Sitting of 22 October 1918

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
Ninth Report of the Select Committee (Procedure of the House) brought up, and read. Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 121.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    CONSULAR SERVICE.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now state what steps have been taken for the improvement of the British Consular Service, and what increase of pay has so far been granted to Consular officers in the various countries concerned?
    Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND (Department of Overseas Trade): As compared with 1914, an additional sum of £74,000 a year is being spent on office and fee allowances alone. This has provided for increases of staff, better accommodation and equipment at a number of posts. About 120 additional salaried offices have been appointed mostly on a temporary basis, but some for permanent service. War bonuses have also been granted in view of the additional cost of living. A Committee is sitting, and is expected to report very shortly on the more permanent financial provision which will be required, and on the rates of pay to be given. Recommendations of this nature must still, however, be of a somewhat provisional nature.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is the number of whole-time Consuls increased, and is that a feature of the changes also?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I hope that will be so. The need will certainly be pressing. It will need the consent of the Treasury if they get it.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is the Committee sitting prepared to receive further recommendations for the Consular Service?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Certainly. If the hon. Member will send me any recommendations I will see they are considered.
    Colonel YATE: Is there any difficulty in getting money from the Treasury for these men?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That is a question for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    UNITED KINGDOM AND PERU (TREATY).
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a treaty for the establishment of a Peace Commission has been signed with Peru; what is the nature of the treaty; and whether the terms will be made available by publication to the House prior to ratification?
    The ASSISTANT-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): A treaty between the United Kingdom and Peru for the establishment of a permanent Commission to which disputes should be referred was signed at Lima on 16th July last, on the model of that concluded with the United States on 15th September, 1914. I will arrange for copies to be placed in the Library of the House for the convenience of Members who may desire to refer to the text.

  RUSSIA.

    Mr. LOCKHART'S RETURN.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Mr. Lockhart and his party have now arrived on these shores; whether he is prepared to make a statement about Mr. Lockhart's treatment; and how long was Mr. Lockhart kept in prison in Moscow?
    Lord R. CECIL: Mr. Lockhart has arrived in England, but I cannot make any statement until I receive his report, which is being prepared.
    Mr. KING: Will it be available, say, in a week's time?
    Lord R. CECIL: I do not know at all.

    ENEMY FINANCIAL LEVIES.
    Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what is the total amount of the sums which have been levied upon the various cities and towns in Belgium, France, and other countries which have been invaded and pillaged by the Germans; and whether the repayment of these sums with accrued interest will be included in the peace terms to be imposed on Germany and her allies?
    Lord R. CECIL: I am not able to give the figures asked for in the first part of the question. Full reparation is, as my hon. Friend knows, part of the war aims of the Allies.

    FINLAND.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any official information that, in consequence of recent developments in Finland under German dictation, the French Government has broken off diplomatic relations with that country; and if the question of adopting a similar course is under consideration by His Majesty's Government?
    Lord R. CECIL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. His Majesty's Government never formally recognised the present Finnish Government, and the second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

  CHINA.

    GERMANS IN SHAMEEN.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state on what date the new Trading with the Enemy Regulations in China which are now being prepared will be issued, and what period will have to elapse after that date before the Germans in the British concession of Shameen can be turned out; and whether, if these Regula-are not issued before the conclusion of hostilities, the leases of the buildings now occupied by the German consulate, bank, pest office, and trading firms in the British concession on the Shameen will not be terminated and the Germans will remain in possession?
    Lord R. CECIL: The new Regulation is being prepared in China, and I have telegraphed to ascertain when the draft will be ready.
    Colonel YATE: When the Noble Lord receives that will it be brought into force at once, or what is the delay in bringing it into effect?
    Lord R. CECIL: The delay, such as there is, is in preparing the draft.
    Colonel YATE: In China. Cannot the orders be issued here?
    Lord R. CECIL: No; the draft must be prepared in China.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    YOUTHS UNDER NINETEEN.
    Mr. PERCY ALFRED HARRISasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any youths under nineteen have been sent overseas by the military authorities since the 8th August; and whether arrangements have been made to withdraw from the front-line trenches lads under nineteen who were already overseas by that date?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): As I stated in Debate on the 7th August last, it was decided that from the end of August no soldier under nineteen years of age should be sent overseas, and this rule is still in force. The question of the withdrawal of those already in the firing line is for the decision of the Commander-in-Chief. Representations have already been made to him, but, in view of the military situation, he was unable to agree to their withdrawal. The matter is, however, still under his consideration, and I am sure that as soon as such a step is practicable the Field-Marshal will give instructions for these young soldiers to be withdrawn from the firing line.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is it not a fact that the French military authorities keep lads under nineteen in training depots, and do not send them to the front? And will the Under-Secretary make strong representations as to the strong feeling in this House against keeping lads under nineteen in the firing line? Many of them in the meantime are being killed.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I have said we have made representations to the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, who is the best judge of the needs of the forces. I can assure the House again that it is with the greatest possible regret that these-young lads have been sent to the front.
    Mr. HOGGE: Why is it necessary to have lads of eighteen and a half in the firing line when, as the Prime Minister Assured us, 300,000 reserves were in this country when these lads were put in?
    Colonel LOWTHER: Do not the lads under nineteen show great gallantry in the line as well as in the air, and would it not be an unpardonable injury to them if they were withdrawn?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: All I can say is that their conduct at the front has been simply magnificent.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is it not the opinion of the medical authorities that lads under nineteen are not fit to stand the physical strain of modern trench warfare?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No, Sir; that is not their opinion.
    Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Private Thomas Atkinson, No. L/16706, Lincolnshire Yeomanry; whether this lad will not be eighteen until June next year; whether he joined the Army voluntarily in December, 1917, when he was only sixteen; whether he is an orphan and was brought up by his elder brother, who is now an invalid and in want; and whether, in spite of the fact that the lad has now had ten months' training and cannot be sent abroad on account of his age, the Army authorities refuse to allow him to return to civil life to help to support the brother who brought him up?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: This case has been carefully considered, but I regret that Private Atkinson cannot be released from the Army.

    RESERVE OF OFFICERS (PROMOTION).
    Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he can now state what decision has been arrived at by the Army Council regarding the promotion of officers of the General Reserve above the rank of major who have hitherto been refused promotion in spite of the provisions of the Royal Warrant and of the Army Council instructions under which they are eligible for it?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: It has been decided to grant promotion to the rank of lieutenant-colonel in certain cases to majors of the Reserve of Officers, and instructions on the subject are about to be issued.
    Colonel YATE: What provision is being made for the rank of colonel?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I have not considered that, but I will.
    Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider it?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Certainly.
    Colonel YATE: I will put down another question.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether Thomas Phillips, now in Northallerton Prison as a conscientious objector, has offered to do work of national importance; and whether, in view of his having nearly completed his second sentence, he will now be given work under the Home Office scheme?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Blackburn on the 4th July.
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether he has any information about E. G. Maguire, a conscientious objector, now being forcibly fed in Hull Prison; whether food is being administered by the same persons and in the same way as in the case of E. W. Burns, who died from forcible feeding in Hull Prison; and whether the release on temporary discharge of E. G. Maguire is being considered?
    Mr. BRACE: This prisoner is now taking food again voluntarily, and his state of health is satisfactory. In view of the reference in this question to the death of Mr. W. E. Burns, I feel bound to remind the hon. Member that the jury who inquired into the circumstances attending his death came unanimously to the conclusion that no blame whatever attached to the medical officer or any other prison official, and a subsequent investigation made by medical men of high standing confirmed this conclusion.

    FAZAKERLEY HOSPITAL, LIVERPOOL.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any part of the Fazakerley Hospital,

    573
    Liverpool, which could be used for tuberculosis patients has recently been used for the accommodation of typists or for storage purposes; if so, whether it is being still so used; and, if so, what steps will be taken to enable the space to be used for the accommodation of some of the tuberculosis cases which are awaiting treatment?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am making inquiries, and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    SEPARATION ALLOWANCE REGULATIONS.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will define the word "separation" as used in Article 55 of the Separation Allowance Regulations; whether, if a man was living away from home looking for work, with the full knowledge of and in perfect agreement with his wife, he is deemed to be separated from her; and whether she is, in consequence, ineligible for separation allowance?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): A husband and wife are not deemed to be separated in the circumstances mentioned in the second part of the question. The term "separation" in the paragraph referred to has its technical significance, and means matrimonial separation of a permanent character, though not necessarily by legal order.
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the fact that 15d. weekly is added to the pension of widows above the age of forty-five, he will consider the addition of a like sum to the separation allowances of soldiers' wives above forty-five?
    Mr. FORSTER: The question of the allowance for the soldier's wife was carefully considered by the War Cabinet, and the result was announced last week. I am afraid I cannot add anything to that announcement.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this point was
    574
    considered? Is he aware that the difference in the two instances put by my hon. and gallant Friend is 2s. 6d. a week?
    Mr. FORSTER: The question of the elder wife was considered.
    Sir F. HALL: Are their requirements more or less than the others?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why one should have it and not the other?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am not aware that we make any distinction in this matter between the elder and the younger wife.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a widow of forty-five gets 15s. a week, whereas a wife of forty-five gets 12s. 6d.?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes; but my hon. Friend must not forget that the wife has a husband who is able to contribute to her support.

    CIVIL LIABILITIES COMMITTEE.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the Civil Liabilities Committee is reducing its grants in aid of pre-war or pre-enlistment obligations upon the ground of the increased income of the soldier in respect of whom his grant was made, although the increased income is solely due to the increased pay recently conceded and his Government payment of required allotments; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Walsh): I have been asked to answer this question. It is not the practice of the Civil Liabilities Committee to reduce any grants they have made either on account of the general increase of soldiers' pay or on account of the Government having decided to pay the soldiers' allotment. If the hon. Member can send my right hon. Friend particulars of any case in which it is alleged that this has been done, he will be very glad to look into it.
    Sir F. HALL: Is there not considerable difficulty in getting any compensation or any allowances from the Civil Liabilities Committee, and will the hon. Gentleman undertake that his Department will facilitate rather than impede the matters that are brought before its notice of a pressing nature?
    Mr. WALSH: Of course the particular type of claim that is submitted has nothing to do with the question here. This asks whether the Committee has reduced the grant in aid of pre-war or pre-enlistment obligations upon the ground of the increased income of the soldier. We say no such case has come to our notice, and if any such case is brought to our notice it shall have prompt attention. I have not the slightest doubt, if my hon. Friend will submit cases such as he speaks of, they will receive attention.
    Sir F. HALL: I have already done so.

    SOLDIERS' CHILDREN.
    Mr. T. WILSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether it is still the practice to stop the allowance in respect of a soldier's child when it reaches the age of fourteen years, even although the child may be continuing to attend school; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of amending this Regulation which, in its operation, tends to discourage continued education?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir; separation allowance is issued for children up to the age of sixteen years. A lower flat rate is issued when they have reached the age of fourteen, but local war pensions committees are empowered to issue supplementary allowances for those children over fourteen who are whole-time pupils or students at an elementary or other school.
    Mr. HOGGE: Why does my right hon. Friend refuse to give from the pay office this amount which he transfers to the local war pensions committee? Why cannot the pay office go on paying this?
    Mr. FORSTER: In all cases?
    Mr. HOGGE: Yes.
    Mr. FORSTER: Because so many children of fourteen and fifteen—very properly, I think—engage in work.

    CLASS W RESERVE.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he has come to a decision with regard to the claim of J. R. Fawcett, late private No. 1426, Northumberland Fusiliers, to compensation for having been improperly placed in Class W Reserve when he was unable to work regularly owing to disease caused by Army service; and whether
    576
    this matter was brought to his notice on 4th June, 1918, and has been waiting his decision ever since?
    Mr. FORSTER: I regret the delay in this case, which has entailed correspondence with the Ministry of Pensions. I have given instructions for the necessary inquiries to be expedited, and I hope to be in a position to communicate again with my hon. Friend shortly.

    MERCANTILE MARINE (KING'S VOLUNTARY FUND).
    Mr. STEWARTasked the Pensions Minister whether the new King's Voluntary Fund will be made available for necessitous cases of officers and men of the Mercantile Marine; and, if not, will he state the reasons why the Mercantile Marine Service should be debarred from any benefits accruing under this particular scheme?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen): As I stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Devizes on 17th October, the question of making the King's Voluntary Fund available for necessitous cases of officers and men of the Mercantile Marine has been referred to the trustees for their decision.

