Adye will represent the interests of British prisoners of war for some considerable time.
All the combatant prisoners, on their arrival in England, will go to large reception camps, where it is to be hoped they will receive the heartiest of welcomes, their medical wants will be attended to, and arrangements will be made for giving them leave as soon as possible. Other arrangements are being made for the reception of the civilian prisoners. I trust and believe that, in so far as time allows, nothing will be lacking to secure that the practical gratitude of the nation shall be shown to those who have done so much and suffered so grievously in the cause of right.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, there has been a statement universally published in the Press about our prisoners in Germany having to work and being guarded by armed guards. Apparently it was official, but published without comment by the Press Bureau. It would tend to reassure the public mind if the noble Lord could say whether it is an ordinary measure of discipline, or whether it has any significance.
LORD NEWTON: We are under the impression that it is, as the noble Earl describes it, only a measure of discipline of a purely temporary character. We have every reason to suppose that the German Government, so far as we know, is anxious to expedite the repatriation of prisoners.
LORD LAMBOURNE: May I take it that the term the noble Lord used of camps for prisoners means huts, and not canvas?
LORD NEWTON: Oh yes, that is an arrangement for which I am not responsible; it is an arrangement for which the War Office is responsible. I understand that two large camps have been prepared, one in the neighbourhood of Hull, and the other in the neighbourhood of Dover; that all combatant prisoners will be directed to these camps upon their arrival, and that everything possible will be done for their convenience and welfare generally.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sure we are all very much obliged to the noble Lord; but there is one point which, probably owing to my stupidity, I did not understand. He spoke of the Turkish prisoners, and said the bulk of them were

93
concentrated at Salonika. Will be explain whether we may hope that nearly all the British prisoners of war who were taken by the Turks are now in British hands?
LORD NEWTON: I am sorry I should have misled the House. When I said Salonika I meant Smyrna. The bulk of these prisoners will be concentrated at Smyrna, and will be brought home via Italy and France as soon as possible.

SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
LORD SOUTHWARK: May I ask the noble Earl whether he will kindly reply to the question that I put to him last evening on which he promised to make a statement?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): I have made inquiry on the subject to which my noble friend referred last night, and I think I can give him assurances to show that adequate scope for inquiry and for criticism will be provided before rules under this Bill come into effect. If he will rifer to Clause 15, subsection (2), of the Bill he will find that all rules made under this Act have to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. The procedure as to the laying of rules has been considered very carefully for many years with regard to education, and in this Bill the general procedure followed is that which applies to all statutory rules. Under this particular Bill the Rules Publication Act of 1893 is incorporated. That involves forty days notice being given before any rules can become effective. The rules must be published, facilities must be given for their examination, not only in Parliament but by the public and by persons such as those to whom Lord Southwark referred, who are themselves responsible for looking after these schools. So there is every opportunity to discuss and to criticise the rules. There is, it is true, a provision which allows in certain provisional cases—that is, where special cause for urgency exists—that the rules shall come into immediate operation. Of course, pending the completion of the full procedure prescribed under the Act, forty clear days notice has to be given in every case; and during those days your Lordships, or members of the other House of
94
Parliament, will have ample opportunities of suggesting amendments. Let me add one further point. There is nothing in the Bill which imposes upon bodies who are in charge of non-grant-aided schools any statutory obligations to insist upon any change in the constitution of their governing bodies, but, as I pointed out to your Lordships yesterday, in the event of those schools securing for their teachers considerable grants of public money, it will probably be found desirable in the public interest to enlarge their governing body and to introduce some outside elements in return for the conditions by which they receive public money.
LORD SOUTHWARK: I am much obliged to the noble Earl for answering the question which I put to him, but I am not altogether satisfied with the answer contained in the last observations that he made regarding the governors not being compelled to have any addition to their governing body because they need not take the grant. The question that I asked was whether in the case of the schools which are inspected by the Board of Education, and recognised as being efficient, the Minister of Education ought not to have the power of saying that no further addition or alteration in the governing body is necessary. My point is that where a governing body is competent and is doing its work well and giving entire satisfaction to the Minister of Education it ought not to be interfered with. If a Minister of Education is not to have that power, then I ask that the rules which are to be laid before Parliament shall be so laid for a certain number of days in order that Parliament shall have an opportunity of discussing whether it is right and proper to interfere with the particular school or schools in the way suggested by the Rule.
NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD SOUTHWARK: Otherwise we shall be handing ourselves over body and soul and spirit—
NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD SOUTHWARK: I have had the honour of being a governor of several schools which received no state aid, but where it is very desirable that the teachers should receive some of the superannuation money. At the same time the governing

95
bodies of those schools do not wish an outside body to come in and interfere. I do not think that they would do any good. I was going to move—
NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD SOUTHWARK: May I not say what I would like to move?
NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD SOUTHWARK: I will wait.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a and passed, and returned to the Commons.

TITHE BILL
Amendments reported (according to Order).
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: I move the insertion of a new clause after Clause 1.
Amendment moved—
Insert as a new clause:
"Regulation of pension to retired incumbent.
". A pension to a retired incumbent of a benefice whether awarded before or after the passing of this Act which under the Incumbents Resignation Act, 1871, Amendment Act, 1887, is variable, shall from time to time vary with and be regulated by the average prices by which under this Act the sum payable in respect of any tithe rent-charge is ascertained.'—(Lord Stuart of Wortley.)
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (LORD CLINTON): This Amendment appears to remove some possible causes of hardship, and I am quite willing to accept it.
On Question, Amendment 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-
96
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 consideration 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.
(3) An agreement by an owner of a rentcharge under this section shall not be valid—

(a) if made by a spiritual person entitled in respect of his benefice or cure, except with the consent of Queen Anne's Bounty, or, in the case of a rentcharge affected by the Welsh Church Act, 1914, of the Commissioners of Church Temporalities in Wales; or

(b) if made by a person (not being a spiritual person so entitled), who is not empowered to sell the rentcharge unless he obtains the consent of some other person, except with the consent of that other person.

(3) This section shall not apply as respects any tithe rentcharge with respect to the redemption of which proceedings are pending at the passing of this Act.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE had given notice to move, at the beginning of subsection (2), after the words "An agreement made under this section may provide," to insert "and in default of such agreement on the application of the owner of the land or any part thereof, the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries for the purpose of the redemption of a rentcharge for the redemption of which an application is made on or before the first day of January one thousand nine hundred and twenty-one shall determine."
The noble Earl said: I can shortly explain to your Lordships the purpose of the Amendment which I have put on the Paper. This Bill, if my noble friend will allow me to say so, is a very useful one. I was not able to be here at the time of the Second Reading, and I am glad to have the opportunity now of congratulating the Board of Agriculture upon it. By this Bill it will be a simple, and in many cases a very wise, transaction for a tithe-payer who possesses the cash to take advantage of the redemption classes, especially under

97
the fixed provision of Rule 3 of Schedule 2. But we know that a great many tithe-payers will not be able to command the cash, and consequently, in another place, Major Courthope moved an Amendment allowing the redemption to take place compulsorily on annual payments extending over fifty years, in which, of course, a sinking fund was included as well as interest. The President of the Board of Agriculture, in another place, though in no way hostile to that Amendment, did not accept it, as I understand, mainly for this reason. He thought that if the tithe fell considerably in future years there might arise an agitation for the reduction of the annual payment. I confess that I do not share that anxiety, and I should have been very glad if the President of the Board of Agriculture could have seen fit to accept Major Courthope's Amendment. What he did was to accept an Amendment existing now in Clause 3, by which such a method of payment may take place by agreement, but it cannot be done compulsorily at the option of the tithe-payer who wishes to redeem. The Amendment which I hope the Government will see fit to accept, and of which I have given notice, would have this effect. It would give tithe-payers who wish to redeem the power to redeem compulsorily by payment of an annual sum for fifty years. It will give them the power to insist on that for two years only; that is to say, so long as the fixed amount of redemption defined in Rule 3 of Schedule 2 exists. I will remind your Lordships that Rule 3 of Schedule 2 is as follows—
"For the purpose of the redemption of a rentcharge for the redemption of which an application is made on or before the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-one, the gross annual value of the rentcharge shall be the original commuted amount thereof, and the compensation shall be twenty-one times that amount after such deductions therefrom as aforesaid."
I suggest by this Amendment that till the end of that period the tithe-payer shall be able to insist that the redemption should take the form of an annuity for a period not exceeding fifty years on the basis of 5 per cent. for interest and 3½ per cent. instead of 4 per cent. accumulation of sinking fund. I have reason to believe that that proposal is not unacceptable to those representing a Very large proportion of the clerical tithe, and that is the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The reduction of the 4 per cent. to 3½ per cent. for sinking fund
98
cases the position with them, and I understand—and I think my noble friend behind me would be prepared to say so—that so far as the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were concerned they would regard this as a fair proposal.
If that is so from the point of view of the clerical tithe-owner, let me show your Lordships the great advantage it would be to the tithe-payer who has not got the cash with which to redeem right away. I have had a calculation made, and by that I understand that, instead of paying £109 a year for tithe, as he would have to do under this Bill for seven years, and a larger tithe perhaps afterwards, his total payments under my proposal would Come just under £100 a year. That, therefore, will be a great advantage to the tithe-payer, and there is no doubt it would largely increase the amount of redemption, because it would enable a great number of persons who cannot find the cash to pay in one sum to redeem by this method.
LORD CLINTON: I quite understand the noble Earl's view as to the advantage of bringing in this system of paying off the redemption money by way of annunity. That has been accepted by my right hon. friend in another place, and I need not go into the matter. The effect of this Amendment is that this is made compulsory on the tithe-owner.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: For two years
LORD CLINTON: For two years, and I do not think that the alteration is a satisfactory one. I am going to suggest to the noble Earl that there are one or two outstanding objections to it. He has told us that it would be convenient to a body like the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I would agree with him so far as to say that it would be less inconvenient to a body like the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, because of the probability that they would have a large number of sums paid in for investment to pay off the redemption money, and they may be able to work it economically. But I ask my noble friend to recollect this, that, particularly of recent years, the number of tithe-payers has increased very rapidly owing to the sales of estates. You have a very large number of tithe-payers of the occupying-owner class now. The tithe has been split up into small amounts and the amount of

99
each one of them is very small. It appears that as this is the case the cost of collection from this large number of small people will be very heavy. My noble friend is aware that the redemption money is fixed after deducting the cost of collection, so that there is nothing in the sum received which would be any set-off to the additional money they would have to spend in collecting these small amounts. Either it would affect the total accumulated funds at the end of the period and reduce them in amount, or it might upset the calculation which is made for the purpose of the sinking fund.
While that is an inconvenience and possibly a loss to a great body like the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, I should like your Lordships to consider how this compulsory proposal would affect someone in the position of a lay impropriator. He probably has a small tithe to collect. Is it possible for him to invest economically the very small sinking fund which would be necesssary to extinguish that tithe? To pay off a sum of £100 over a period of fifty years the sinking fund calculated at 3 ½ per cent. would be 15 s. 6d. I submit that a private person is certainly not in a position to invest those monies in such a way that they will certainly return to him the expected fund at the end of fifty years. I think there would certainly be a loss on the calculated amount received. I am not asking for any sympathy or any special advantage for the lay impropriator. I do not think it is in the slightess degree necessary to give him any advantage; but at the same time this Bill does provide that a certain sum in redemption money should be paid to extinguish a tithe, and I do not think we ought to put into the Bill any provisions which would make it impossible that that sum will reach the accumulated amount at the end of the period of fifty years.
I think those are two reasons why it is not fair to force a scheme of annuity upon an unwilling tithe-owner. But if the noble Earl would accept an alteration at the end of his Amendment I should probably withdraw my objection to his Amendment. In place of the word "shall," after "twenty-one," put in "may if they think fit." That would give to the Board of Agriculture a certain discretion which I think it right that they should have, so that they could say that an annuity in the case of some of these very small tithes
100
would be unfair to the tithe-owner, that he would not be able to invest it as it is necessary to invest it to pay off the whole sum at the end of fifty years, and they would be able to say in such circumstances "We decline to use compulsion."
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: With the permission of the House I would say at once that I think my noble friend's point is a perfectly fair one, and I will gladly accept that change and move my Amendment in that form.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 15, after ("provide") insert ("and in default of such agreement on the application of the owner of the land or any part thereof, the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries for the purpose of the redemption of a rentcharge for the redemption of which an application is made on or before the first day of January one thousand nine hundred and twenty-one may, if they think fit, determine").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 17, leave out ("such") and insert ("a").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 18, leave out. ("as may be agreed").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CLINTON: The next Amendment means that the interest of this redemption money will be a rate not exceeding 5 per cent., and the money will be accumulated at compound interest at a rate not exceeding 4 per cent. This is to give the necessary elasticity in carrying out a proper scheme for redemption.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 18 and 19, leave out ("the rate of") and insert ("a rate not exceeding").—(Lord Clinton.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I would like to ask my noble friend how that is affected with regard to the 4 per cent., by the acceptance of my Amendment. It was part of that. Amendment—the consequential part—that I was going to insert 3½ per cent, instead of 4 per cent. Does my noble friend propose that the words should be read "not exceeding 3½ per cent."
LORD CLINTON: No. I propose "not exceeding 4 per cent." I think that probably gives the noble Earl what he wants.
LORD PARMOOR: As I understand, that would really give greater security for the annuity; and that is the object of it?
LORD CLINTON: Yes.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: Everybody can see, of course, in the present financia1 conditions, and the rate of Income Tax being what it unhappily is at the present time and is likely to be for a long time to come, that the rate of 4 per cent. would be a total extinguisher to all redemption business.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 21 and 22, leave out ("the rate of") and insert ("a rate not exceeding").—(Lord Clinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 27, after ("agreement") insert ("or determination").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
LORD CLINTON: I accept that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: The Amendment standing in my name is to provide that, in the cases in which it has to administer the accumulation of these annuities, the Queen Anne's Bounty should be able to say that the incumbent cannot have the whole of the 5 per cent., because the rest of the annuity may be required for the replacement of the sum raised for redemption at the end of the term.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 30, at end insert ("In the case of any such annuity payable to Queen Anne's Bounty on behalf of any benefice or cure, Queen Anne's Bounty in determining the portion thereof payable year by year by way of income to the spiritual person entitled in respect of the benefice or cure may make any necessary provision for securing that the portion accumulated shall at the end of the term produce an amount equal to the consideration money").—(Lord Stuart of Wortley.)
LORD CLINTON: I presume that my noble friend has satisfied himself that the Queen Anne's Bounty require this Amendment?
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: Oh, yes.
LORD CLINTON: I am advised that they might he covered by the words in line 27 of subsection (2) of Clause 3; but I will not raise an objection if Queen Anne's Bounty consider it is necessary for the protection of their own interests.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: I am so advised. After all it is only a general direction to make suitable provision.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule:
2. The compensation for redemption shall be such sum as in the opinion of the Board is sufficient, after payment of the cost of investment, to produce when invested in Government securities a permanent annuity equal to the gross annual value after deducting from that value the average amount paid or payable by the tithe-owner in respect of the rentcharge for the three years immediately preceding the date of the application to redeem on account of rates and land tax, and such sum not exceeding two and a half per cent. of the gross annual value as in the opinion of the Board represents the necessary cost of collection of the rentcharge.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY LORD STUART OF WORTLEY moved, in paragraph 2, after "value" where that word secondly occurs, to insert "a sum calculated on that value at the rate in the pound of." The noble Lord said: This is to provide that in arriving at what, after all, is an official valuation of a variable annuity—I am afraid that my language sounds of necessity rather obscure—you should not, in order to arrive at the net at which you wish to arrive, do so in relation to a gross annuity thus artificially valued, but upon some basis which shall have some relation to reality. If you deduct rating at the rate at which rates have been previously levied you would be deducting a rating which might be on a very high state of the tithe; whereas on all the conditions supposed by the introduction of this Bill you are producing, for at least seven years, a much more stable condition of tithe when it cannot rise above £109; and it is right therefore, in order to arrive at the net annuity, that you should not accept such rates as have a relation to that fixed value which this Bill proposes to establish.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 5, after ("value") insert ("a sum calculated on that value at the rate in the pound of").—(Lord Stuart of Wortley.)
LORD CLINTON: I think that the Amendment of my noble friend really goes a great deal further than he has suggested to the House; because he proposes an alteration in the rating law. For the first time it is suggested here that rates should be levied on a gross tithe. In no other case, as far as I know, is anything but the net tithe considered. I do not know whether that is the intention of my noble friend, but that would be the effect of the Amendment. On the general principle of poundage against rates, my noble friend apparently thinks that his is a more scientific and accurate scheme than that which is in the Bill. I am not inclined to accept that view. I would accept the view that neither of them is scientific, but I do not know that we can get at any actual scientific principle. We have adopted the scheme in the Bill of deducting actual rates, partly because it is following the precedent of the Welsh Disestablishment Act, and partly because it is very much simpler, probably equally fair, and it does not require any fresh calculation at the time of each redemption. The amount of the actual rates that have been paid in the last three years are easily ascertained, and I am afraid that I must decline to accept the Amendment.
LORD PARMOOR: I hope that the noble Lord will not accept this Amendment. It would introduce a change in the rating law—namely, a matter of calculation instead of a matter of certainty; and I think that a three years average of that has been actually paid immediately preceding the redemption is the right principle.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: I am still prepared to contend that I am bringing the thing much more into relation to reality than the scheme of the Bill does. But I am aware that in order to defeat the Government you have to produce a wave of emotion, and, as I cannot do that in regard to so abstruse a matter as this, I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE THE MARQUESS OF CREWE rose to call attention to the recommendations in the Report of the Royal Commission on the Selection of Justices of the Peace in 1911, regarding political pressure exercised in favour of particular candidates; and to ask His Majesty's Government whether these recommendations may be taken to cover the practice of canvassing the members of Advisory Committees.
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I hope I need not detain your Lordships at any length in putting this Question to His Majesty's Government, and in particular to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, although I must go back for a moment to what happened some years ago with reference to the appointment of magistrates. About nine years ago, as your Lordships will remember, a considerable stir was created, both in this House and in the country, with reference to the method and the practices actually pursued in the appointment of justices of the peace. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Loreburn, who I think is not now in the House, was at that time Lord Chancellor, and was greatly concerned with the matter. The result was that an important and strongly-manned Royal Commission was appointed, just nine years ago, to consider the whole question. The difficulties which were alleged were that strong political pressure used to be applied to Lords Lieutenant, by members of Parliament and others, for the appointment of particular gentlemen to the Commission of the Peace, and that in submitting names to the Lord Chancellor for appointment Lords Lieutenant were placed in considerable difficulty, with the result that the appointments tended to be more political in their character than they ought to be, and that in certain parts of England practically all the magistrates that were appointed were of one political persuasion.
There is no need now to go at length into the whole matter, but I may remind your Lordships that when the Royal Commission reported it expressed itself strongly on this point, and it recommended the setting up of Advisory Committees, appointed by the Lord Chancellor and advisory to him but presided over by the Lord Lieutenant, so that when the Lord Lieutenant submitted a list of names to the occupant of the Woolsack he would have the support of much local authority and knowledge in