    "PRE-WAR DEPENDENCE."
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Pensions Minister how, in the case of a dependant other than a wife, dependency is assessed for the purpose of pension; and whether the estimate of dependency represented by the allotment and allowance paid while the soldier is serving is accepted as the extent of dependency if the soldier in respect of whom it is issued is killed?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: "Pre-war dependence" is assessed for the purpose of pension in the manner laid down in Article 24 (7) of the Royal Warrant of the 17th April, 1918. Under this Article the estimate of dependency for the purpose of separation allowance is not necessarily accepted for pension, inasmuch as increase of benefits due to circumstances arising out of the War are excluded from the assessment for pension purposes. It has, however, been agreed with the Select Committee on Public Expenditure that where the original assessment does not exceed 7s. 6d. a week that assessment may be accepted for pension as a general rule. In other cases some

    577
    inquiry may be necessary as to possible increase of benefits due to the War, but it is found in practice that in the majority of cases the original assessment can be accepted.
    Mr. WATT: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the assessments of his Department are based upon the pre-war value of money?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: No; I have just said in answer to the question that they are not.
    Mr. HOGGE: But they are!

    WAR BONUS.
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the pensions granted for long and faithful service in the Army and Navy prior to the War have not been revised to meet the increased cost of living, although other pensions, grants, and allowances have been increased on this account, he will consider the addition of a war bonus to such pensions in cases where the pensioners are in need?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave yesterday to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Southport.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Does not the cost of living in the case of men who served prior to this War bear equally hard on them?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, it certainly does, and I am sure that we should all like to increase the amount payable to those men if we possibly could; but I think my hon. Friend must see that if you are to begin in this way it is difficult to say where it will end.
    Colonel YATE: The old pensioners of the Crimea and the Indian Mutiny are comparatively few, and cannot some further consideration be shown to them?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: We desire to do all that can be done fairly, and this has been shown already in the fact that we have assimilated the pensions before the War and other matters of that kind to those in this War.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Pensions Minister what the war bonus on existing pensions scales is to be?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The matter is still under consideration, but I hope soon to be able to make a further announcement.
    Mr. HOGGE: I will repeat the question on Tuesday next.

    ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE.
    Mr. PETOasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it has been decided by the Treasury to extend to the Royal Naval Reserve forces the provision of Reserve pay on resuming civilian life now applicable to temporarily commissioned officers in the military forces of the Crown?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: This question is under consideration.
    Mr. PETO: When considering it, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that it is likely to be quite as difficult for officers in the Royal Naval Reserve to resume their civilian occupations as it will be for temporarily commissioned officers in the military forces of the Crown?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, that point will be borne in mind. My answer was that the subject was being carefully considered by the Government.

    EARNING CAPACITY (REGULATION AMENDED).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Pensions Minister whether he has received any resolutions protesting against the Regulation under which the earning capacity of a man who enlisted before January, 1916, should be based upon what he would have received then; and whether, in view of the fact that by the periodical increases in wages since then the dependants of men who have enlisted since that date are placed in a, much better position, he will consider an amendment of the Regulation in question?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The Regulation to which my hon. Friend refers has now been amended by substituting January, 1918, for January, 1916.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Will this substitution of 1918 for 1916 also be extended to Grants made by the Civil Liabilities Commission?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am afraid that I do not answer for the Civil

    579
    Liabilities Commission. The question should be addressed to the Local Government Board.
    Mr. HOGGE: May I ask if this amendment applies to all Grants?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: No; this applies to the Regulation about which the question was asked.

    PENSIONS GRANTED.
    Mr. ACLAND ALLENasked the Pensions Minister what pension, if any, has been awarded to the mother of the late Second-Lieutenant William Blair, 8th Seaforth Highlanders?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: A pension of £35 a year has been granted in this case.
    Mr. ALLENasked the Pensions Minister if the pension of £35 a year granted to the mother of the late Second-Lieutenant Charles Campbell, 13th Battalion King's Royal Rifles, is her sole income, and whether, seeing that she is a widow and is unable to follow any employment, he will consider the possibility of granting her a larger pension?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I have looked into the case to which the hon. Member calls my attention, and agree that the circumstances justify a larger pension. The pension will be increased to £50 a year with effect from the original date of award.
    Mr. BRUNNERasked the Pensions Minister whether there is payable to Mrs. Burke, of 16, Deakins Road, Wharton, Winsford, Cheshire, wife of Lance-Corporal E. W. Burke, No. 4061, date 17th Lancers, now 7th Royal Welsh Fusiliers, a pension of £6 17s. per annum; whether the Pensions Issue Office refuse to pay this pension unless proof is forthcoming that her husband is alive; whether Lance-Corporal Burke is a prisoner in Germany; and whether the Pensions Issue Office propose to deprive Mrs. Burke of the money until the end of the War?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: E. W. Burke, late of the 16th Lancers, was admitted to a service pension of 1s. 6d. a day (£6 17s. uniform quarterly payment) on 7th August, 1902. This was paid by the regimental paymaster, Canterbury. The
    580
    pension was paid to Mrs. Burke from 1st October, 1916, apparently up to the quarter in which Burke was taken prisoner. No further payment can be made in the absence of evidence of the pensioner's life, as required by the Appropriation Act. A life certificate, either on the form prescribed by the Treasurer or in manuscript, attested by any British commissioned officer, or by a British clergyman, would be accepted, and it is stated by the War Office that there should be no difficulty now in obtaining attestation by a British commissioned officer in Germany. Mrs. Burke has been informed of the procedure necessary.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is it Mrs. Burke's duty or is it the duty of the War Office to obtain that certificate?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: It is difficult for me to answer that question, because this is a War Office pension administered according to certain rules laid down by the Treasury, and we are only concerned because the pension is issued by the Pensions Issue Office. I am quite prepared to mike any representations to the authorities concerned.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Meanwhile, is this woman to get nothing?
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: Is this poor woman in the meantime to be regarded neither as a wife nor a widow, and receive neither pension non separation allowance? Can that state or things be allowed to stand?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I said that it was a hard case, and I am making representations in the proper quarter.

  TERRITORIAL FORCE.

    ROYAL ARTILLERY (PROMOTIONS).
    Sir GEORGE GREENWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether all the vacancies that have occurred prior to 1st September, 1918, in the ranks of officers holding permanent commissions as lieutenant-colonel or major in the Royal Horse Artillery and Royal Field Artillery of the Territorial Force have been filled by substantive promotions; and, if not, what is the reason for the delay in filling them?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: All the vacancies that occurred prior to the 1st September

    581
    last have not been filled owing to several of the senior officers being at present temporarily medically unfit, and it is considered that it would be inequitable definitely to supersede them.

  ARMY PAY AND ALLOWANCES.

    OFFICERS (ACTING RANK).
    Sir G. GREENWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that officers holding acting rank only, whatever their length of service in that rank, if sick or wounded have their pay at once reduced to that attaching to their permanent rank, and that, if they are killed in action, their widows are only entitled to pension on the same basis; and whether there is any limit of time on the completion of which service in acting rank at the front is allowed to count as permanent rank for purposes of pay and pension?
    Mr. FORSTER: Acting rank applies only so long as the officer carries on the duties of the officer whose place he takes. Consequently in all cases where the officer ceases, from any cause, to carry out those duties he ceases also to draw the pay attaching to those duties. If he is killed in action while holding the acting rank, his widow is entitled to pension on the acting rank basis.

  PRISONERS WAR.

    EMPLOYMENT IN MINES.
    Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that British prisoners of war have been employed at extremely arduous labour, not only in salt mines, but also in coal mines, in Germany, steps have now been taken for the employment of German prisoners of war in salt and coal mines in this country; and, if not, what steps it is proposed to take?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): German prisoners have not hitherto been employed in coal or salt mines, as, apart from the difficulties of language which would prevent them from understanding the regulations, British miners are unwilling to work with them. If a way can be found of overcoming the difficulties it will certainly be taken.
    Colonel YATE: But the Germans have got over the difficulty by putting British prisoners into their mines. Surely there can be no obstacle to employing Germans in English mines?
    Mr. HOPE: Perhaps they are willing to take greater risks in this matter, and also, apparently, the German miners are not unwilling or unable to enforce their unwillingness to work by the side of British prisoners.
    Colonel C. LOWTHER: Is there a system of reprisals against German brutalities to prisoners?
    Mr. HOPE: That does not arise out of this question.

    ACTING NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS IN HOLLAND (PAY).
    Mr. T. WILSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that a number of men who were acting non-commissioned officers when they were taken prisoners at Mons, and who are now interned in Holland after enduring over three years in German prison camps, have recently been informed that they revert to private rank with the consequent loss of the extra pay covering a period of nearly four years; and whether this decision can be reconsidered?
    Mr. FORSTER: Up to the 24th May last a prisoner of war holding acting rank at the date of capture relinquished both his acting rank and the pay thereof. Under the existing instructions a prisoner of war retains his acting rank, but ceases to draw the pay from the date of capture. I am not aware of the recent cases of reversion to private's rank referred to by my hon. Friend but, if he will furnish particulars of any of the men affected, I shall be happy to make inquiries. Many applications have been received regarding non-commissioned officers who were given acting rank early in the War and in a number of cases their acting rank has been substantiated.

    UNFIT SOLDIER (POST OFFICE RIFLES).
    Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Private G. H. Parsons, No. 372,502, Post Office Rifles, who, after being severely wounded in the left arm at Bullecourt in

    583
    May, 1917, was a patient in the Dublin and Brighton hospitals till the 12th March, 1918; whether he is aware that, on discharge from hospital, he was classified B 2, afterwards transferred to the Royal Army Medical Corps and then to a labour unit, and found in each case unfit for service; that he was sent by the regimental medical officer to the discharge centre, Aldershot, with a recommendation that he be discharged; that, notwithstanding this record, he was declared fit for service overseas and sent home on draft leave; that, although attention had been drawn to the case by the hon. Member for Merioneth, the soldier was sent overseas; that, on landing in France, he was examined by a medical officer who referred the case to a medical board; and that such board found Parsons to be unfit, ordered him to hospital at Boulogne, and, after two days, sent him back to England; whether he is aware that he is now at the 2nd Western General Hospital, Manchester; and what action it is proposed to take to inquire into the conduct of the officers who were responsible for sending this soldier abroad and their fitness for the duties of their office?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My inquiries into this case are not yet complete, but I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as I am in a position to do so.

    MOTOR TRANSPORT REPAIR WORKS, CIPPENHAM.
    Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what is the amount already expended on the works at Cippenham, and the total amount of the prospective expenditure intended; whether the recommendations of the House of Commons Committee on Public Expenditure are being carried out; whether the works are being designed with a view only to the repair of motor transport vehicles during the war; and whether, with regard to the work involved on demobilisation, the utilisation of other munition factories and sites has been considered with a view to providing room for such repair and reconstruction of motor vehicles as it is necessary for the Government to undertake direct without, the assistance of the motor manufacturing trade?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The payments to date for labour and material for the works at Cippenham amount to £343,717, and
    584
    the total estimated expenditure is £1,750,000. The recommendations of the Select Committee are being attended to. With regard to the third and fourth parts of the question, it is intended to use the works during the War, during demobilisation, and after the War. The possibility of utilising munitions works as suggested by my hon. Friend has been fully considered.
    Mr. PETO: Am I to understand, when he says that the utilisation of this munition works has been fully considered, that it has been decided that there are no munition works that could possibly be rendered available for doing these repairs to transport vehicles after the War when they are no longer required for the manufacture of munitions?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, I intended to say that. The particular question has been most carefully considered. What we really want is a large central depot, which has been recommended, as a matter of Fact, by the National Expenditure Committee.
    Mr. PETO: Does the right hon. Gentleman tell us it is inevitable that we should spend 1¾ millions of money on this depot mainly for work that will be required after the War?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Not at all. It will be required during the War, during demobilisation, and after the War.
    Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the construction of the Slough mechanical transport depôt is being kept within the limits recommended by the Sub-committee of the Select Committee of the House on Financial Expenditure, having regard to the Sub-committee's expressed opinion that the scheme was not justified on grounds of post-war conditions only, and also having regard to the fact that the position in France earlier in the year, which endangered repair depots there, has now materially altered; whether an offer has been received from motor manufacturers to repair large numbers of vehicles at a cost involving a capital expenditure of one-quarter of the sum of £1,000,000 proposed to be spent at Slough, and that the interests of the motor manufacturing industry, as a large employer of labour, are likely to be seriously jeopardised if the scheme is proceeded with on the lines originally projected; and whether in view of the fact that the

    585
    expenditure cannot become effective for twelve months, he will consider the advisability of referring the whole project for a fresh review to an independent and expert body?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The caution recommended by the Select Committee is being observed. As regards the remainder of my hon. Friend's question, an offer has been received by the Ministry of Reconstruction from motor firms to undertake repairs, provided the firms are indemnified for new buildings and plant. This scheme was carefully considered but was rejected by the War Office as not being satisfactory. It is not considered that the interests of the motor industry will be seriously jeopardised by the works at Cippenham. In reply to the last part of the question, I would point out that the whole matter has already received the fullest consideration by experts, and I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by resubmitting it to a fresh body.
    Mr. PETO: Are the experts referred to War Office experts, or was it submitted to any civilian experts?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, both civilian and War Office.