105
suggesting the persons to be appointed. The Royal Commission expressed themselves in these terms. They said—
"We seek to enforce these views by recording an opinion, formed after full inquiry, that appointments influenced by considerations of political opinion and services are highly detrimental to public interests, and tend to lower the authority of the Magisterial Benches in the country. We hold also that any one who takes share or part in giving effect to such influence is playing an injurious part in the citizenship of the country, and is therefore deserving of much censure."
They went on to say—
"Both the Lord Chancellor and the Lords Lieutenant must often be greatly embarrassed by the receipt of political demands they cannot with propriety accede to. Their refusal to do so produces complaint and criticism, injurious to all interests. We therefore strongly urge those who may be the Lord Chancellor or Lords Lieutenant or members of an Advisory Committee that they should firmly refuse to receive any applications, or unasked-for advice to appoint Justices from Members of Parliament or candidates in their own constituencies, or from political agents or representatives of political associations. If such a rule be made and acted on, all concerned, especially Members of Parliament and candidates, will be able to escape from a position they must deplore."
This last recommendation was not quite unanimously made. Two or three members of the Royal Commission thought that this went a little too far; that after all both Members of Parliament and members of local political associations were in many cases able to form a good opinion, from personal knowledge, of the merits of a possible candidate for the Bench, and that to condemn them to complete silence was not a useful course to take.
The findings of this Commission were generally applauded. Advisory Committees were appointed to assist Lords Lieutenant, and I think it may be safely said—and I should appeal with confidence to any noble friend of mine in this House who also is one of His Majesty's Lieutenants—that the services, which are of course quite unremunerated, are most ungrudgingly given, and are of great value and assistance to the Lords Lieutenant in making submissions to the noble and learned Lord. But excellent sentiments are sometimes apt to wear rather thin. Eight or nine years ago it was generally agreed that influence of this kind, brought to bear for the purpose of appointing magistrates, was mistaken and wrong, but I am inclined to think that that has been to a certain extent forgotten, and that there is something of a renewed tendency
106
now to fall into the mistake which was so prevalent before, of regarding appointment to the Bench, not as the undertaking of an important and sometimes tedious public duty, but rather as a mark of distinction which can be conferred upon a locally popular or influential gentleman. I have seen some signs of a recrudescence of that view in my own correspondence.
But my real purpose in putting this Question and securing a statement from the Government on the subject is that members of my Advisory Committee have complained to me that they have become the subjects of a great number of personal requests from individuals, political associations, and in some cases from the representatives of local authorities, themselves, as we know, largely framed on political lines, with a view to their bringing particular names before the Advisory Committee and myself. I brought the matter before an association which we have of Lieutenants of counties, and informed my colleagues there that I proposed to put a Question of this kind. I think any of my noble friends who were present at that meeting will bear me out in saying that my intention was universally approved. No voice was raised in contradiction of it.
I say quite frankly that I do not think it is possible entirely to dispense with recommendations made either by Members of Parliament or, in some cases, by political associations. I think it is going too far to say that the chance of a man being appointed to the Bench would be entirely destroyed if he is recommended by a local Member of Parliament or by a local political association. But I am prepared on my own account to say this—that, other things being equal, a recommendation of that kind would rather go against a man than for him, although it may be that in some cases the candidates are put forward as thoroughly worthy of the honour, and in these cases the recommendation ought not to be allowed to stand in their way; yet of itself it ought not to be regarded as assisting a man to have his name put forward. It ought to be on general grounds of fitness and public service that a man's name is put forward, and not of political service of any kind. I hope, therefore, that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will be able to express an opinion in the same sense—that is to say, deprecating interference of this kind, whether it is applied

107
directly to the Lord Lieutenant, who after all is perhaps in a stronger position in resisting it, or to the members of the Advisory Committees, known as being the people responsible in the immediate locality for bringing recommendations before the whole Committee and who may be greatly inconvenienced by receiving personal pressure of this kind.
It is very hard, indeed, to eradicate the public feeling that almost everything can be done by influence. All of us who have held public positions know very well how hard it is to persuade people that one cannot get a man appointed to any regiment in the Service, or to any branch of the Service, or to any position in any of His Majesty's Dominions, or in India or elsewhere. All of us who have held public positions know how deep-seated this belief is, and in such a matter as the appointment of magistrates it is very difficult to persuade people that pressure and representations do not have their way.
There is nothing positive to be done except to make declarations of the kind which I have just made, and I sincerely hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able on his own account, as the person ultimately responsible who actually appoints the magistrates, to make a general declaration which can be recorded in the same sense, deprecating the use of influence of this kind, or indeed of all kinds, beyond the supplying to the appointing body of information regarding the fitness of persons whom it is desired to appoint.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD FINLAY): My Lords, I desire in the first instance to express my entire concurrence with what the noble Marquess has said as to the value of the services rendered by the Advisory Committees. They have been most useful. I have now had nearly two years' experience of the work of appointing magistrates and I can say from that experience that the Advisory Committees afford very great assistance in selecting men who are fit for the duties and qualified to discharge them to the public advantage in the particular locality.
The observations made in the Report, to which the noble Marquess has referred, as to the undesirability of anything in the nature of political pressure, in my judgment are right. I should deprecate anything like political pressure being attempted in the case of members of the Advisory
108
Committees. The Advisory Committees are there to afford assistance to the Lord Lieutenant, and ultimately to the Lord Chancellor, in the appointment of justices, and political pressure is really an invitation to them to disregard their primary duty which is that of selecting men who are fit in every respect for the discharge of the duties of the office in their locality. By the word "canvassing," which is employed in the Question of the noble Marquess, I understand solicitation of votes, and I think canvassing of votes, the votes of members of the Advisory Committee, is very much to be deprecated, and particularly political canvassing. But I must not be misunderstood. It is extremely difficult to draw the line, and the noble Marquess himself indicated that.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Hear, hear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It would be the greatest possible mistake to cut off the local Advisory Committee from sources of information, as to the fitness of particular candidates, which are reasonably open to them, and nothing I may say or that the noble Marquess has said will, I hope, ever be quoted as tending to show that reasonable and proper statements as to the qualifications of particular men for the office would be in any way contrary to what was said in those Reports as to the application of pressure.
It is highly necessary, if the Advisory Committee are to discharge their duties properly, that they should inform themselves, and it is highly proper that all persons who have the means of knowledge should, in a right and reasonable way, assist the Advisory Committee with such information as may enable them to arrive at a right conclusion. I am perfectly sensible, and no one can ignore the fact, that it is extremely difficult to draw the line between what is right in this direction and what would overstep the bounds of what is desirable and become what, for convenience, I call canvassing or solicitation of votes. It is extremely difficult to draw the line. That must be left to the good sense of the public and to the attitude to be taken up by the members of the Advisory Committees themselves. While they will welcome any information given to them, they are quite able to discourage the pestering for votes in the way of canvassing.

109
There is one aspect of the case to which I should like to refer, which the noble Marquess has touched upon, and that relates to the question of political opinions. This matter was touched upon by the Committee to which the noble Marquess has referred, and is dealt with in a sense which they consider, and I think rightly consider—namely, that political considerations should not be altogether excluded. For this reason it is most desirable that the men should not only be as efficient as possible; it is also most desirable that they should command the confidence of the community. And however fit the Bench might be for its work, if it were the case that members of a particular party were consistently excluded from it, the impression would grow up that the composition was one-sided and unfair. And from that point of view it seems to me that the question of political opinion cannot be properly altogether excluded. It should not interfere with fitness for the office; but it is an element in determining whether the Bench shall be so constituted as to enjoy the confidence of the community. I should like to quote, as expressing what I think on this point, three very short passages from the Report of the Commission. At page 8 this passage will be found—
"This preponderance of justices drawn from one political party has been described as a 'political misfortune.' … The impression that persons of one set of political opinions were in practice being excluded from appointment has engendered a sense of dissatisfaction which it is of the highest importance to dissociate from the administration of justice."
In Earl Loreburn's words—I think in the evidence he gave before the Commission—"it is contrary to the public interest that the authority of the Bench of Justices should be weakened by any widespread suspicion that the members of it are not fairly selected." That is question 243, at page 11 of the evidence.
Then on page 9 the Commission go on thus—
"Those who appoint justices or make recommendations for appointment ought not to be indifferent to the existence of this inequality, and should endeavour to redress the balance, so far as public interest will permit."
Then on page 10—
"It is also in the public interest that they" [the Justices] "should be men who command general confidence. And for this reason also it is desirable that the area of selection should be wide and the choice comprehensive, so that the Bench may include men of all social classes and all shades and creeds and political opinion."
110
It is obvious that, in order to carry out what in the opinion of the Commission should be done in these cases, political considerations cannot be altogether ignored, and I agree in a general sense with the passages that I have read, which, I think, express the views which the noble Marquess indicated in putting this Question. I hope I have answered fully the question put to me, and I have endeavoured to indicate my own views on the subject, as well as to explain what the recommendations of the Commission were.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I wish to say a very few words on this question. I do so because I, perhaps, have had more to do with this system and for a longer period than any of your Lordships now present. For nearly three years I occupied the Woolsack, against the two years of my noble friend, and I was keenly conscious of the difficulties with which he had to deal. I entirely agree with what was said by my noble friend beside me, and by the Lord Chancellor, and what I wish to say a word or two about is the reason why this difficulty has grown up, and the principle which I think proceeds from it.
I agree that you must lock to something more than merely the selecting of the most perfect people, from a judicial point of view, upon the Bench; you must try to get the interests of the community. For instance, it is not merely ordinary questions which a magistrate has to deal with. He has to deal with persons who have conscientious objection on vaccination, and topics of that kind. Anti-vaccinators have feelings, and they must be considered. It would be very wrong to appoint an anti-vaccinator to the Bench. It is also desirable not to appoint somebody who has by his utterances and by his way of going on produced a feeling in the minds of anti-vaccinators that they will not get justice. That is the kind of man you must exclude as a magistrate. Why has this difficulty grown up? I think I understand it. First of all, let it be remembered that the person who appoints a magistrate is not the Lord Lieutenant, but the Lord Chancellor, as has already been said. Secondly, the Lord Lieutenant by custom is the person who recommends to the Lord Chancellor for these appointments to the Bench. That was the practice before the Royal Commission reported, and the Royal Commission has not really modified it in prin-

111
ciple. It is true that appointments are made irrespective of the Lord Lieutenant by the Lord Chancellor, and sometimes made in the last stage. That was always so. It was so, in my experience, before the Royal Commission was put into operation and Advisory Committees were appointed.
But the meaning of the Report of the Royal Commission and the difference in machinery which it introduced was this—that the Lord Chancellor has now somebody else to whom he is to refer questions of the fitness of those names besides the Lord Lieutenant. He has the Advisory Committee to refer to. The notion has got into people's heads that the Advisory Committee is the Lord Lieutenant's Committee, but that is not so. The Committee is set aside for advising the Lord Chancellor. When a recommendation comes from the Lord Lieutenant, naturally the Lord Lieutenant does not want to make a recommendation which the Committee will reject when the name is referred to it, and consequently—and this is the real difficulty—a system of short-circuiting is produced, by which the Lord Lieutenant goes to the Committee straight away. This does not matter so long as it is not thought that the Committee is the Lord Lieutenant's. That being so, it is plain what the standard of the Committee should be. They should consider that they are there to advise the Lord Chancellor and him alone, consequently to bring to bear upon their recommendation those considerations, and only those, which the Lord Chancellor might legitimately entertain. They are there to give him any advice he may desire. It is therefore right that they should both take these general considerations into account. It is wrong that they should regard themselves merely as bodies who may be approached by anybody and for any reason, and should send up names to the Lord Chancellor without very searching prime consideration as to whether these are names of persons taken according to the standard which the Lord Chancellor himself would apply.
I am sure that much of the difficulty about the Advisory Committees has arisen from this idea of short-circuiting, this idea that you can go to the Committee just as if it were to the Lord Lieutenant, and apply the same kind of considerations as you would in a county where the Lord Lieutenant is a great local personage representing
112
the Sovereign and approachable by everybody in a way that the Lord Chancellor is not. The function of the Committee is to apply the standard which the Lord Chancellor himself applies. It is not merely local. They are there to pronounce upon the facts, and their duty is consequently measured. I think my noble friend has put it pretty accurately. It comes to this. You must take all the considerations which are legitimate into account. In doing so, you must remember that the advice you are tendering to the Lord Chancellor is advice tendered upon those principles which have been enunciated during the course of this debate. I am very glad that the question has been discussed, because there has been a great deal of obscurity about what these Advisory Committees are, and as to their responsibility and for what they are to act. I think that this debate will do much to clear that up.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I should like to add one word from my own experience regarding the original appointment of these Advisory Committees and their working. Not a word has been said about it to-night. The main object of appointing Advisory Committees was to equalise on the Benches Party political opinion. That possibly does not appear in the Report referred to, but, as I was responsible for the selection of the Advisory Committee in my county, I have a very clear recollection of what I was told. I was told by a very high legal authority that this had to be done in order to assist him in another place. We had, therefore, to set to work and find a suitable Advisory Committee with the deliberate object of selecting as many Liberal justices of the peace as possible in order to equalise the Benches. For myself, I can say that in almost every case where I have been asked to support the name of a candidate for the Bench, I have always asked—and for two years I was Acting-Lord Lieutenant, so I had to act in every case—"What is the Party political opinion of this gentleman?"
Your Lordships must remember that it is the duty of the Advisory Committee to advise the Lord Chancellor of the political opinions of each candidate, and that practice, so far as I know, has been carried out since I resigned the exalted office of Lord Lieutenant. As regards pressure or the difficulties referred to by the noble Viscount and by the noble Marquess, I am

113
happy to say that I have had no experience whatever of any pressure or difficulties. A number of applications came in. I should not say that they came necessarily from political parties. A great majority came from working men's associations asking that the name of Mr. So and So should be considered. Judging from the results of my request for information regarding the public services of the persons named, I should say, from my experience, that it is a very great advantage to the Advisory Committee that these names should be put before them with the records of the public services of the gentlemen in question. It would be a much more difficult proceeding for an individual to go round to the various places and ask somebody for that information. I do not know whom he could ask. It does not follow that the Chairman of the Petty Sessional Bench would know any better than any member of the Advisory Committee who are the most trusted persons in a particular neighbourhood.
I think that these requests which came to us, not in large but in very limited numbers, were distinctly useful, because they did indicate that in a particular neighbourhood there was a gentleman who had done a lot of public work and who had won the confidence of his comrades in a particular circle. I cannot say that I have had any experience of any real pressure or of any difficulty. It is not my experience that we were asked to put a man on the Bench regardless of what his public service was, but merely because he was Mr. So and So and had come into the county and had bought a piece of land. I think that my noble friend Lord Weardale, who is a colleague of mine on the Advisory Committee, will bear me out when I say that we have had no experience such as that described by the noble Marquess opposite, or similar to that referred to by the noble Viscount opposite. As far as I know the system has worked very smoothly, and I am sure that it has been a very great assistance, and I gather from what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said just now that it has been of great assistance to the Lord Chancellor.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords perhaps, by leave of the House, I may be allowed to thank the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for the tenor of his reply, which exactly fulfils my hopes in supplying an authoritative declaration on this point. It undoubtedly is the
114
case, to use the words of the noble and learned Lord, that members of the Advisory Committee with which I am concerned have in some cases been unduly pestered in support of particular individuals, and so far as they can be saved from solicitations of that kind it is obviously our duty to attempt to preserve them from it. I was particularly glad to hear what the noble and learned Lord said of the general value of the Advisory Committee in London. It naturally is a very important body, and I am proud to say that the present Lord Mayor has been a member of it ever since its foundation, and several distinguished members of Parliament and others also sit on it. It is perfectly true, as the noble and learned Lord said that you cannot leave political considerations out altogether. It is hardly too much to say, as my noble friend opposite stated, that one of the purposes of appointing these Advisory Committees was to some extent to redress the balance in the appointments as between the different Parties, and I frankly say that in London we always draw some kind of general balance as between Conservative, Liberal, and Labour, bearing of course especially in mind the claims of Labour. I take it that probably something of the same kind is done in all the counties.

INDIA.
LORD SYDENHAM LORD SYDENHAM rose to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India (1) whether he can give any information as to the rioting in Calcutta and Madras in September; (2) whether the Report of Sir Narayan Chandavarkar and Mr. Justice Beechcroft will be published with that of the Rowlatt Committee.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, throughout the war the Censor has been very active, and our news from India, generally speaking, has been much too scanty. Meanwhile the strain upon us all has been intense, and we have not had, and we have not even now, time to give to consider the affairs of India and to watch events in that country. But, my Lords, the questions of India are of supreme importance to the whole Empire, and if we continue to ignore them we shall before long be faced with the most unpleasant surprises. In September last there were prolonged riots in Calcutta and in Madras, and in the former place there was considerable loss of life. It seems to have been arranged by someone

115
that large public meetings should be simultaneously held at Calcutta, Madras and Rangoon. Those meetings were all prohibited by the respective Governments, and in Rangoon happily nothing untoward happened, but in Calcutta a meeting was called by certain Mahomedan leaders who disagree with the policy of the Moslem League which, as we all know, was captured by the Hindu extremists.
All over India there is a certain amount of Moslem unrest due to the Report of the Viceroy and the Secretary of State. That Report is regarded by Mahomedans generally as having dealt too lightly with their interests. I am bound to say that I think that complaint is not altogether an unreasonable one. If the proposals of the Viceroy and the Secretary of State are adopted, Moslem interests, which the Government—at present all powerful—is able to safeguard, would most certainly suffer in the future, and we should have the Government practically controlled by Hindus.
The Calcutta meeting was prohibited, and, then the dangerous elements of the population took the chances of rioting that were offered to them. The disorder several days, and I am informed that about 300 people were killed, and in addition to that there was much looting and much destruction of property. It is significant that the sufferers were mainly Marwaris, and up-country Hindus and Bengalis really suffered little or nothing. That arose from the fact that the Bengalis generally are not the small shop-keeping class of Calcutta. In Madras there was no loss of life; but a great deal of damage was done, and one large market was burnt down. The rioting occurred at several centres some considerable distance apart. My information as regards Madras is that the rioting was undoudbtedly instigated by some persons operating from a safe position, but that the instigation was made effective by the high prices which were prevailing in Madras at the time—of course, as always, the danger in India—and the shortage which must now exist in many parts of the country gives cause for great watchfulness and for every measure of remedy which it is possible to apply. I hope my noble friend will be able to say that such measures are being applied at the present time. It is interesting to note that, while this serious rioting was going on, the Extremists in
116
the Viceroy's Council were pressing for great modifications in the Arms Act which, if they were carried, would have the effect of allowing a very great part of the population of India to obtain and to carry arms. If that is ever done I can only say that the small disturbances between sects and religions to which one is accustomed in India may in many cases lead to massacre.
My second Question falls to the ground because the Report of this important Committee has, I understand, been laid on the Table of the House since my Question was put on the Paper. This Report supplements to a remarkable extent that of the Rowlatt Committee which I hope your Lordships will most carefully study. The Rowlatt Report throws a lurid light upon the revolutionary proceedings in India during the war, and it shows that a disaster was only avoided by the diligence and efficiency of the Indian police, with the co-operation of some of the loyal Indians in Bengal especially. The Rowlatt Committee was appointed, as your Lordships are aware, because the Indian intelligentsia declared that the Defence of India Acts were uncalled for and oppressive, and the supplementary inquiry was demanded by the same persons because they said that innocent people were being interned, or were being left to rot in gaols—which is one of the favourite expressions of Indian journalism. I hope my noble friend will point out how extremely satisfactory that Report is. It is the Report of two learned judges, one Indian and one British, and it proves to the hilt the extreme care that was exercised by the Bengal Government in administering the Defence of India Act.
Your Lordships may have seen the very threatening language which was used by Mr. Surendranath Banerjee on November 1, which was reported in The Times of yesterday. He said among other things that—
"The attitude of the British Government in regard to the reform proposals is, so far as one can judge, unsatisfactory and even ominous."
There is really no justification for that very wild statement. So far as I can judge, the attitude of His Majesty's Government is not to commit itself until it has much fuller information at its disposal. The noble Earl the Leader of the House has, I think, undertaken that there shall be some inquiry