    NATIONAL RESERVE BOUNTY.
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that the National Reserve bounty was originally refused to men who volunteered to rejoin the Army if they were above the age of fifty; and whether, in view of the fact that the Army age limit has recently been raised to fifty-one, he will extend the issue of the National Reserve bounty so as to include all men who rejoined within the limits of the latter age?
    Mr. FORSTER: The National Reserve bounty is issued only to men who undertook an obligation before 11th August, 1914, and subsequently fulfilled it by enlisting. All those who fulfilled the obligation by enlisting as required have received the bounty, irrespective of age, on enlistment. It is obviously impossible to modify now the conditions under which an obligation could be undertaken in 1914.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Then I understand that any man who has fulfilled this obligation to join up to fifty-one gets the money?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes; as far as I know, everyone who has undertaken the obligation, irrespective of age, gets the bounty.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    BREAD RATION (CAMPS).
    Mr. HARRISasked what is the bread ration now supplied to members of His Majesty's Forces in camp in the United Kingdom and Ireland; and whether it has recently been reduced?
    Mr. FORSTER: The bread ration for the troops in the United Kingdom is 14 ozs. daily, and has not recently been reduced. At present an issue of 10½ ozs. of biscuits is substituted for the bread once a week.
    Mr. HARRIS: Am I to understand the bread ration in England is different from that overseas? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the intensive training of soldiers in camps in this country is as great as that overseas?
    Mr. FORSTER: So far as I am aware, there have been no complaints with regard to the insufficiency of bread. The men were very carefully examined quite a long time ago, and, while I think it is true that the bread ration abroad is higher than the bread ration at home, there is nothing to show that the bread ration at home is insufficient.
    Mr. HARRISasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will have inquiry made into the supply of bread at Hazeley Down Camp, Winchester; and whether complaints have been received as to the substitution of a biscuit ration for the bread ration on various occasions?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have made inquiry, and am informed that the supply of bread at Hazeley Down Camp is good, and that no complaints have been received as to the substitution on occasions of a biscuit ration.

    TILLAGE AND ARABLE LAND.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state the total acreage of what is known as tillage land in England, Scotland, Wales,

    587
    and Ireland, giving each country separately; and if he will give the number of acres of the total acreage under tillage in each of these countries this year?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Prothero): If the first part of the question refers to acreage capable of being tilled, the Department have no complete particulars. In reply to the second part of the question, the area of arable land this year in England is 11,463,679 acres, in Wales 934,961 acres, and in Scotland 3,452,156 acres. I am informed by the authorities for Ireland that the area of ploughed land this year in that country is 3,240,710.
    Mr. GEORGE LAMBERTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state the intentions of the Board with regard to the acreage of tillage to be required of agriculturists during the coming corn seeding season?
    Mr. PROTHERO: The Board desire that, as far as labour is available, the acreage of tillage should be increased, in order to obtain an additional output of corn, including beans and peas, at the harvest of 1919. They look for every effort on the part of the farmers with this essential object in view.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Can farmers look to every effort on the part of the Government to supply them with labour?
    Mr. PROTHERO: Labour, as the right hon. Gentleman very well knows, is the guiding factor in the increase of tillage. Every effort will be made to retain the labour that we now have and, if possible, to increase it.
    Colonel WEIGALL: Is any effort being made by the Board of Agriculture to obtain the release of key men who are now in the Army for the purpose named in the question?
    Mr. PROTHERO: Most certainly. We have tried to get back key men, but the present is a most unlikely time for the release of men serving at the front.
    Mr. ROCH: Are we to understand that men now employed in agriculture will be retained?
    Mr. PROTHERO: I cannot give a definite answer to that. Every promise that we have made is subject to military exigencies.

    WHEAT AND OATS.
    Mr. HARRISasked the President of the Board of Agriculture what is the present price paid for wheat and oats in good condition and suitable for human consumption; and what are the prices farmers are allowed to charge for damaged grain for feeding cattle and poultry?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Major Astor): I have been asked to reply. The maximum price, for sales in October, of home-grown wheat is 75s. 6d. per quarter of 504 lbs.; and of home-grown oats is 48s. per quarter of 336 lbs. The maximum price of home-grown wheat, rye, and barley so damaged as to be unfit for use in the manufacture of human food is 7s. a quarter less than that of the sound article. Similarly, the maximum price of oats which are improperly cleaned or contain an undue admixture of soil is 5s. a quarter less than that of sound oats.
    Mr. GULLAND: Does that cover damage by weather?
    Major ASTOR: Yes.

    MILITARY DAMAGE TO ALLOTMENTS (CREGAGH, BELFAST).
    Colonel SHARMAN-CRAWFORDasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is now prepared to make any statement concerning compensation to be paid to allotment holders at Cregagh, near Belfast, for damage done to their holdings on the 30th September, 1917, by cattle in the possession of the military authorities; and whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of the Recorder of Belfast that it was a proper claim for compensation, and one which would undoubtedly have been paid if civilians had been the defendants?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The allotment holders have asserted a legal right which the Department cannot admit, but if the legal claim is withdrawn the Department is willing to consider the case on its merits for compensation as an act of grace. Instructions have been sent to the local military authorities accordingly.
    Colonel SHARMAN-CRAWFORD: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot answer that yet, because obviously it is still under consideration.

    DISABLED OFFICERS (TREATMENT EXPENSES).
    Mr. KENNEDY JONESasked the Pensions Minister whether an officer under Article 6, Clause (b), of the Royal Warrant is entitled to actual necessary medical and other expenses incidental to treatment in respect of the disability for which he was retired; whether such other expenses include maintenance expenses during the period of treatment; and, if not, whether he will take steps to include such expenses?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: An officer under Article 6, Clause (b) of the Royal Warrant of 1st August, 1917, receives on application such reimbursement or payment as my medical advisers consider reasonable and justified in respect of actual necessary medical and other expenses incidental to treatment. When it is considered that the normal cost of maintenance is increased through causes arising out of the treatment (e.g., necessity for special diet, or residence in special climates, or at a spa), a grant is made towards the maintenance expenses in addition to the award of retired pay.
    Mr. JONES: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman please tell me why this Department has refused to bear any of the cost of maintenance expenses in severe shell shock cases where a period of prolonged rest and feeding is, as a matter of fact, treatment necessitated by the disability from which the man is suffering?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: It depends upon what the extra cost is due to; but if my hon. Friend will bring the case under my notice I will have the matter investigated.
    Mr. JONES: I have brought the case under the notice of the Department of the hon and gallant Gentleman. Is he aware that the Pensions Minister wrote a letter the other day in which he said, "This man appears to expect the Ministry of Pensions to pay for, or contribute to, the expenses of his maintenance during illness; that we cannot do"?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Yes; but, as I have already explained, we do not pay ordinary maintenance charges; what
    590
    we do is to pay for treatment and any extra cost of maintenance due to treatment. Whilst an officer or man is undergoing treatment his retired pay or pension is put up to the highest rate—that is to say, the rate of total disability. Out of that he is expected to pay ordinary maintenance charges.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say how the Pensions Ministry can consider the treatment not to include the ordinary maintenance of the men in getting well? Can the Parliamentary Secretary say how an officer is to get well on the treatment expenses if the Pensions Ministry do not maintain him, bearing in mind the fact that he is unable to earn anything during that period?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I have already explained to my hon. Friend that the retired pay is put up to the total disability rate.
    Mr. HOGGE: What is that?

  ALIENS.

    AFTER-WAR, MEASURES.
    Sir ARTHUR FELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he has sufficient powers to enable him, after the conclusion of peace, to prevent the landing in this country of Germans and other enemy aliens who propose to return to this country and renew their business occupations for their own benefit, or if further legislation will be necessary to prevent this contemplated invasion; (2) what steps he proposes to take after the conclusion of peace with regard to the Germans interned in this country; and if they are to be repatriated as soon as ships are available or are they to be released and allowed to resume their former avocations in this country?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to the hon. Member for the Hornsey Division yesterday.
    Sir A. FELL: As I understand the reply of yesterday it does not answer the question I have put. Therefore, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman proposes to obtain further powers this Session to enable him to carry out these things?
    Sir G. CAVE: I am not sure about this Session, but I certainly propose to ask for further powers.

    CHANGE OF NAME.
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether Russians in this country are allowed to change their names; if so, whether such changes must be registered at the Home Office and with the police; whether he is aware that a Russian politician and financier, previously named Zavoiko, has recently been naturalised as British, and is known as Colonel Kour-batoff; and what action he proposes to take?
    Sir G. CAVE: Russians fall within No. 14H of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, under which no person, not being a natural-born British subject, may change his name in this country unless exempted by the Secretary of State from the provisions of the Regulation. No such person as is mentioned in the question has been naturalised in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. KING: If he is going about with two names, I suppose he is breaking the Defence of the Realm Regulations, is he not?
    Sir G. CAVE: Yes, Sir. A person, not a natural-born British subject, who does that would be breaking the Regulations.

    METROPOLITAN POLICE.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Home Secretary whether he can make any statement as to the causes and settlement of the strike by the Metropolitan Police; and will he state on what basis the proposed Committee has been established, and if the Committee has yet been constituted and held any meetings?
    Mr. WILESasked the Home Secretary if he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to the delay in granting the increased remuneration to the Metropolitan Police, which delay resulted in the late strike and the resignation of the Chief Commissioner?
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether he can now make a statement about the recent Metropolitan Police strike; whether any Home Office officials
    592
    tendered their resignations in consequence of the strike; if so, who are those officials; and what resignations have resulted?
    Sir G. CAVE: I hope to have an opportunity of making a statement on this subject on the Supplementary Estimate of Police Expenditure on Thursday.

    DEMOBILISATION,
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Prime Minister, whether he can now give an assurance that the claim of ex-officers and men who are holding temporary positions as Civil servants in the various Government Departments will be considered before those of other temporary Civil servants upon demobilisation?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is the policy of His Majesty's Government to give the preference asked for in my hon. and gallant Friend's question.
    Colonel ASHLEY: How many of the Departments have agreed to that?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is the policy of the Government, and applies to all Departments as far as this Government is concerned.
    Mr. HOGGE: How many of these men have got posts?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I must have notice of that question.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Prime Minister whether any and, if so, what steps are being taken to ensure that when demobilisation of the forces commences it is carried out on a co-ordinated plan, subscribed to by all Departments concerned; and whether employers and labour organisations are to be taken into consultation in drawing up this plan and putting it into operation?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Plans have been drawn up by the Army Demobilisation Committee, in conjunction with all the Departments concerned, and are kept up to date by the Inter-Departmental Coordination Committee, The general plans for demobilisation have also been revised by the Labour Resettlement Committee, which meets under the presidency of the Minister of Labour, and is representative of employers and employés as well as of the Government Departments concerned.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: The reply of the right hon. Gentleman does not suggest any definite plan of co-ordination for demobilisation. If that be so, will he arrange for some definite scheme?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I wonder what my hon. Friend thinks the Committee is there for? Does he expect me, in answer to a question, to give all the details that are being arranged?

  IMPERIAL WAR CABINET.

    DOMINION REPRESENTATIVES.
    Mr. MARRIOTTasked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to give the House any further information in reference to the announcement issued on 18th August that each Dominion is to have the right to nominate a visiting or resident Minister in London to be a member of the Imperial War Cabinet; whether any nominations have yet been received; and when the meetings of the Imperial War Cabinet as thus reconstituted will be held?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No resident Ministers have yet been formally nominated by the Dominion Governments to act as regular members of the Imperial War Cabinet. Sir R. Borden has, however, provisionally arranged for the attendance of a Canadian representative at any meetings of the Imperial War Cabinet that may take place, and General Smuts is available as a representative of South Africa. In the case of Australia, the Prime Minister is still in this country, and able to attend meetings of the Imperial War Cabinet in person. Several meetings of the Imperial War Cabinet have been held since the conclusion of the last plenary session.
    Mr. KING: Has any date been fixed for the departure of Mr. Hughes?