117
into the proposals of the Viceroy and the Secretary of State, as the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, so strongly urged upon us the other day. That seems to me to be the most reasonable course, really the only right course, and it is ominous that Mr. Surandranath Banerjee should attack and threaten the Government at a juneture like this. This ex-Civil Servant, whose speeches and writings have certainly gone far to encourage the revolutionary movement in India, has been selected recently by the Secretary of State to serve on one of his Committees. That Committee is one which requires calm judgment and an unbiased mind, and in spite of the trust which has thus been reposed in Mr. Surandranath Banerjee he has not hesitated to use the language which I have quoted, and to say a good deal more. I hope your Lordships will agree with me that it is high time that full attention was given to what is going on in India.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD ISLINGTON): My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not enter into the point which he has just raised in regard to a speech delivered by Mr. Surandranath Banerjea. The speech in question has not come under my notice, and I think he will agree with me that, whatever remarks that gentleman may have made, they really have no bearing upon the particular question which he has placed upon the Paper. Neither can I be induced to enter into a discussion as to the relationship of these riots to the proposals that have recently been made by the Secretary of Sate for India and. the Viceroy. When these proposals come seriously to be considered of course questions of this character, with which I shall have to deal in reply to my noble friend's Question, will have to be taken into very serious consideration.
Very full reports of the riots in Calcutta and Madras have appeared in the Indian Press, and I would refer any noble Lord who wishes any information to the Press. The reply to the noble Lord's Question which I will now endeavour to give is in the form of a brief narrative of the main features connected with these untoward incidents, showing the extent to which rioting took place and the manner in which it was dealt with by the authorities. Following upon meetings of Mahomedans at Calcutta, at which highly objectionable speeches were made, mass meetings were
118
arranged for September 8,9,10, and leaflets in inflammatory language were circulated in Calcutta calling Mahomedans to attend for discussing Mahomedan grievances—such grievances as the internment of Mahomedan leaders, a recent foolish and thoughtless article in the Indian Daily News which has given offence to the Mahomedan community, and various incidents between Hindu and Mahomedan schoolboys. After a conference with local Mahomedans, and having regard to the approaching Bakr-id festival, the Government of India apprehended incitement to a breach of the peace, and they accordingly prohibited meetings under the Police Act, and under the Defence of India Rules directed persons—and there were several—who had come to Calcutta for the purpose of attending these meetings to return quietly to their homes. On the morning of September 9 several hundred persons had assembled wishing to know the decision as to the meeting. The Governor, Load Ronaldshay, received a deputation and explained that the meeting should be postponed till after the approaching Mahomedan and Hindu festivals, and this was accepted.
Meanwhile, however, serious disturbances occurred at the very time when the deputation was being received at Government House. They were confined to an area in the centre of the northern part of Calcutta, and the trouble began shortly after midday when a mob of Mahomedans, which in its impatience had set out to meet the Deputation returning from Government House, was intercepted by the police, The crowd attacked the police with bricks and stones, and in some cases with knives; while scattered police officers in other parts of the city were assaulted in a similar manner. The tramcars which were passing through the streets where the crowd was collected were pelted with bricks. It was, therefore, found necessary in the course of the afternoon to summon military assistance, and shortly afterwards the police were compelled to fire to repel the attacks of the crowd. The mob dispersed after this, but there was some further trouble in the evening in the south of Calcutta near the docks, and some scattered looting in parts of the city. A large number of arrests was made, the rioters being composed entirely of men of the lower classes, while those engaged in the looting were Hindus. Members of the Indian Defence Force

119
were used for patrol duty during the night of the ninth and on the tenth.
On Tuesday, September 10, in Calcutta itself there was a certain recrudescence of serious rioting in the morning, and some scattered looting by bad characters, both Hindu and Mahomedan, in which some police constables were attacked. Near the Nakhoda Mosque a patrol of three British privates was attacked by a large mob. One soldier fired in self-defence, and some troops in the street then fired also. A Military Court of Inquiry found that the men of the patrol were justified in firing, but that the other troops should have waited orders. Nine persons are said to have been wounded here. But the most serious danger that day arose when 10,000 mill hands from Garden Reach, just outside Calcutta, struck work, and a mob of 2,000 from the mills at the south of Calcutta beyond the docks attempted to march into the city to hold a meeting. These were stopped on the road by the police and a military detachment. They attacked the police and soldiers, and it was necessary to disperse them by firing. Fourteen of the rioters were killed at this place and about thirty wounded, of whom ten subsequently died. Further arrests were made also on this day, and the total number arrested in the course of the disturbances is reported to be about 400. If a large fanatical mob had succeeded in crossing the Maidan and entered the city, a most dangerous situation would have arisen.
On the 11th the city was quiet except for a few scattered cases of looting by bad characters, and an official report just received records for the whole three days the death of forty-three persons—thirty-six Mahomedans and seven Hindus—while it is thought probable that other dead Mahomedans were removed by their friends. About 400 wounded persons were treated at the various hospitals, but most of these were cases of slight hurt, the number detained in hospital being 174. On subsequent days there was no disturbance of any importance, and the celebration of the Bakr Id festival on the 17th of the month passed off without any unusual incident. This is the festival which a year ago had been the cause of the very serious riots in the neighbouring province of Bihar.
The trial of the persons arrested began on Tuesday the 10th, a special magistrate being appointed for the purpose. It is
120
clear that, although the original causes of the rioting were the feeling roused among Mahomedans to which I have already referred, and the action taken by the local leaders of that community to hold meetings of protest, yet when the disturbance began opportunity was taken by the lawless characters, Hindus as well as Mahomedans, of attacking shops—particularly cloth shops—and no doubt the high prices and scarcity of cloth contributed to the extent of the looting. The shops that were looted appear to have belonged principally to Marwaris, a class of traders from Western India, and some members of this class were also seriously assaulted by the rioters in some places, and one or two deaths among them are reported. There was no indication of sectarian feeling as between Hindu residents and Muslim residents of Bengal; but Bengali Hindus were among those injured by the rioters.
One other incident may be mentioned which occurred on September 10, in the morning. At one point the rioters made a barricade of municipal dustcarts and other vehicles and placed on the top of it a bamboo flying a red flag. There is nothing in the reports to indicate that any special importance was attached to the colour of the flag, and the other occurrences at the time in the vicinity were confined to the looting of shops. It will be realised that the Bengal Government were suddenly faced by a situation containing the elements of serious danger, and that Lord Ronaldshay and his colleagues showed marked qualities of tact in dealing with the excited condition of Mahomedan feeling; combined with resolute firmness towards the rioters; and I think that a tribute is due to the Governor and to his colleagues for the admirable manner in which what might have been a very serious incident was handled. The thanks of the Government have been expressed to the troops, to the Indian Defence Force, to the police, to the fire brigade, and to the ambulances, and well-deserved acknowledgments have been made of the conduct of General Strange and. his staff and of Mr. Clarke, the Commissioner of Police.
The tension of feeling was reflected among Mahomedans at Rangoon where meetings were called for the same dates as at Calcutta. These meetings were forbidden under the Defence of India rules by the Lieutenant-Governor, Sir Reginald Craddock, who received loyal

121
support from local Mahomedan leaders, and no disturbances took place.
I turn now to the second part of the first, section of the noble Lord's Question—the Madras riots. In Madras the disturbances were purely economic in origin, no sectarian element being reported. It may be true what the noble Lord has stated in his speech, that in all these cases of disturbance there, may be underneath political fermentation supplementing the ostensible reason. The disturbances began on the afternoon of September 8, and were confined to attacks on shops containing rice, groceries, and cloth. There does not appear to have been any serious disturbance of public order, though the looting was renewed on the 9th, and the police in places were assaulted. It was, however, found necessary to call out troops, and with their assistance the looting was completely stopped, none being reported after the 11th. A portion of a market was burnt but it is not certain what the cause of the fire was. One effect of the riots in Madras itself was a reduction in the price of rice. The trial of the arrested persons commenced on September 12.
There were also disturbances, and anticipated disturbances, in a few other parts of the Madras Presidency, but the only place in which serious trouble occurred was Conjeeveram, a place about forty miles south-west of Madras, where the police, and the Indian Defence Force detachment which was assisting them to guard the railway station against rioters intending to loot the goods there, were compelled to fire, and about a dozen rioters were injured.
I will now say a word in regard to the second paragraph of the noble Lord's Question—the Report of Sir Narayan Chandavarkar, who is a retired Judge of the Bombay High Court, and Mr. Justice Beechcroft, of the Calcutta High Court, on the persons placed under restraint in Bengal. This Report has now been presented to Parliament, and I need not say very much, therefore, in exposition of a Paper which will be at once in your Lordships' hands. It was inevitable that the restriction of personal liberty by purely executive order in hundreds of cases, under the Regulation of 1918 or the special temporary war enactments, should have excited suspicion that the authorities, armed with extraordinary powers, might have made numerous mistakes. Such
122
suspicions were not confined to persons capable of asserting—as did one influential Bengali newspaper that the whole story of the German-Indian conspiracy was a bad joke.
The Government of India announced last March in their Legislative Council that they would ask the Bengal Government to appoint a Committee of one Indian and one Englishman, with judicial experience, again to make careful enquiry into each individual case, to sift the materials on which each order for restraint was based, to consider any memorials put in on behalf of the détenus, and to enquire, so far as possible, in each case whether a détenu confined on reasonable grounds might safely be released. With regard, to the, last point I should make it clear that the Bengal Government and the Government of India have steadily borne in mind and acted upon any evidence of genuine repentance in the case of these young Men involved in seditious plots.
The Committee, which was appointed in June, necessarily held its sittings in camera. It investigated 806 cases. In six of these 806 cases the Committee advised that they had not found sufficient grounds for believing that the persons had acted, or were about to act, to the public danger, and these six persons were released. In 800 cases they found that the reasons for detention were sufficient. It is to be regretted that the six persons were confined on evidence that did not satisfy the Committee, but when the difficulties of the authorities are considered—the tortuous webs of intrigue that had to be unravelled, the nature of the evidence to be obtained when dealing with widespread conspiracy in time of war—I think it is not too much to claim that the Report furnishes a really remarkable vindication of the action of the Bengal Government in a time of serious peril, and disposes of the aspersions upon the good faith of the police.
How the Judges arrived at their conclusions is made clear in the text of the Report, but I may mention the very interesting pronouncement that really dangerous plotters came to realise their position, and honestly determined to make a clean breast of their misdeeds. Statements made received most striking corroboration—as to which there could be no possibility of collusion—in ways fully described in the Report. The Judges are

123
satisfied that the police had taken care to see that the confessions obtained were true, and had indeed been over-cautious sometimes. They make this very significant statement—
"Before the Defence of India Act was brought into force, the fair trial of a person accused of revolutionary crime had been rendered practically impossible by the murders of approvers, witnesses, police officers, and law abiding citizens, suspected by revolutionaries of … having assisted the police."
The Emergency Powers enabled the Bengal Government to overcome a most dangerous conspiracy, and effectually to protect the people of Bengal from a campaign of murderous outrage and robbery. The Special Branch of the Bengal Government that dealt with these matters has succeeded beyond all expectation, and the success of the very able officers at the head is largely due to the courage and ability displayed by Indian police officers and constables. The latter have paid a heavy toll of lives, and I do not think that full justice has been done by public opinion to the loyalty and devotion of these subordinate servants of the Crown, who have had to face not only the activities of assassins, but insidious and persistent attempt at social intimidation on the part of persons of their own race not openly identified with the forces of disorder.
In conclusion, I should like to impress on noble Lords three important points which merge from a consideration of the recent disturbances in India, and the political detentions examined in the Chandavarkar-Beechcroft Report, of which I have given an account this afternoon in reply to the noble Lord's question. The first is that in Bengal there is an undercurrent of lawlessness and hostility which, unless carefully watched and checked by all means in our power, is liable to break out and involve all classes of the population in anarchy and bloodshed. The second is that the Government of Bengal, faced with most difficult conditions, have shown and are showing foresight, promptitude, and firmness in dealing with the manifestations of disorder or disloyalty, while at the same time paying scrupulous attention to the opinions and feelings of the various sections of the community. The third is that it is abundantly clear that Government cannot be deprived of the special powers necessary to deal effectively with violence and disaffection.
124
I do not say that it will necessarily be desirable to retain unchanged the existing measures introduced under war conditions. Most careful consideration must obviously be given to the question of the precise form of the special powers with which Government should be equipped, and I have no desire to prejudge the decision; but it is imperative that the authorities should retain at their disposal means adequate to cope with a situation which presents unusual features, which the ordinary law is not framed to meet, and one that will ensure reasonable security and safety to the people entrusted to their care.
LORD SYDENHAM: I beg to thank the noble Lord for his very full and interesting speech. I think the facts which he has stated ought to be much more widely known than they are. They show clearly how easily grave danger may arise in the great cities of India; and the moral which I draw is that he thoroughly understands that a strong Government must be maintained in India, otherwise we are certain to have disaster.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I ask when we may expect to have the Rowlatt Report in our hands? I think the noble Lord promised it, on the last occasion, in about three weeks.
LORD ISLINGTON: I will make inquiries to-morrow. I had been in hopes that it would be circulated by now. It should come out any day, and I will inform the noble Marquess directly I hear.

THE CENSORSHIP.
LORD BURNHAM LORD BURNHAM rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether the censorship of the Press, of cablegrams, and postal correspondence is to be continued, and, if so, for what period of time and under what conditions.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Question that I have pot upon the Paper is one of a kind to which you are accustomed. It is a Question with a purpose and I am free to confess that my purpose is to obtain, at the earliest possible moment, the restoration of the primary rights of private citizenship, which have been abridged so largely and so necessarily during the war. I refer to the Censorship. As your Lordships know, the Censorship is of three

125
kinds There is the Censorship of printing and publication; there is the Censorship of inward and outward telegrams; and there is the Censorship of correspondence. Now the Censorship has never been a popular institution in this country. At the best it is a clumsy contrivance, and at the worst it is a hateful and disabling expedient, There is no right, I believe—I speak in the presence of many noble and learned Lords, and I therefore speak subject to correction—there is no right in the hands of the Government of exercising any censorship at all in regard to any of these spheres to which I have pointed. The last attempt in the 18th Century was, I think, repudiated by the Courts when they condemned the general warrants for search and seizure.
The present Censorship is exercised entirely by virtue of the Regulations made under the Defence of the Realm Act. The reason I have thought it necessary to draw attention to the matter now, with a view to their immediate relaxation, is that we are said to be very close to the Prorogation of Parliament, and I think it would be very unwise to go to a General Election under the present conditions of Censorship as regards all three of the matters of which I have spoken. Of course, in regard to publication, there are always the provisions of the general law which throw upon the publisher the responsibility of his action. It is laid down in the text book by Black-scene, that if he publishes what is improper, mischievous or illegal he must take the consequences of his own temerity.
I amalluding, of course, nor to any general liability to prosecution by the authorities, but to the special fetters which have been placed, during time of war and for military necessity, upon the printing and publishing of news. The organisation of the Censorship is a vast one. There are no less than 6,000 persons, men and women, employed at this moment in the censorship of, telegrams and correspondence. So far as the newspaper Press goes, the main part of the Censorship is exercised by means of the Press Bureau and a false idea has got about that any of the blunders that may have been committed, or inconveniences which may have been caused, are attributable to the Press Bureau.
As a matter of fact, the Press Bureau is a line of communication between the newspaper Press and the Departments of State, especially the War Office and the Admiralty
126
I think myself the country owes a great debt to Sir Frank Swettenham and Sir Edward Cook and the other officers of that Department for the manner in which they have tried to discharge their duties to the satisfaction of the Press and with a rare conscientiousness during the course of the war. If there has been dissatisfaction the real blame must rest elsewhere, and I fancy they have been made scapegoats for other Departments of State. At present, as a matter of fact, there is a general restriction on whole departments of news which cannot be justified I think, now that the Armistice has been set up.
Only yesterday, at a conference of the whole newspaper Press of the country at which I presided, a resolution was carried in these terms—
"This conference desires to represent to His Majesty's Government the urgent necessity in the national interest of the immediate suspension of the Censorship on all foreign and inland telegrams addressed to newspapers, and the cancellation of the various Regulations prohibiting the publication in the Press of shipping and weather reports and kindred matters, other than naval and military movements. The conference further desires to represent that the existing system causes long delays which are now unnecessary and calculated to entail serious loss and inconvenience."
It is quite obvious that at this moment it is an absurdity not to allow to be published in this country weather reports which are not merely satisfying to private curiosity but a very great benefit to the agricultural interest.
With regard to news as to shipping, whilst it may still be necessary to make reservations in respect of ships of war, it would be a great convenience to the business community and to the ordinary run of commerical affairs if that restriction also were taken off. These matters, of course, all fall under the Regulations made under the Defence of the Realm Act. At present nothing has been done to relax them. I quite admit that in reference to the movements of troops it may still be necessary to keep up the present system for a short time, and of course until the conclusion of peace. That, however, does not apply to commercial matters, and I think His Majesty's Government ought at once to consider whether in the work of reconstruction there ought not to be a general release from all hindrances which stand in the way of the resumption of our normal life. That is in regard to publication.
In regard to the telegrams coming in and going out, there also, I think, a good case can be shown for altering at once the system that now prevails. I was told by two of the editors of important papers that one had received a telegram in which only three words were left out of 500, and the other one in which only 200 remained out of 400 words. That has been done constantly during the war, and there may have been a reason for limiting the knowledge that even reached the editors of daily newspapers, but in that case the military necessity has passed away.
It is no good going back to what has been done in the past; the thing is now to meet the convenience of the present, and I cannot believe that it is necessary—in fact, I am sure it is not necessary—any longer to prevent news sent by special correspondents from various countries abroad from reaching their destination in the offices from which they have been accredited. May I say also that I think that applies very largely to commercial telegrams? It may be necessary in some cases to keep part of the present system working for a short time, but, as the one thing at which the Government aim is to release the industrial forces of the country so that they may work at their full efficiency, all these fetters and hindrances ought to go, and go quickly.
One always doubts how far, even in the past, the censorship of cablegrams has been wisely exercised. I heard Admiral Sims, speaking in public the other night—and I asked his permission to repeat his words here—say that the restriction on the outgoing telegrams to America had kept the United States in ignorance of what we were doing for a long period of time, and, in his opinion had actually prevented the formation of the sentiment that would have brought America earlier into the war. I am no judge of that and I do not in the least profess to dogmatise on the subject. I am only quoting what he said. In any case what I said in regard to incoming telegrams also applies, I think, to outgoing telegrams.
Now that the necessity has passed away, the fetters ought to be to a large extent removed. When you get to correspondence it is slightly different, but I think the same argument applies to a large extent. Every letter that I receive from a special correspondent abroad of the journal with which I am associated is opened now at the
128
General Post Office by some young lady who has the advantage of reading what is intended for our consumption. I have heard of cases in which the information obtained by means of the opening of correspondence has been extremely useful and it may possibly be that there is a necessity for doing it to some extent now, but one recollects that in the past the censorship of correspondence and the opening of letters have led to an unpleasant and irritated state of public feeling in several familiar episodes of history. Now that the war has virtually come to an end, although this power may be a great convenience to the Government, still I suggest that it should be exercised as little as possible, and that the staff dealing with these matters should at once be reduced to very small proportions. I cannot think that it is necessary to have the enormous number of men and women attending to it now that there may have been during the war.
Bureaucracy always likes to have powers which it, rightly I dare say, thinks it can use in the public interest. It is a very convenient thing for the Government to have power to do all this. But is it wise to continue it a moment after it is necessary, and having regard to the change, the enormous catastrophic, change, in the military situation? We certainly in this country do not want to sit on the safety valves. I am the last person to take a pessimistic view of the present trend of affairs, and I do not think any such view is justifiable, but I do say that the sooner we get back to the ancient habits of British freedom the better, and in this House those precedents have always been held in high esteem, and I am sure that in what I have mentioned shall have the general sympathy of your Lordships.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether all regulations interfering with freedom of speech and writing will be at once withdrawn.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have a Question so much on the lines of Lord Burnham's, that it will probably be convenient if I deal with it at the same time, and as part of the general discussion. The noble Lord has confined himself chiefly to matters connected with the Press and to correspondence. Your Lordships may,