    BRITISH CELLULOSE COMPANY.
    Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister when the Report with regard to the British Cellulose Company will be presented to Parliament; and whether directors and officials of the company are serving the Government in any capacity?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Committee anticipate a complicated and prolonged enquiry, and I am not in a position to
    594
    state when their Report will be completed. As far as I have been able to ascertain, the answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Will counsel be allowed to appear on behalf of the interested parties?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not asked about counsel; that must be a matter to be regulated by the preceding circumstances.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Will witnesses be allowed to appear and to give evidence?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As I have already said the form of procedure will largely depend upon the discretion of the Chairman of the Committee, and the other members.

    TUNNEL TO IRELAND.
    Mr. STEWARTasked the Prime Minister whether he can see his way to direct the Minister of Reconstruction to inquire into the possibility of constructing a tunnel to Ireland; and whether, in the event of a favourable decision being arrived at, German prisoners could be availed of to dig the approaches, in view of the constant German attacks against shipping in the Irish Sea?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: A Select Committee, of the House of Commons has been appointed to consider the internal facilities for transport within the United Kingdom, and the inquiry suggested is covered by the terms of reference of this Committee.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Will the proceedings of that Committee be made public?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is a Select Committee of the House of Commons.

    DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (TUBERCULOSIS).
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Pensions Minister how many discharged men there are in Liverpool who are suffering from tuberculosis caused or aggravated by military service and unable to secure proper treatment owing to lack of sanatorium accommodation; and what steps will be taken to provide sufficient accommodation?
    Mr. WALSH: I have been asked to reply to this question. I am informed

    595
    that the number, which varies from day to day, is approximately 140. As to the provision of further accommodation, my right hon. Friend has been taking all practicable steps to expedite the completion of the Fazakerley Sanatorium, and has reason to hope that it will be ready for the reception of patients within the next two or three months.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is it a fact that the Local Government Board has taken over from the Pensions Ministry the treatment of tuberculosed soldiers?
    Mr. WALSH: I think I shall require notice of that question. I do not know.
    Mr. HOGGE: The Parliamentary Secretary is sitting next to you; he can tell you.

    LEASEHOLDERS (RELIEF BILL).
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Prime Minister whether, as the Law Officers have advised that legislation would be necessary to give relief in the cases of hardship of leaseholders who have had notice to carry out the conditions of their leases under the present shortage of labour and material caused by the War, the Government have further considered the matter; and is it their intention to introduce a Bill to deal with the evil?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The subject is under consideration, and a Bill is in course of being drafted, but it has not yet been considered by the Cabinet, so that I am not in a position at present to make a definite statement about it.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: When does the right hon. Gentleman think he will be able to answer this question; and is it not a fact that he has received a large amount of correspondence pointing out the difficulties?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I know there is a very general wish, but I have not had my attention specially called to the views expressed.
    Mr. BRADY: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the question of including Ireland within the scope of this Bill, as he undertook to do before we adjourned?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is being considered.

    PEACE TERMS.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the assurances that have been given on behalf of the Allied Governments that any peace terms which may be conceded to the Central Powers will provide for complete freedom and independence for the Yugo-Slavs, the Czecho-Slovaks, and the Poles, and a satisfactory readjustment of boundaries, representatives of their peoples, so far as they are at present under German and Austrian rule, will be given a definite voice in any settlement that may be come to affecting their interests?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the affirmative in so far as His Majesty's Government are concerned.

  WOOLWICH ARSENAL.

    COMMANDER COLOMB'S CHARGES.
    Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Prime Minister (1) whether his attention has been called to the charges of Commander Colomb, R.N., with reference to the protection of young men employed in responsible positions at Woolwich Arsenal and the favouritism alleged towards certain relatives of officials; and whether, having regard to the fact that there is a direct conflict of evidence between the Ministry of Munitions and Commander Colomb, he will cause an independent inquiry to be set up, as requested by the Shoreditch Tribunal; (2) asked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether his attention has been called to the dismissal of Commander Colomb, R.N., from the supply branch of the Air Board; and whether such dismissal was due to the fact that Commander Colomb had reported to the Shoreditch Tribunal certain matters in connection with the comb-out of Woolwich Arsenal?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): Commander Colomb was employed at Woolwich Arsenal from 23rd January, 1917, to 20th March, 1918, and commenced work in the supply department of the Air group of the Ministry of Munitions on the day after he left the Arsenal. His services in the Air Department were terminated because, without permission of the Ministry, he communi-

    597
    cated to an outside body a criticism of the administration of another branch of the organisation in which he was working. He thereby committed a serious breach of discipline.
    The substance of Commander Colomb's complaint was that certain men in the Department of Woolwich Arsenal, in which he was formerly employed, were protected from Military Service because they were related to persons in authority. Careful investigation of these statements showed that they were unfounded.
    Commander Colomb further suggested that in engaging new hands, due consideration was not given to the claims of discharged soldiers. This statement also is unfounded. In May and June of this year, which were typical months, 522 men were engaged, of whom 343 were discharged soldiers—a very high proportion, considering that much of the work cannot be done by disabled men.
    In view of the careful investigation already made my right hon. Friend does not consider that any further inquiry is called for. If my hon. and gallant Friend desires, I shall be glad to send him a detailed reply on each of the points raised by Commander Colomb.
    General CROFT: Has the hon. Member's attention been called to Commander Colomb's further reply in which he states the actual names of these assistant foremen; is it not a fact that a large majority of them are of military age; and that five of them are related to foremen and others in high positions; and has he any answer to make to this last charge?
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is the inquiry of the kind asked for, namely, an independent inquiry and not one by officials?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: With regard to any second statement by Commander Colomb I have not had my personal attention drawn to it, and I cannot deal with it now. We had the names of all the foremen before us, and we found that the allegations, as far as they were concerned, were unfounded. The inquiry was a Departmental one, and not a public inquiry.
    Colonel ASHLEY: It is not only the foremen who are concerned, but is a question of those foremen having given to their friends and relations all sorts of jobs.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I was asked with regard to the foremen and my answer was in reference to them.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Will the hon. Gentleman consent to a further inquiry by some impartial person?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: If new facts are elicited I shall be glad to have them inquired into, but it would be an impossible situation if in every case of a difference of opinion between a Minister and an official we have to hold an independent inquiry.
    Mr. TERRELL: This is not a question of a difference of opinion between an ordinary individual and the Ministry but one in a high position in the Department, and the inquiry which has been held is simply a departmental and not an impartial inquiry?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The fact that an official holds a high position does not justify him in having any more consideration than if he held a humbler position.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not chiefly due to the consideration of the many heads of Departments that these exemptions have been made, and are they to be judges in their own case?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: These instances are controlled by the Schedule of Exemptions.
    General CROFT: Is the House to understand that this officer was dismissed from the Royal Air Force because he gave these facts to the Shoreditch Tribunal concerning a Department he had already left?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I have already answered to that effect.
    General CROFT: Is this officer to have no impartial inquiry whatever of an impartial character?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member had better put down a further question.
    General CROFT: I will put this question down again at an early date.

    MOST-FAVOURED-NATION CLAUSE.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked whether the Government has yet denounced any commercial treaties containing a Most-Favoured-Nation Clause?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: What is actually being done in this respect will be made clear in the general statement which is to be made on economic policy.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: When is that statement to be made?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I said that I hoped to be able to give a date, if a further question was put to me on Thursday.
    General CROFT: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that no other question is discussed before the prisoners' question, because this is a very important matter?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think it would be rather unreasonable to do that. I am quite willing to arrange for a discussion.
    Colonel LOWTHER: Could the right hon. Gentleman not make a statement to-morrow?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put a question to me on Thursday, and then I can give a definite answer.
    Colonel LOWTHER: Meanwhile, is it not a fact that the prisoners are suffering?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes; but I am not qute sure that the speeches of my hon. and gallant Friend and others will alleviate those sufferings.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the necessity for an increase in the old age pension; if he will take steps to secure an increase for the old age pensioners; if he is aware that many applicants for the old age pension are disqualified because they have a few pence over 12s. a week; if he will take steps to remove, this disqualification; and if he is aware that mothers of soldiers receiving 12s. 6d. allowance from their sons are deprived of old age pensions?
    The JOINT FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this. I am not satisfied that it is necessary to increase the additonal allowances already made to old age pensioners. Nor am I prepared to introduce legislation to increase the limit of means prescribed by the Old Age Pensions Acts.
    Mr. BYRNE: Does it not satisfy the right hon. Gentleman as to the necessity for this increase that the Pensions Minister has increased separation allowances on the ground that the cost of living has gone up considerably.

    INCOME TAX.
    Mr. T. WILSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware, that the officials charged with the collection of Income Tax are, in certain districts, refusing to allow as an exemption from the tax additional cost of living incurred by having to live away from home and the cost of having to travel to and from the place of employment to any workmen other than those engaged on war work; if he is aware that owing to the shortage of houses many workmen engaged on work other than war work are compelled either to travel long distances to their work or live away from their home; and whether he will give instructions that these men shall be allowed to claim the same exemption as workmen engaged on war work?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The allowance in respect of the additional cost of living away from home or the cost of travelling to and from the place of employment is given in cases in which, owing to exceptional conditions, mainly arising out of the War, weekly wage earners chargeable by quarterly assessment are employed at considerable distances from their homes. The allowance is not restricted to those engaged specifically on war work. If the hon. Member will let me have particulars of the cases which he has in mind, I will have the matter investigated.
    Mr. WILSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give instructons to the surveyor of taxes?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Very definite instructions have been given. That is why I asked my hon. Friend to give me particulars.

    DISABLED MEN (RE-EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Pensions Minister whether the Committee to which schemes for finding employment for disabled men was referred has come to any decision on the subject;

    601
    if so, what that decision is; and, if not, what steps he purposes to take to promote an early settlement of this problem?
    Similar questions stood upon the Order Paper in the names of Mr. WING and Major BOWDEN.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Bridgeman): My right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions has asked me to reply on his behalf. The hon. Members refer, I presume, to certain proposals for the re-employment of disabled men which were submitted to a Sub-committee of the Labour Resettlement Committee. That Sub-committee has not yet at present arrived at definite conclusions in regard to them. The whole matter is now receiving the close personal consideration of my right hon. Friends the Minister of Pensions and the Minister of Labour.
    Mr. WING: May we take it that a decision will be given at a very early date?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I hope so.
    Major BOWDENasked the Pensions Minister whether he proposes steps to compel employers, by an Act of Parliament, to find employment for disabled men if they are found unwilling to do so on a voluntary system?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The question of the method to be adopted to secure the re-employment of disabled men is now under the consideration of my right hon. Friend and the Minister of Labour. In the meantime, I may say at once that I am not at present aware of any practicable proposal for compelling employers to find employment for disabled men, as suggested by the hon. Member.
    Major BOWDEN: I am glad to hear that, but I would like to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman if he has given consideration, and, if not, whether his Department will give serious consideration, to a simple voluntary system or scheme, such as is embodied in what is known as the Rothband scheme, which has the support of a large number of Members of this House?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: We are always prepared to consider any good scheme that is put before us.
    Major BOWDEN: This scheme has been before the Ministry for twelve months—have you considered it?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Yes; I believe that we have considered it.
    Major BOWDEN: What was the result of that consideration?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I must ask for notice of that question.

    MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (PERMANENT SECRETARY).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Pensions Minister whether Sir Matthew Nathan is still Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Pensions?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Sir Matthew Nathan still holds the post of Permanent Secretary, though, at the request of the War Cabinet, he has been seconded for service upon the Committee on Women in Industry.
    Mr. HOGGE: Who has taken his place?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: His place is being taken temporarily by Mr. J. A. Flynn.

    MERCANTILE MARINE (LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. STEWARTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether anything has been done to meet the difficulties of Mercantile Marine officers who are out of employment owing to the loss of their ships owing to enemy action; and whether the Government can favourably consider a grant of unemployed pay while these men are waiting for employment in new ships, in view of the financial difficulties placed upon them through no fault of their own?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): The Shipping Controller has had this subject under continuous attention. With regard to officers, it has not been thought necessary to take special steps, in view of the fact that the demand is equal to the supply, and, indeed, steps are being taken to provide against a prospective shortage of junior officers. With regard to masters, we have obtained lists of those unemployed through enemy action

    603
    from the officers' associations, and, in addition, have taken careful note of masters whose ships have been sunk. A list of these names is furnished to the managers of standard ships, with a special request that they should be favourably considered for employment. As a result, certain engagements have been made, and we hope that in the course of a little while the list of these masters, which is not a very big one, will be substantially reduced.