129
perhaps, be a little surprised to hear that personally I have never myself resented any reading of one's private correspondence. I agree that in normal times it is an odious thing, which one would protest against. But probably we all feel that we do not mind how much our private correspondence is interfered with, provided any harm which may have occurred can be prevented. No honest man would mind an official, even if that official be represented by a young girl of eighteen, reading his private correspondence if anything is to be gained by it. The time for that has now gone, especially as applied to what the noble Lord emphasised—namely, Press telegrams. I think they might now be allowed to go without mutilation, because as a rule they are received by more or less responsible people, who would not be likely to publish anything that it was undesirable to publish.
But I want to carry it a good deal further than that, to something which I think matters more. Interference with your cablegrams and correspondence produces a certain amount of delay, and perhaps irritation, but it does not prevent the expression of opinions. I want to see at the earliest possible moment those regulations withdrawn which interfere with the free expression of opinion, either by speech or writing, in this country; and there is an eminent necessity for doing this in view of the fact that we are to be confronted, in the shortest possible period, by a General Election. A General Election cannot be conducted with even any pretence of fairness unless everybody can say what they think about political affairs. I have not that fear which the Government have had all through the war regarding the expression of opinion of an unpopular or a small minority. I think if anybody were to be found bold enough to say that he approved, say, the sinking of the "Lusitania," he might very well be left to the judgment of those who immediately surrounded him, and of the country at large. Or if any pacifists were to be found who were to maintain that they did not approve of the terms of the Armistice, and that they were afraid of the terms of peace; or if a man were found who said he though Germany had had very hard measure, and things of that kind—those people would be such a small minority that they could safely be left to the judgment of their countrymen.
I urge upon your Lordships and the Government that it is very much safer
130
that these things should be said than that they should be bottled up. If they are bottled up they are likely to lead to dissatisfaction. If you punish people for saying that sort of thing, you increase their importance; you are, as the noble Lord said, sitting upon the safety valve. I think in this country we are least of all likely to give way to that unrest in an extreme form, that anarchy, which we have seen fall upon the countries of Europe; but the best way of avoiding it is to give us our old liberty of speech. And as it has never in the past led to bloody revolution in this country, I do not think it is going to do so now. I saw that the noble Lord whose advent we welcomed to-day to this House, only yesterday or the day before said that a Committee of the Home Office was going to be set up to deal with these questions. But we want no Committee. These are matters of our ordinary liberties, which we so much value. We do not want to know what any Committee thinks about it, but rather what the people think about it.
Let me take the regulation which requires that no political pamphlet of any sort shall be printed until it has received the imprimatur of the Press Bureau. That is a regulation which ought to have been withdrawn last Monday; there is no excuse now for its continued existence. There is the regulation about making statements to the prejudice of discipline and recruiting. There is no recruiting now; and as to statements prejudicial to discipline, do noble Lords realise how that has been interpreted and applied by magistrates? It has been applied to utterances of the most innocent character. If you mean by statements prejudicial to discipline statements inciting to mutiny, let the Regulation as it stands be withdrawn at once, and let some regulation be made, if it is necessary, preventing soldiers inciting to Bolshevism. I do not think it is necessary, and I do not think such statements are likely to be made by any number of our countrymen, and if they are made they will not be listened to. We want to be free, at the earliest possible moment, to express opinions of all sorts, including unpopular ones, including such expressions as that the war is a war of capitalists. The best way to deal with them is to let them be said openly in the market place. Do not let us be afraid of these people.
There is another matter in connection with this Election. The Press Bureau, which exists for the dissemination of the

131
censorship on news, must be abolished at the earliest possible moment. We have seen an unholy alliance between Mr. Lloyd George and Mrs. Pankhurst, an alliance of a mysterious character which is still supposed to exist, and we cannot have an official bureau of Government views at an Election. We do not want anything corresponding to what is called a "made Election" in other countries. Let all the sources of propaganda with public money disappear at once before there is an Election, and the earlier the better. I put the Question standing in my name, and if I do not receive a satisfactory answer I shall have to raise it again.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, the censorship of the Press cannot with safety be abrogated until the conclusion of peace. As however, military operations are at a standstill, it has already been found possible to cancel a number of restrictions. I am rather surprised that the noble Lord did not seem to be aware of them. Your Lordships will find that the Press are now able to refer to the numbers of units and to the place where they have been seen.
LORD BURNHAM: Nothing is known by the Press at present.
EARL STANHOPE: I understand that has been issued, and that they will now be allowed to say such and such a battalion was seen at Lille and is having a good time, and so on. I believe orders are about to be issued by the authorities in France permitting officers and other ranks to write home and say where they are, and no doubt that example will be followed in other countries which have recently been theatres of war. The advisability of further relaxations is being carefully considered, but they are necessarily contingent on the fulfilment of the terms of the Armistice. I think your Lordships will realise the force of that when you consider what may or may not be known with regard to the German Fleet. There has, for a long time past, been no censorship of the Press on behalf of the Foreign Office, and as soon as the naval and military conditions of the Armistice have been fulfilled, it will no doubt be possible to abolish all such restrictions as were intended to prevent the leakage of naval and military information. As regards the naval censorship, it will be impossible to make any radical change so long as the
132
blockade continues. I do not think the, House or the country have the faintest idea as to what has been achieved by the censorship during this war. It has been customary to abuse the Censorship Department, and many jokes have been made at its expense, but I firmly believe, if the public realised the immense value of the work that has been done in that Department which, as the noble Lord quite truly says, is a very large one, ridicule would give place to unbounded admiration.
If I may for a few moments I will lift the veil which I think the Censorship Department has drawn very tight around itself. The ladies and gentlemen who are working there many hours a day, day after day and year after year, have to plod through innumerable letters, many of them by no means easily legible, and with such concentration that they can notice any phrase which is not exactly what it seems, but by a sous entendu may give information to the enemy, or information which, in the interests of the Allies, should not be known. It is quite true that the Navy has swept the seas clear of German ships, but if that alone had been done the blockade would not by any means have been as effective as it is. It is impossible to go into the question of what is contained on neutral ships. It is impossible to search them all at sea, but, when goods are transferred from one part of the world to another, at some time, by some method, either by letter or cable, information has to pass from one country to another stating from where those goods originated, and what is to be their final destination. Without the Censorship it would have been quite impossible to prevent trade between South America and Central Europe through Holland and Scandinavia. It is entirely by the Censorship that indirect trade with enemy countries has been so largely stopped.
During this war practically every case of contraband has been founded on evidence supplied to the Prize Court by the Censorship. I may tell your Lordships that the value of prize cargoes, exclusive of ships, is believed to be over thirty millions sterling. But for the Censorship traffic in contraband would certainly have increased by leaps and bounds. The Censorship has also been an essential instrument for enforcing restriction on financial and commercial dealings of a kind prejudicial to the Allied cause. All the more important cases of trading with the enemy have been founded on evidence chiefly collected by