    SHANGHAI (SHIPBUILDING).
    Mr. STEWARTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether the facilities for building merchant ships in Shanghai have been fully availed of for the construction of British ships; what tonnage is at present under construction for England and the United States, respectively; and whether permits have been granted for the export of shipbuilding materials for neutral vessels under construction at Shanghai, in view of the necessity for all possible materials being availed of for the replacement of British tonnage?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: Yes, Sir; so far as steel can be spared from this country. Contracts have been made with the Shanghai Dock and Engineering Company for three standard steamers of 5,000 tons deadweight each, for which the material is already on its way from this country. It is understood that the American Government have made a contract with the Kiang Nan Dock and Engineering Works, Shanghai, for the construction of four cargo vessels of 10,000 tons each, with the option of eight additional steamers of the same tonnage, but the Shipping Controller is not aware whether any of these vessels have yet been laid down. Licences for the export of shipbuilding materials have been granted for certain neutral vessels, time-chartered to the Allies, with a view to clearing the berths for steamers to be built for the account of His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. STEWART: Can the hon. Gentleman say why, seeing that the Government have used the ship-building facilities at Hong Kong for some time, no effort seems to have been made to use the shipbuilding facilities at Shanghai for the last two years or more?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: The determining factor is the supply of material as I have explained in my answer to the question.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on Wednesday last I addressed a much fuller question than this to the Prime Minister, and that it was postponed at the request of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House? In that question I asked for exhaustive investigation to be made into the circumstances which had prevented Great Britain from acquiring ships which are so badly wanted, and I further pressed the Leader of the House to appoint some tribunal to investigate these things and the action of Messrs. Vickers' representative in Shanghai?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: I am afraid I must ask for notice.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Will these vessels being built in China be British or American vessels?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: I have explained in my answer that some are being built on account of the British Government, and the American Government has also placed orders for other vessels.

  RABIES (DEVON AND CORNWALL)

    STATEMENT BY MR. PROTHERO.
    Sir WILLIAM BULLasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that a British officer flew over from France with a lady's dog which, it is alleged, spread rabies in Devon; and, if so, what punishment will be meted out to this officer for evading the law?
    Mr. PROTHERO: The Board have no knowledge of the circumstances to which my hon. Friend refers, and if he will send me his information I will have it investigated. In January and February, 1917, the Board called attention to this possible source of risk, and both the Admiralty and the Royal Flying Corps gave every assistance by warning officers of the serious breach of regulations involved.
    I may, perhaps, take this opportunity of explaining the gravity of the present position. In all 40 cases of Babies have been confirmed since 7th September, 35 in Devon and 5 in Cornwall—of these no fewer than 29 occurred in the county

    605
    borough of Plymouth. But these figures do not by any means represent all the facts of the case. I am satisfied that Babies has been in existance in these counties for several months, probably since the end of May, and the latest outbreak discovered is in the Wadebridge District of Cornwall some 30 miles distant from Plymouth. Here the rabied dog was owned by an hotel-keeper, and inquiries have shown that another of her dogs has died of rabies three weeks ago, whilst other very suspicious deaths of dogs are now known to have occurred in the immediate neighbourhood during the month of September. Visitors with dogs had been staying at this hotel, and as many as seven dogs which are known to have been in daily contact with the hotel-keeper's dogs during this summer have been taken to places outside Devon and Cornwall. These have now all been traced and are isolated.
    It will be seen that grave risk of the spread of this disease to other parts of the country has thus been incurred, and I desire to make a strong appeal to all persons who have visited Devon or Cornwall with dogs during the last five months that they should place their dogs with Veterinary Surgeons at once and inform my Department of the fact. I regret to say that the appeal for this information issued to the Press on the 11th inst. has only met with one response. Human life is at stake in this matter. At least 21 persons are known to have been bitten by these rabid dogs, 9 being children, and any person who fails to assist by giving information required will incur a very grave responsibility, should the disease spread to other districts. I would like also to appeal to the manufacturers of wire muzzles to come to my aid by greatly and rapidly increasing their output. The deficiencies of supply hinder the measures necessary for stamping out this disease.
    Sir W. BULL: Has not a barrister of standing communicated the name of the officer and the date upon which the occurrence took place and the name of the dog?
    Mr. PROTHERO: Not to my knowledge. It has not been communicated to me or in such a way that it would reach me.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: How did this outbreak of rabies in Devon and Cornwall first occur?
    Mr. PROTHERO: That is just the difficulty. I cannot explain it. I may have suspicions, but I should not like to say on suspicion what I believe the case to be. It is mainly centred in the county borough of Plymouth.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Has any death resulted from any of these bites from rabid dogs?
    Mr. PROTHERO: Not at present.

  MESSRS. JOHN HOLT AND COMPANY.

    REQUISITIONING OF SHIPS.
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether the Shipping Controller is aware of the requisitioning by the Admiralty of the steamers belonging to or chartered by the firm of Messrs. John Holt and Company of Liverpool, West African merchants and shipowners, whereby injury has been inflicted upon this firm; whether he is aware that this firm complained to the Shipping Controller in August last of the treatment they had received and the undue consideration shown to rival firms and competitors, and that their West African business was practically ruined; whether he is aware that the ss. "Thomas Holt" was requisitioned by the Admiralty in 1915 and is still under requisition; that the ss. "Johnathan Holt" was lost, and the ss. "Ussa," bought by this firm 20th June, 1916, at a high price, was requisitioned by the Admiralty on the following day and subsequently sunk off Cherbourg on 3rd May, 1917, whereby loss was inflicted upon Messrs. John Holt and Company; that the ss. "Aquarius," under time charter to Messrs. John Holt and Company, was requisitioned under the Liner Requisition Scheme when it came into force, but that Messrs. John Holt and Company were allowed to run this steamer in their West African trade until 1st June, 1918, when she was taken away from them by the Ministry and handed over to another firm; that the ss. "Balmore" also came under the Liner Requisition Scheme, but in May last was taken away from Messrs. John Holt and Company and diverted into another trade; and, in view of the injury done to Messrs. John Holt and Company, whether he will consider the position of this firm with a view to more considerate

    607
    treatment, so that they may not be driven out of their trade to the benefit of their rivals and competitors?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: The statements made in this question as to the requisitioning of vessels belonging to or chartered by Messrs. John Holt and Company are substantially correct, except as regards the ss. "Aquarius." In this case the vessel was transferred in June, 1918, from liner service in the West African trade for employment on full Government service, and was not handed over to another firm to operate. As regards the "Balmore," this steamer was diverted from the West African trade in May, 1918, in consequence of representations made by the Admiralty that the vessel could not maintain the sea speed necessary to meet convoy requirements in the West African trade. It is recognised that the trading position of Messrs. John Holt and Company has been prejudiced, in common with many other interests, owing to the removal of their vessels from their ordinary services, but the action taken by the Shipping Controller has been unavoidable. I think I ought to add that there has not been in any respect unfair discrimination against the firm.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that more recent comers into the African trade than Messrs. John Holt have received much more favourable treatment?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: No. The Shipping Controller has had the advantage of an interview with Mr. Holt this morning, at which I was present, and it is certainly not the case that Mr. John Holt as a shipowner has been discriminated against in any way unfairly. I think he himself recognises it.
    Mr. HOUSTON: I also have seen Mr. Holt. Did he not inform the hon. Gentleman and the Shipping Controller that his shipowning business had been practically ruined by the withdrawal of all these hips, though it had not affected his merchant business?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: Mr. John Holt, like other shipowners, has suffered by the loss of his ships in this War. As the hon. Member knows, the Shipping Controller is incapable of unfair discrimination in matters of this kind. He has made Mr. Holt a promise, which will be faithfully observed at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. HOUSTON: But the fact remains that other people have received more favourable treatment.
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: No; as I have said twice, it is not the case that this firm has been unfairy discriminated against.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Hodge): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  May I be permitted to say that I am not unmindful of the indulgence which the House has shown to the Pensions Ministry in the very arduous task they have had to perform. In the work of restoration it is essential that we should have the very best possible machinery for accomplishing what we are all so anxious to do. Local war pensions committees vary in ability. Some are exceedingly good, some not of much good, and others exceedingly bad. This is easily understood when one comes to realise that the Ministry of Pensions have really no power and very little control over local war pensions committees, the reason being that while we at the Pensions Ministry are responsible for two-thirds of the expenses of administration, the other third comes out of the rates. Originally, it was believed that a great dead of the money for administration would come out of voluntary funds, but that was a condition of things which did not appeal to the House or to the country, and when the Bill was passing through this House an alteration was made such as I have indicated. As there is a contribution from the rates, the estimate for the various local war pensions committees, instead of coming to the Ministry of Pensions for approval or otherwise, are sent to the Local Government Board.
  When the local war pensions committees were being set up it was thought that town clerks, parish clerks and clerks of urban district councils and other officials of that kind, because of their administrative experience, would be the best men to be appointed as local war pensions secretaries. That, I think, was a great mistake, as all these officials have more than sufficient work to do without adding the task of secretary of local war pensions committees. Our desire is that the Ministry of Pensions should take responsibility for the whole of the expenses of administration, and consequently that the control should lie within the hands of that Ministry. That, I think, will enable
  624
  us to insist that as far as local war pensions committees are concerned we may have, wherever essential, in the larger cities and towns and urban areas, full-time men as secretaries, who will be experts, as far as the administration of pensions is concerned. This would have the advantage that when we find an inefficient secretary the Ministry would be enabled to call for his resignation. At any rate, the Ministry would have that measure of control which is essential for the proper administration of pensions in every local war pensions committee. Some of my friends seems to think that this Bill is inclined to bureaucracy. I can assure them that that is the furthest object from my mind. I realise, as an old municipal councillor, the advantage to local administration of local men taking a hand in matters of this kind, and I do not believe that a bureaucratic system would appeal to the country in the slightest degree.
  May I give one or two examples where, if I may say so, there has been maladministration in connection with pensions. I do not wish to worry the House with illustrations, but on one local sub-committee there is a gentleman, his wife, his brother-in-law- and the local bank manager. The office for administration happens to be one of their houses. If it be convenient, the soldier or the soldier's wife is interviewed in this person's house; if it be inconvenient, the interview takes place in the street. That is a condition of things which cannot be maintained, and yet the Ministry of Pensions have no power to make an alteration. All that we can do is to request that the authority which appointed this particular sub-committee should make a change. In other parts of the country we find that the regulations are not observed, but we have really no power to compel observation. In one rural area a man who was an agricultural labourer lost a leg as a result of his war service. We all know that previous to the War the wages of agricultural labourers in some parts of the country were very low indeed. This man was entitled to be trained under the Ministry of Pensions, and while undergoing training was entitled to an allowance of 27s. 6d. a week, but the chairman of the committee paid him only 20s. As a result of one of our inspectors paying a visit he discovered this man, and pointed out to the chairman of the committee that he was absolutely robbing the man of 7s. 6d. a

  625
  week, which the Stale intended that the man should get. The reply was "Yes, but this man was only having 16s. a week before he became a soldier." The inspector pointed out that that had nothing in the wide world to do with it, that the State had said the man was entitled to 27s. 6d., and that his duty was to see that what the State provided the man should receive.
  4.0 P.M.
  These are some of the reasons why we desire a change. We find that a good many people who have taken and are anxious to take a big interest in the question of local war pensions administration do not secure seats on the committees. In future, when the Ministry are going to find the whole of the expenses, we think it is only fair that where there are conditions which are not so good as we think they ought to be, we ought to have the power to nominate men or women or discharged soldiers, who will see that the administration has improved and that justice is done as far as that be possible. In the latter part of last Session this House in its wisdom decided that it should be compulsory upon all local war pensions committees and sub-committees to have two or more disabled men added to those committees. Unfortunately the great bulk of the committees looked upon that particular phrase "two or more" as intended to mean "two." But I do not think that that was what this House desired. I believe its intention was that where the war committees were small bodies two would probably be amply sufficient to represent the interests of disabled men, but where the committees were large, as in the case in our big cities and towns, there ought to be a full representation of disabled men on those committees proportionate to the size of the committee. This Bill will give us an opportunity of insisting that disabled men shall be given a greater representation than is at present extended to them. After all is said and done, in view of what they have sacrificed, they are entitled to full representation as far as their interests are concerned.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is that the interpretation of the Department?
  Mr. HODGE: May I add that while some hon. Members may think the powers for which we are asking are too drastic, I do not believe it will be found that any single provision of the Bill is not already
  626
  embodied in some Statute which this House has passed, and we are asking for no greater powers than those possessed, for instance, by the Local Government Board. I will just run through the principal provisions of the Bill. First, it is provided that the State shall bear the whole of the administration expenses instead of only two-thirds as hitherto, the remaining third having fallen upon the local authorities. Then it is our desire to improve the constitution of the local war pensions committees. Another feature of the Bill deals with the cases where urban areas asked for separate local war pensions committees of their own and have been refused. In those larger areas we think that where the authority takes charge of municipal government it is quite as capable of taking charge of the full administration of pensions, whether in respect of treatment or training. Therefore we take the opportunity to extend that power to these larger areas. At the present moment one of our great difficulties is to get many of the disabled men—particularly the deaf—to accept treatment. We hold it is in the man's own interest as well as in the national interest that a man should be compelled to accept treatment. In the Royal Warrant we have power to punish a man to the extent of withholding half his pension. Personally, I do not like to take away any man's pension for any reason whatever, because of the punishment which, if he be a married man, is inflicted on his wife and children. We are hopeful, if we have the power asked for under this Bill that that in itself will be sufficient to induce men to accept treatment. It would be in the interests of the men themselves if we could put them into a treatment reserve and a training reserve where it is essential for them to accept treatment or training. It is true that some disabled men at the moment can find work easily because of the scarcity of labour, but when demobilisation comes then will arise the difficulty of finding light employment as far as these men are concerned. In this there may be some solution of that particular problem.
  Another feature of the Bill is the provision we are making for the children of soldiers—the children of men serving in the Army or the children of those who have made the supreme sacrifice. I am sure I shall carry the House and the country with me when I say that the care of the children of those who have

  627
  fallen in this War must be a national obligation, and we must see to it that they do not suffer because of the sacrifice made by their fathers. We therefore propose to make provision for dealing with the children, who may be motherless, or worse, of a serving soldier and also to look after the orphan children of those who have made the supreme sacrifice. At the present moment, unfortunately, when a soldier comes back disabled and receives his pension, if he be a single man, and if he has an aged mother who has been in receipt of a Poor Law allowance, the guardians not infrequently seek to take away from the old woman that allowance because, of the pension granted to the son. We say that that is not right, and we ask the House to agree that the pension, as far as that is concerned, shall be immune and that no pension shall be taken into account by boards of guardians.
  Mr. HOGGE: What about the wife and child?
  Mr. HODGE: These are the main features of the Bill. As far as I am personally concerned, the desire is that we should be able to organise as perfectly as possible the pension system. Members of the House may think that the Bill can be improved.
  Mr. HOGGE: Hear, hear!
  Mr. HODGE: In the past, when I have had the privilege of piloting Bills through this House, I do not think I have ever been found unreasonable. In this case, if the House in its wisdom can suggest any improvement of the Bill, no one will be better pleased than myself, and we shall be perfectly prepared to consider every Amendment upon its merits. I hope this brief outline of the measure will satisfy the House as to what are our intentions and that the Bill will be given a Second Reading on the assurance that as far as we are concerned we shall be prepared sympathetically to consider every Amendment put forward.
  Colonel YATE: Does this Bill apply to officers as well as to men?
  Mr. HODGE: No; officers do not come under it.
  Colonel YATE: Then what provision is to be made for them?
  Mr. HOGGE: I think they will come under it.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and to insert instead thereof the words "upon this day three months."
  I would not move this Amendment did I think it would seriously affect the progress of the Bill, and I am sure my right hon. Friend will not have appealed in vain for considerate and generous treatment for his proposals. We fully respect the enthusiasm, zeal and sympathy which my right hon. Friend has thrown into his task. It has been of great advantage to those disabled soldiers who have looked for part of their solace to the efficacious aid of my right hon. Friend. But while we all admire the enthusiasm and sympathy displayed by the Minister of Pensions we perhaps may find in him some of the faults which attach to his Department. There is an old legal axiom that it is part of the duty of a judge to amplify his jurisdiction, and this Bill, when we look through it seems clearly to be one which vastly increases the power of the Minister. That may be for good or for ill, but I should like to point out to the House some of these proposed extensions of power, and I think I shall be able to show that the provisions of the Bill are not all, as my right hon. Friend suggested, drawn in accordance with precedent, but are absolutely without precedent, and almost astonishing in the extension of authority which they give. To begin with, take the first Clause, the administration expenses. That is a matter which has been very much discussed in the past. There is a good deal to be said on both sides. We carefully discussed it in the Standing Committee of which I was a member, and I may say that I moved this Amendment largely as a result of that discussion. The first section of the Clause relates to administrative expenses of committees. These in future are to be defrayed by the Treasury, but the estimates are to be approved solely by the Minister of Pensions. Hitherto the Treasury has been the holder of the nation's purse string, but under this Bill it is to be asked to surrender its powers with regard to a very large item and to give them over to a Department. This is a very strange proposal. Those of us who have had to deal with the Treasury and have often been provoked into the use of angry words by the actions of the Treasury have in the long run seen that it is a very wholesome and safe restraint which it exercises in the interests of the

  629
  country. This is the first time it has been proposed to saddle the Treasury with estimates and expenses approved solely by a Minister.
  The right hon. Gentleman also proposes to deal with the local committees. I was quite prepared to find that he did desire some power to deal with unreasonable committees. I do not suppose that any Department had lacked experience of local committees which have proved very unreasonable to deal with, and it is desirable, to take power to supersede them in the same way as the Board of Education does. That is a common complaint, and I think my right hon. Friend is quite right to ask for considerable powers to be given to his Department in this respect. You must treat these local committees as if they were God's creatures and had some degree of self-respect in regulating their own proceedings. It would be far better to abolish the local committee altogether, if you do not give it the power of saying when it is to meet, how it is to conduct its proceedings, and what are to be its standing orders. But all this is to be done by the Minister of Pensions. My right hon. Friend says there is a reason for everything in this Bill. He is quite right to deal with troublesome local committees, but is there any precedent for such a provision as this, that the Minister of Pensions may
  "where he is satisfied that any member of a committee is habitually absent from meetings of the committee or is obstructive or is otherwise not discharging his duties as such member in a satisfactory manner, declare that such member has vacated his office."
  How is he to say when a man is obstructing? Is he to go to a local body and say "This or that man has really spoken too much. He has been obstructive, and he has not conceded a point to the majority of his fellow members; he really would be much better away, and I hereby draw my pencil through his name"? Is the man to have any opportunity of offering an excuse or an apology or an explanation to the Minister? While you may have troublesome local committees, it is going a little too far to interfere even in their most domestic proceedings, and to say "Such and such a member is really a troublesome, obstructive, cantankerous person. He may be conscientious, but I cannot understand his behaviour and must remove him." If that is done in the case of any administrative body I have yet to learn of it.
  630
  Then the Minister is to have further powers with regard to these local committees. He is to have power to
  "issue an Order which may contain such supplementary and consequential provisions including modifications and amendments of the principal Act or any Act amending that Act as the Minister considers necessary for the purpose of giving full effect to the Order."
  If that is to be done what is the use of being here at all? The whole legislative power with regard to pensions is to be dealt with by the Minister of Pensions. My right hon. Friend must not think that I wish to interfere with his Department or that I doubt his usefulness or zeal, but I do think that the House should consider once or twice before giving such drastic powers over local bodies to any Minister, however capable or sympathetic, powers that are practically legislative powers and powers of modifying or sweeping away previous Acts of Parliament. I come now to Section 4, which deals with power to make Regulations as to proceedings of committees. The Minister is to regulate
  "the proceedings at meetings of committees, the appointment, removal, duties and remuneration of officers of committees."
  Are the officers likely to show respect to the committees if they know that the power of appointment and removal, and the fixing of remuneration, are in the hands of the; Minister of Pensions? These committees are not to be left to themselves in their deliberations. The Minister of Pensions is to have power 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. The Minister of Pensions has power, I presume, as a Minister to make such inquiries as he likes, but is it essential that his officers are to be able to have power to defy the committees from keeping them out of their most private deliberations? Is he to have power to say, "Your doors must be open to my officers at any time, and my officers may use your committee as a place where they can carry on inquiries"? The officer may not only insist on being present at the committee, but he might summon every member of the committee to be a witness to be cross-examined by him.
  I will leave it to other Members to touch on some other points to which I might allude. I wish to come to Clause 6, because that touches very closely the functions

  631
  of the old Statutory Committee on which I had the privilege of sitting. I may recapitulate the course taken by this House in regard to pensions. When the matter first came before the House they felt that the question was so peculiar that it could not be dealt with solely and entirely on regular hide-bound official lines, and they proposed instead to establish a Statutory Committee upon which there would be various representatives, and which would take all matters into consideration, perhaps without finding itself so closely bound by the strict limits of administrative rule as other Departments. When the Bill was under discussion I ventured to doubt whether a Statutory Committee would be a satisfactory or an efficient means of carrying out the work. I sat upon it and my experience during these two years was not any lack of earnestness and assiduity on the part of my colleagues and myself, but that we felt that we had not concentration enough, and the very failures which I predicted did occur, but it was felt that the proposal of this House to have outside advice of a sympathetic and varying character connected with this administration was a very sound one, and one that ought to be to a certain extent preserved, and it was preserved in the maintenance of the Special Grants Committee. I am certain that my right hon. Friend will admit that the work done by the Special Grants Committee has been very valuable. It has been independent of the more formal rules, and one of its essential points has been that it has been able to give independent decisions without having its decisions overruled by the Minister. The very nature of the subject dealt with shows that you must sometimes go beyond any rules, however minutely these rules might be drawn up. The circumstances vary infinitely. They have to be dealt with rapidly and wisely, and cry out for sympathetic treatment; and when the Statutory Committee was abolished it was decided to continue this Special Grants Committee.
  Under Section 6 of this Bill the Minister may decide the term and tenure of office of members of the Special Grants Committee, and he is to decide
  "the resignation of members of the Special Grants Committee, and the appointment of persona to fill casual or other vacancies on the Committee."
  632
  I may point out that this is a remarkably badly drafted Section. Does it mean that the Minister may make Regulations respecting what is usually known as the resignation of members, or does it mean, as I suspect my right hon. Friend really intends, that he is to make Regulations to enforce the resignation of members when he wishes it? Though I doubt that that is what is meant by the words, I think that that is what my right hon. Friend intends. If he intends that, I tell him plainly that my consent will never be given to it. The word "resignation" implies that a man voluntarily gives up an office which he holds, and which he has accepted with all its responsibilities. When we appoint such a man, if we want him to act not as a mere puppet, but as an independent person, we leave it to him to say when he is to resign his office, but to say that a Minister is to be empowered to make Regulations enforcing resignation in certain conditions is a thing to which this House will not agree.
  Another Section which I think will meet with strong objection is Section 7, with regard to compulsory medical treatment. That is a new movement, a new idea. Some of us think the treatment good, and some of us may doubt a particular sort of treatment, but that a man is to be forced to undergo that particular sort of medical treatment as a condition of non-forfeiture of a pension is a thing about which I feel the House will think twice before agreeing to it. I leave it to my hon. Friend (Sir W. Cheyne), who speaks with the authority of the medical profession, to deal with this point. On the whole, I have hesitation and some regret in connection with the Motion which I am moving. I assure my right hon. Friend that I move it through no want of appreciation of his own earnest, zealous, sympathetic administration, but because I think that the House of Commons should think twice before accepting a Bill which confers on an administrative Department powers that are unprecedented in previous legislation, and which will arouse a feeling, on the part of the committees concerned with the administration of pensions, that they are to be schooled and tutored at every step, and that they are to hold office solely at the will of an autocratic Minister. I do not think, in the present state of feeling, that such a Bill, without very serious emendation, will prove acceptable to this House.
  Sir WATSON CHEYNE: I do not propose to occupy the time of the House for more than a few minutes, but Clause 7, to which my hon. Friend has just referred, is one on which I should like to offer a few observations. I have read a good many Acts of Parliament since I have been a Member of this House, but I must say that this is one that I have read with the greatest pleasure and amusement, because it is clear and it is minatory to a degree. Clause 7 of the Bill says:
  "If any disabled officer or man, on being so desired in the prescribed manner, refuses or without reasonable excuse fails to submit himself for medical examination, or if any disabled officer or man as respects whom it has been certified that treatment in an institution or otherwise is necessary in his interest, refuses or without reasonable excuse fails to undergo such treatment in accordance with such direction as may be given in that behalf by or with the approval of the Minister, the Minister may, if he thinks fit, notwithstanding anything to the contrary to any Order in Council, Royal Warrant, or Order, by Order direct that any pension or allowance to which that officer or man would otherwise have been entitled shall cease to be payable either in whole or in part for such period as may be specified in the Order."
  The right hon, Gentleman said that the Bill did not apply to officers, but in this Clause the words are "officer or man." It is a new dictum which is contained in this Clause in connection with medical treatment, and it is one which I think requires very careful consideration. Certainly I could not agree to it at all. Perhaps I may be allowed to give a little bit of history with regard to how this matter of the treatment of disabled officers and men after they leave the military hospitals arose. I think we all know that the first selection of doctors for the Royal Army Medical Corps in England and Wales is made by what I call the Central Medical War Committee, which was formed through the British Medical Association, and to which were added one or two men not in the association. That body was recognised by the Government as the body to whom to apply when they wanted doctors. Very soon the question of getting doctors from hospitals arose, and they were prepared to submit their case to the Central War Committee, with the result that a special body was constituted called the Committee of Reference. That body was instituted for the purpose of dealing with hospitals and other purposes of reference. It consisted of the presidents of the two Royal Colleges (Physicians and Surgeons) and of four fellows of each body. I mention the constitution of the
  634
  committee in order to show that it was a very important body, and that a better selection of men could not have been obtained—men of experience and judgment in these matters. A body of men like that, when they met, after getting through the business for which they were assembled, often enter into conversations on matters connected with their profession—as to the treatment of the wounded after leaving hospital, and other kindred subjects. Among the questions so discussed was what was to happen to patients after they had completed their term in a military hospital (eighteen months) and some of whom would be benefited by further treatment.
  We worked this matter out, and the committee made representations to the Army authorities, who took it up, and consequently the matter was placed, I assume, in the absence of a Ministry of Health, under the Minister of Pensions. In considering this question of getting the patients after leaving the military hospitals to undergo further treatment, at once we were faced with the difficulty that a good many patients would not submit to further treatment. Various suggestions were considered—for example, to extend the time of the patient in the Army or to penalise them in some way if they would not submit. We were unanimously of opinion that compulsion was impossible and that we must depend on persuasion—on showing cases in which continued treatment after leaving hospital had proved successful and beneficial to the persons concerned. We could advise as to the benefit to be derived from further treatment, but I submit that we have no right whatever to compel the patient's acceptance of it. Still, I must say that I have a great deal of sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman in what he proposes. He has evidently been up against this difficulty, hence the present Clause. But one must remember that medicine is not a fixed science, and one cannot always assure a patient that he will certainly benefit from the treatment, and I feel that the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the various difficulties, has no right to put this Clause in his Bill. The difficulties are of various kinds, and there are various reasons why a man will not submit to further treatment. For instance, a man may not want to go into the Navy or Army again; it is, however, only quite a small number who would refuse operation or other treatment in case it