133
the Censorship Department. It has prevented contracts being entered into with the enemy for the purchase of goods which have been stored in this or other countries for post-war delivery. It has assisted the prevention of investment abroad. The banks, by most loyal co-operation, have assisted the Government to a very great extent, but mistakes, of course, occasionally arose which sometimes the Censorship were able to correct. In any case the banks would have been unable to stop notes and cash being sent by post, because they would not have passed through the banks as would a cheque. The Censorship has prevented the dispatch of securities abroad for sale, and has assisted the supervision of imported securities, thereby eliminating the sale for enemy interest. It has stopped enemy remittances to the value of about seventy millions sterling. It has prevented the export of small goods through the post such as diamonds (obviously in many cases invaluable for machine tools). The black list of suspect firms has been drawn up largely as the outcome of information supplied by the Censorship Department.
Finally, in regard to the control of imports, it has supplied essential information with regard to dealings all over the world, thereby assisting various Government purchasing bodies. Your Lordships will realise, in regard to the many interests of war of which the Government is either sole agent or very often part agent, how valuable the information is which enables them to keep the market at a steady level, and to prevent speculation which would raise the price very considerably not only against this country but against private individuals in the country. The Censorship alone has prevented speculative purchases by option hunters which has been forbidden under section (30a) of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and only by the Censorship of letters and cables could that most necessary of the Defence of the Realm Regulations against profiteering have been carried out. The Censorship has been instrumental again in checking speculative operations in such products as wheat, oil, seeds and other commodities, and has assisted our own and other Governments in these matters. It has also assisted in the proper distribution of foodstuffs and essentials. It has enabled not only our own Government but even Allied Governments to distribute articles in which there
134
was a shortage to the best advantage, and has prevented goods being bought and sold in order to raise the price in certain countries for the benefit of those who had no objection to making money under such circumstances.
I think that it is quite true to claim that it has formed the chief, and in many cases the only, executive instrument for preventing speculative transactions in war materials, food supplies and raw material, in controlling prices, in estimating available supplies of the essential commodities, and in assisting the various purchasing bodies in framing their policy and carrying out their work. It will be obvious, and I think that your Lordships will agree, that during the period of transition from war to peace, so long as it remains necessary for the Government to exercise control over essential supplies, it may be imperative to retain some form of cable and postal censorship. I am sure that everyone in the Censorship Department itself will be only too glad to bring their labours to an end at the earliest possible moment, but it is impossible at the present time to give any definite date for the end of their work, or as to the occasion on which the whole of the Censorship Department can be closed down.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just spoken covered a part of the ground which was opened up by the few questions of my noble friend Lord Burnham and of my noble friend Lord Russell, and covered that section of it very completely; but he has not attempted in his reply to make a complete answer to the different contentions put forward by those two noble Lords.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I propose to give Lord Russell an answer.
LORD BURNHAM: I have not had an answer.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I understand that the noble Lord intends to touch on the other side of the subject, but so far as the question of the Censorship is concerned, of which the noble Earl gave so full a defence, it was a defence against an attack which, as a matter of fact, was not made. Neither my noble friend behind me nor my noble friend below the gangway made an attack on the Censorship as such. On the contrary, they both expressed the view that it has been not merely necessary

135
during the progress of the war but that its operations have been of great value. As it happens, I am able to confirm that with more knowledge than most people. For a considerable time I was Chairman of the War Trade Advisory Committee, which is a body comprising representatives of all the Service Departments and the Departments concerned with the blockade. We met frequently, and I am entirely able to support what was said by my noble friend opposite as to the services rendered in the different directions of national defence and of the carrying out of the blockade by the Censorship. In all these matters the Censorship, of cables and of letters and communications of all kinds, was, I believe, carried out with the utmost possible care and the greatest possible efficiency, and I am very glad that the noble Earl has been able to set on the records of your Lordships' House an account of the services which that Department has performed, and for which the thanks of the country are due.
Nor do I think it would be disputed that to a certain extent during the present continuance of the blockade and during the actual progress of the Armistice some restriction may be necessary. That, I think, will not be disputed by anybody. But I think we are entitled to ask that those restrictions should be on the lowest possible scale compatible with national security, and I do not think it can be disputed—this applies to the points raised by the noble Earl below the gangway, just as much as to those raised by Lord Burnham—that it is an official temptation to maintain restrictions of this kind in a larger degree and for a longer period than may in the general opinion be really necessary. When a man has had charge of a key to a door he is not very willing to give up that key to the public; it is only human nature, and it is certainly human nature as expressed in the conduct of Departments of all kinds.
Therefore I feel that both the noble Lords are entitled—and I desire to support them in doing so—to point out to His Majesty's Government that the tendency to maintain restrictions of this kind, all of which have a certain convenience in helping to carry on the work of Government (because, as we know, in all Departments we should be able to carry on our work more easily if we had more absolute power)—that this temptation to maintain restrictions does exist, and it is one against which His Majesty's Govern-
136
ment will have to guard themselves, and regarding which it may for some time to come be the public duty to put pressure upon them. I feel this strongly myself—and I believe it is a view that will be shared by most thoughtful people outside—that, while unwilling to press the Government to depart from anything that can be shown to be necessary, the burden of proving the necessity of maintaining restrictions of all kinds rests upon them.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, I will give a very short reply to my noble friend below the gangway (Earl Russell). I have been a political associate of his for many years, and I cannot say that I am in any way surprised that he has raised this subject. I did not know myself that the Home Secretary had answered this Question yesterday—I thought it was Mr. Bonar Law a day or two ago who said that the matter was under the consideration of His Majesty's Government. As my noble friend has said, the Secretary of State has appointed a Committee to go into the general subject. That Committee met to-day at five o'clock, and, I should think, very likely is sitting at present. The first subjects that they propose to deal with are the particular subjects mentioned in my noble friend's Question, and I think he may rest assured that there will be no delay in coming to a decision.
EARL RUSSELL: The answer is satisfactory as far as it goes—that is to say, I understand the noble Viscount to hold out some hope that I shall be satisfied by a Report in a few days. But we have so very few days of Parliamentary time now, and the matter is so urgent that I think it is only fair to give him notice that, unless some announcement has been made, I shall feel it my duty to put the Question down on Tuesday and raise the matter again, when I shall give the specific Regulations one by one to which I wish to draw attention.
LORD BURNHAM: Would the noble Viscount answer the specific questions which I put? I asked whether there would now be liberty to publish weather reports and shipping intelligence, so far as concerns all commercial shipping; and I asked, further, whether inward telegrams addressed to newspapers, instead of being cut to pieces by the cable censors, would be allowed to be delivered as they were received.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I hesitate to give an answer about the weather reports, but it is quite clear from what has been said by my noble friend Earl Stanhope and my noble friend beside me, that the Government are ready to give an undertaking that as soon as these restrictions and regulations can be relaxed they shall be so relaxed. Lord Burnham dilated upon the terrors of a bureaucracy. I am no advocate of bureaucracy. But I must say this, that there is this huge Department of press and letter censorship. In addition to that, there is the Press Bureau. Further, there is the cable censor, and, on the other hand, the editors and the staffs of the great newspapers. So far as I am concerned I think it is a triumph of good management on the part of the editors and their staffs on the one hand, and the Press Bureau on the other, that the ordinary newspaper readers—I, for instance, who read many newspapers every day—is quite unaware of the fact that any Censorship exists; and when we hear that there are cases of telegrams running to 500 words, of which only two are left en clair, and another of 200 words and only two words are permitted to pass through, the answer is that the newspaper editor was not employing a man who knew his business. As soon as the regulations can be relaxed they will be relaxed. The Home Secretary, as has been announced, has called a Conference to look into these matters. I would remind your Lordships that there has been throughout this war a tremendous desire to act in harmony with one's Allies, and one is anxious that all these things should be done with their knowledge and assent, so that these relaxations could be made as free and as widespread as possible, as well as at the earliest possible moment.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: My Lords, may I call attention to one instance of the kind of unrest which has been pervading the public mind about the Censorship? Is it necessary that there should be this veil of secrecy as to what is going on in Holland? Is there no communication between this country and Holland? Surely the whole of civilisation has a right to know where the ex-Emperor William II of Germany is, what he is doing, how he bore himself in the last moments of the exercise of the office he has laid down, and since; and where his son is. Surely that
138
is nothing to do with the movements of the Fleet, or the exercise of our rights under the blockade. Do no Dutch papers come here, or are they stopped the same as German newspapers were stopped? Why should we not have newspapers of all countries here? I dare say the noble Earl cannot give answers now to these questions.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: No, I cannot. The Armistice was signed only three days ago, and there has been a great deal to occupy the attention of people who have to settle these questions in the interim. I can only give my noble friend the assurance once more that there is every desire to relax these regulations as soon as possible.

CULTIVATION IN THE ROYAL PARKS.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, there was a misunderstanding yesterday as to a Motion made by my noble friend Lord Strachie for a Return on cultivation in the Royal Parks. Lord Strachie intended, and on behalf of the Office of Works agreed, that the Return should be granted; but there is some doubt whether the Motion was put. In these circumstances, for the purpose of carrying out the intentions of all parties, I ask your Lordships' permission to treat the Motion as though it had been put.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and the Return allowed accordingly.
[From Minutes of November 13]

BARON CLONBROCK.
Petition of Robert Edward Dillon, Baron Clonbrock, in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.

GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Llandrindod Wells Gas Order was withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past seven o'clock.