  635
  would fit them for active service. Again, some men have a great objection to operations, especially after having had previous experience of treatment which has not been very successful. A number of these men are really children. They have got certain ideas into their heads about operation as being a bad thing, or they will not submit to operations because they are opposed to them. One can only explain to them that an operation would be to their benefit, but their refusal to undergo an operation on the ground that they were opposed to it is a ground that perhaps would not be accepted as an excuse by the Minister of Pensions. Again, a man may not want to go through further treatment, because he feels that once he escapes from the hospital he wants to go home. Again, a man who has not been very badly injured may have got a job which, along with his pension, will be very helpful to him. That man does not want to undergo further treatment. Then there are cases of men who have stiff joints, to treat which would prove very painful, and they would decline to go on with further treatment after leaving the hospital.
  The question further arises whether we have any moral right to compel patients to undergo further treatment. The only condition under which such a power could be employed would be if we could promise that the patient would benefit by the treatment. I do not think it could be promised that a man could be cured. All that can be said is that if a man underwent a little longer treatment it would be the best thing he could do, but the promise could not be made that he would be cured. Take, for instance, a case of a divided nerve, and suppose it was proposed to the patient to sew the ends together. He would naturally ask what would be the result One could only answer that there have been a certain number of cases of recovery, but one could not say that every case would recover, or anything like every case, and the patient having had eighteen months of treatment in hospital, if recovery cannot be promised, will say "No, I won't have it." No one, I think, has any right whatever to use compulsion to such a patient. Then, again, there are cases of septic wounds where you could not compel a man to undergo operation. There are cases where an operation might prove unsuccessful, or even fatal, or lead to the
  636
  loss of a limb or increased deformity. I would press upon the right hon. Gentleman that it would be a very grave thing indeed to compel a man to undergo an operation which might end in making matters worse. Personally, I would never say that a man should undergo an operation unless it were a question of life or death within a few hours, when I would use every persuasion possible. But where that is not the case, the question of undergoing further treatment should depend entirely upon the man's own will and judgment, and there should be no compulsion of any kind.
  Sir HENRY HARRIS: As chairman of a local committee. I naturally take considerable interest in this Bill, especially with regard to what the last speaker described as the "minatory Clause." I have not read that Clause with the same pleasure that he has done, but as to that my withers are unwrung. I think the first proposal of the Bill, as to making the Minister responsible in connection with the administrative expenses of committees, and putting those committees under regulations with regard to administrative expenses, depends very largely upon policy and upon the efficiency of administration. The Local Government Board, upon whom at present rests the responsibility of approving of these Estimates, have no direct know-ledge of the work and no control over the administration. The municipal authorities likewise, through whom the estimates of local committees have to be submitted to the Local Government Board and who bear at present one-third of the cost, though they appoint the majority of the members of local committees, are not able to exercise any control over the extent or character of the work or the manner in which it is carried out, I think it is a sound principle that he who calls the tune should pay the piper, and that the Minister of Pensions is the best person to approve of the administrative expenses of local committees and to justify them to the Treasury and Parliament, just as much as the Local Government Board or any other Department at present.
  Sir H. CRAIK: The Clause does not say so.
  Sir H. HARRIS: I think my hon. Friend is wrong. I approve also very heartily of Clause 8 which makes it the duty of the Minister to provide for the care of neglected children. I should like to point

  637
  out in passing that that duty has not been entirely neglected in the past. I am very sorry my right hon. Friend the Minister did not refer to that voluntary organisation, the Children's Aid Committee, which, under the very devoted and able direction of Miss Douglas, has been doing that work ever since the beginning of the War, and which has at present under its charge 1,200 London neglected children, towards whose cost the London War Pensions Committee contributes under the sanction of the Special Grants Committee. But while I approve of those provisions of the Bill, I must confess that there are other provisions which do raise a very serious question in the minds of persons like myself who are actively engaged in the administration of local committees. There is a feeling, and there is no good in disguising it, prevalent amongst local committee workers, certainly in London, and I have reason to believe elsewhere, that the Minister of Pensions does not want their assistance and that he would rather be without them, and that he is aiming at a purely official organisation, and that he does not appreciate what I venture to describe after close observation as the valuable and certainly self-sacrificing efforts that have been made by thousands of local committee workers. Those committee workers consist largely of women who, without a uniform, without a badge or without even a pet name, have worked in the obscurity of their local offices.
  I have always contended that my right hon. Friend the Minister did appreciate the work of the local committees and that though the appreciation may not always have been expressed as clearly as was desirable, yet that it was there. But I confess my belief has been shaken by this Bill, for a more pronounced vote of no confidence in the local committees, not in some local committees but all local committees, I really think it would be difficult to find. The instructions to the draftsman must have been that the local committees were so little responsible for their accounts and so obstructive that he was to prepare a straight jacket for them. I am bound to say that I think he has carried out his instructions even to the point of absurdity for where could you find a greater indignity imposed upon responsible committees than that contained in the Sub-section referred to by my hon. Friend. Who ever heard of a member of a local committee appointed by municipal
  638
  authorities being removed from his office by a Government Department on the ground that he is obstructive. To whom or to what he is obstructive is not specified, and another reason for has removal is because he is not carrying out his duties satisfactorily, though satisfactorily to whom is not specified. I really should like a definition of obstructveness in order that I may avoid this offence which is, I think, not unknown even to Members of Parliament. Would it be obstructive, for instance, to criticise my right hon. Friend or to doubt the wisdom of his policy. Is my right hon. Friend setting up the offence of lèse majesté. I cannot suppose that it is simply intended to prevent members of a committee talking too much. I would not have referred to this comic proposal were it not that it seems to give a sort of idea of the attitude in which the Ministry approaches local committees.
  I do not at all take up the position that the Ministry do not need further powers. I quite agree that where you have negligent committees then by Sub-section (9) of Clause 2 where a committee is negligent or makes default in the execution of its duties the Minister should be able to suspend the committee or, if necessary, to bring it to an end. I say I quite agree that the Ministry should have any powers which are necessary to enable him to screw up to the full standard of efficiency any committees falling below that standard. It is essential that the Ministry should have powers, but this Bill goes a great deal beyond what is desirable and in effect would deprive the local committees of the discretionary power which they possess under the principal Act, and would really put the Minister in the position of absolute dictator. Local committees would not be able to decide what sub-committees they would have or how they should be constituted, or what powers should be delegated to them. The power to delegate, which they possessed under the principal Act, is expressly repealed. There is a provision by which apparently sub-committees might be imposed on the committees without being consulted, and they are not to regulate their own proceedings and their own meetings. The officers of the Ministry appear to be getting powers which certainly seem to be excessive. I really would ask seriously how it is possible for a local committee to maintain any authority over the sub-committees if those sub-committees can be brought into

  639
  existence and carried out of existence against the will of the committees, and if those sub-committees possess powers at the will, not of the committee itself, but of an outside authority. Perhaps it may be said that I am unnecessarily alarmed, and that the Minister will use these powers in a reasonable way and that it is not intended to put local committees in an impossible position. That is a point which I feel some doubt about, and it is one which I think should be cleared up.
  There really are, I think, only two possible policies. One is to come forward frankly and say that the local committees had better follow the Statutory Committee and pass out of existence, as the conditions have altered. The other policy is to say that the local committees are a desirable part of the national system and that they ought to be encouraged and helped in every possible way. The hopeless policy is to treat local committees as if they were so many naughty children to be put in a corner and corrected by officers of the Ministry. The last seems to be the policy of the Ministry, but it really will not work. It is bound to cause endless friction, because you cannot treat committees appointed by municipal bodies in that way. I do hope that the Minister will face the fact—and I think it is the fact—that the public are in favour of having local committees, and for very good reasons. Local interest and local sympathy are needed in order to get the best, the most sympathetic, and the most practical care for disabled men, and that will be specially necessary when the War comes to an end. The only way to get that local interest and local care is to have local committees upon which yon get the best possible representatives of the locality. It is not possible now to get perhaps all the help one would desire, but after the War many representative men will be available. But it may be asked. If we are to have local committees, how are they to be made universally efficient? The answer of the Minister appears to be to apply a rod of iron. I think that is a mistake. Apply it, if you please, to negligent committees; but as regards other committees, which are not negligent but which fall below the standard, take pains to supply them with expert assistance and advice from people who know how local committees ought best to be run. Train your inspectors so that they will know, not only the theoretical but the
  640
  practical side, so that they may be able to give advice when needed to the local committees. Arrange, if possible, for the training of a paid staff, which will be available for the local offices. That is a great want at present. You could arrange, to place men in offices where the work is well done, with a view to transferring them to where it is not so well done.
  5.0 P.M.
  I come back to my original question: Dees the Minister want local committees or is he aiming at a purely official organisation? It is really essential, now that this Bill is introduced, that we should have a clear and unequivocal answer to that question. If local committees are desired, and I presume they are, then it is essential that the Ministry should get their loyal co-operation, and I doubt if they will get it if this Bill passes as it stands. The London War Pensions Committee, of which I am chairman, met yesterday and considered this Bill. Though they did not wish to take up an attitude hostile to the Bill, they did ask me to make the protest I have just made, and to make this suggestion, that the Ministry should, before proceeding with the Bill, consult with a few representative members from the local committees drawn from different parts of the country, in order that an agreement might be arrived at with regard to the powers the Ministry really needs in order that we may all go ahead with the desire to do the best possible service. After all, the Minister must realise that whatever powers he gets will be of little avail unless he has the trust and confidence of the local committees, but if that is to be obtained he must take them into his confidence, and he must consult with them as to the measures which are required for their improvement. The people who are working in the local offices very often know where the shoe pinches much better than those who survey the scene from the central office. I cannot think why this Bill has been introduced without some consultation with representatives of local committees. I cannot think there has been consultation, because I think the Bill would have been modified if that course had been taken. But I really make an appeal to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who will probably reply, and to whose advice and assistance I have been much indebted in carrying on my duties, to realise the importance of making it clear that the Ministry is the friend of the

  641
  local committees and that it will do its best to make them appreciate that by not pressing its demand for these powers too far and trying to bring about that in the future we shall work together in the most harmonious manner.
  Major H. TERRELL: The effect of this Bill will be to make the Minister of Pensions an absolute autocrat in the administration of all pension schemes. Under this Bill powers are proposed to be vested in him which would entitle him at any time, at his own will, without any control of anybody else, to deal in any way he pleases with all local committees and subcommittees dealing with pensions. The powers given by this Bill are so wide that he is not only entitled to deal with the committee, but he takes power by an Order to amend every Act of Parliament which has been passed with reference to pensions, and to amend this Act itself, so that if this Bill were passed it would be competent for the Minister of Pensions at his own sweet will to make Orders without regard to any Act of Parliament or this House—Orders which would absolutely reduce all local committees to an absurdity. There are, no doubt, a few Clauses in this Bill which will be useful, but they are minor Clauses. They are not the main object and intention of the Bill, but mere make-weights to make it appear that this Bill is going to serve a useful purpose. The real object is to place the whole control with the Minister of Pensions, and, of course, with the officials who act under him. I would ask the House to consider Section 2 of this Bill, for this is a matter of enormous importance to all the men who are entitled to pensions, and it should not be dealt with lightly or without the most careful consideration. Is the House or is the House not prepared to make the Minister of Pensions an autocrat? If it is so prepared, let us put it in a simple Clause and have done with it; but I do not think the House is prepared to do anything of the kind, and it is only by means of Clauses such as this, which do not in so many words say so, but the operation of which must be to have that effect, that such powers are hoped to be given to the Minister of Pensions.
  Under Clause 2 of the Bill the Minister of Pensions takes power to order first of all county councils, borough councils, and urban councils to take into consideration any recommendation with respect to the amendment or modification of any
  642
  scheme. I do not know what is meant by requiring them to take into consideration. Does it mean requiring them to accept the modifications, or does it mean that they are to consider them and either in their discreton to accept them or not? I think it means, although it does not say so, that they are to accept the modifications suggested by the Minister of Pensions, because if they do not, then the Minister of Pensions can come down upon them or upon individual members as obstructive, or as not performing their duties properly, and either suspend them or dismiss them, so that when this Clause speaks of requiring the councils to take things into consideration, it means that they are to do it and to accept the modifications which the Minister indicates. Then he takes powers to require local and district committees to appoint sub-committees, powers to amalgamate committees, and powers to divide committees, all of which may, under certain circumstances, be very desirable. But what is not desirable is that it should be left in the uncontrolled discretion of the Minister to make these Orders. But when you come to Sub-clauses (g) and (h) you come to those Clauses which are the most obnoxious, and which must have the result of preventing any self-respecting man from serving on any local committee. Under Clause 2 (g) the Minister proposes to take power, after holding a public inquiry, to order that any committee who have been, in his opinion, negligent in the exercise of their powers, or have failed in the performance of their duties, may be suspended, or to declare that the existing members of the committee have vacated their office; so that if the Minister of Pensions finds an independent committee who will not do exactly as they are told, and it is reported to him by one of his sub-inspectors that the committee are negligent in the exercise of their duties, he can remove or suspend that committee at once. Do you think that any self-respecting man, any man of position in a county or a city, would accept duty on a local committee subject to a control of that kind?
  The Minister of Pensions himself cannot deal with all these matters; he can only deal with them through his subordinates. He has, I believe, to-day a chief inspector, under whom there are sub-inspectors, and the Minister can only act through these officials. They will report that A, B, or the whole committee are not acting as they

  643
  think proper, or are negligent in the exercise of their duties, if they do not agree with the sub-inspector, and thereupon what is the Minister to do? Is he to go into the matter himself and go down into the locality and inquire into the matter? Of course not! He can only act through subordinates, and it is always important in these matters to remember that. A Minister who has great powers cannot discharge all those powers himself. He must be guided by his subordinates, and he always is. The result is that the local committees will be absolutely under the control of these sub-inspectors. Again I ask, Who is going to take office as a committee man under these circumstances? But it does not remain there. Under the next Clause the Minister is entitled, if he imagines that any member of a committee is obstructive, to remove him. The last speaker pointed out that he did not know what was meant by the word "obstructive." A sub-inspector would, no doubt, say a member was obstructive if he refused to hold the views of the sub-inspector in any matter. In any case, if the Minister thinks he is obstructive or is otherwise not discharging his duties in a satisfactory manner, he is to be turned off, or to be dismissed by the Minister declaring that the member has vacated his office. Once again I ask, would anybody accept office under these circumstances? What is likely to happen? The best people, the men and the women who are self-respecting and who are independent and who have strong views on these matters will have nothing to do with these committees. They will not be subordinated in the way in which this Bill proposes that they should be, and the result will be that these committees, instead of, as in the past, being filled by people of high character and of unquestioned position and integrity in the legality, will be filled by people who have ends to serve, political or other, and you will find that instead of having, as you have now, really reliable committeemen, energetic, patriotic, doing this great work, it will devolve into the hands of people with ends to serve and who wish possibly to acquire political influence and position.
  I look upon this, if it were passed in this form, as a most mischievous precedent for putting into the hands of local persons, subject to the absolute control of officials, the most absolute and unrestrained power. I have always thought
  644
  that there is one thing which we in this country object to, and that is the putting of absolute, unrestrained power in the hands of any individual. It is rather the German system than the British system. I know of no Bill which has ever been presented to this House in which such wide and uncontrolled powers are proposed to be given to any Minister, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman could point to any precedent for an act of this kind. But even if there be a precedent in other directions, this matter of dealing with pensions is one which requires to be dealt with, not by a Ministerial Department, not by officials who take their cue from the head officials in their Department, but by people in the localities, who know the circumstances of the men with whom they are dealing, who can deal with each individual case in an honest, upright, and, above all, in a sympathetic manner. If you are going to rest the whole power in the hands of a bureaucratic organisation, you will have the greatest injustice and an absence of all the local sympathy and knowledge which have been in the past and will, I hope, be in the future the salvation of the pensions scheme. It is well known that comparatively recently the Ministry of Pensions have been rather at loggerheads with some of the Committees, and I believe with the Special Grants Committee. This House in the Act of 1917, which set up the Special Grants Committee, gave that Committee certain powers, and provided that it should be appointed from amongst the individuals who formed the previous Statutory Committee, and the previous Statutory Committee have been most carefully selected by this House—not the individuals selected, but the qualifications necessary to justify a seat on that Committee. The Special Grants Committee have certain definite powers given them, and the Ministry of Pensions have rather resented the exercise of independent thought and independent action by the Special Grants Committees. That is one of the reasons it has produced the Bill.
  But the one thing we should desire above all things, it seems to me, in a matter of this kind, is that there should be interposed between the individual man that asks for the pension and the Ministry some sympathetic body which should be above all suspicion, and should have the power of modifying, if necessary, the hard and fast rules under which all Departments must of necessity work. The whole

  645
  spirit of the Acts which have been passed with reference to these pensions has always been based on the principle that it was desirable to have local persons dealing with these matters, who could interpose between the authorities and the pensioner. This Bill is intended to remove those persons; this Bill is intended to make the Minister of Pensions autocratic, to take away from the pensioner the enormous advantage which he has hitherto had in this body of local people to whom he could appeal, and who were in some cases entitled to act without reference to the Ministry of Pensions. This Bill is not one, it seems to me, which is capable of amendment so as to revise the powers of the Minister of Pensions. It is based on a wrong principle. It is intended, I believe, to give effect to a principle which this House has always opposed. I therefore do ask this House not to pass the Second Reading with the idea that you will be able to put it right by Amendment, but rather to reject the Bill as it stands at present, and leave the Minister of Pensions to bring in a Bill in which will be contained those provisions of this Bill which will be of considerable use. But I beg the House not to pass the Second Beading of this Bill.
  Mr. HOGGE: The Bill which we are considering the Second Reading of is a much larger Bill than any of the Members who have so far spoken to it have grasped, and, as a matter of fact, points in the speeches that have been made have been addressed to what one might really term alter all points that can easily be discussed in Committee and on which there may be legitimate differences of opinion. But this Bill is an attempt on the part of the Minister of Pensions to revise all the powers he has so far obtained by Act of Parliament as set out in Section 14 of the Bill which Members have in their hands. Therefore the opportunity it seems to me is presented of reviewing the points the Minister of Pensions takes in this Bill to deal with all subjects of administration, and I propose to ask the House, before they agree to the passing of the Second Reading of such a Bill as we are now considering to ask themselves the question whether or not the Ministry has succeeded or failed in using its existing powers, because, obviously, if the Ministry has not succeeded in using powers already given to it by Statute it is ridiculous on the part of this House to
  646
  entrust what I consider an already inept and inefficient Ministry of Pensions with further powers to put the whole question into a further muddle than it is in at present. I have an Amendment on the Paper which, I suppose, owing to the fact that the right hon. Member for Aberdeen and Glasgow University (Sir H. Craik) has been called to move the rejection, I must include in the speech for the rejection, but in my reasoned Amendment I give three reasons why this House should refuse a Second Reading to this Bill until certain other things are done. The first of these points, which I will dispose of very quickly, is the question whether or not a discharged soldier has a statutory right to pension. I would like to remind this House therefore, through you, Sir, that in our Colonies discharged and disabled men have the right to appeal direct to a stipendiary magistrate in regard to their right to a pension, whereas in this, the centre of the Empire, no man is entitled by any right whatever to a pension, and the fact that he may or may not receive one is entirely within the power and discretion of the Pensions Minister for the time being. In my view the time has arrived when we who represent these men in this House—and we all do, because everyone of us has a large proportion of discharged and disabled men in our constituencies—should insist upon the establishment of the statutory right of every man to a pension and provide the channels by which that can be decided.
  That leads me direct to the second point in my Amendment, in which I suggest that we do not part with this Bill and give it a Second Reading until we have set up a board of appeal against the award of pensions. Now the question of a board of appeal for the award of pensions is one on which I hold very strong views. As a matter of fact, this House will remember that there is one class of pension which is paid to a man whose disability is not supposed to be due to, or aggravated by, service. That man may not draw a pension under any of our existing Warrants, and he is given a gratuity instead of a pension. As a result of agitation in this House there was set up some considerable time ago what was originally known as Judge Parry's Appeal Tribunal, and before that tribunal the man who had been awarded a gratuity had the right to go in order that his award of gratuity might be turned into a pension. Whit has been the actual result of that administration, which is

  647
  under the control of my right hon. Friend the Pensions Minister? I would beg the House to pay most urgent attention to these facts. As a matter of actual happening, there have been 50 per cent. or one out of every two cases that have been appealed to Judge Parry's Appeal Tribunal on the ground that they have received a gratuity, one out of every two cases has by order of that Appeal Court been put into pension. If that is true of the award of gratuities which are given to a man because his disability is neither due to nor aggravated by service, how much more true must it be of pensions which are awarded for disabilities which are due to service? Because we must bear in mind that the disabilities which are due to service are very much more difficult to determine than the disabilities which are not due to service. Take such an illustration, for example, as neurasthenia. Everybody knows that the medical profession is making its first acquaintance with that disease as a result of the War, and the whole question of the treatment of neurasthenia and the facts of neurasthenia are, as far as medical men are concerned, in the stage in which they cannot pronounce any definite opinion, and therefore it is very much more difficult to say in cases of that kind what the amount of a man's pension ought to be as compared with the gratuity for disability not due to service.
  The point I am trying to make is this: If it be true that in the case of appeals to that board you have 50 per cent. proved wrong, then in the case of the award of pensions it is surely possible to say there will be an equal percentage—I put it no higher—of mistakes! What is the remedy of the discharged and disabled man in these circumstances? He is told by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions that he has an appeal to what is called the medical referee of the local war pensions committee, but as a matter of fact he cannot get to that local medical referee without the consent of the local war pensions committee, and if the elected members of the local war pensions committee care to say to that man that in their opinion he has no right to appeal to the local medical referee they can prevent the discharged and disabled man who is in receipt of pension getting to a local medical referee. Supposing he gets to the local medical referee, what happens? The local medical referee re-examines the
  648
  man's disability. If his disability is proved by the medical referee to be higher than that for which his pension has been awarded by the original board from Burton Court, then he has the right of a new board also given him by Burton Court. So that the appeal which my right hon. Friend gives to a discharged disabled man to-day is the right to challenge his own appeal. That is a ridiculous Court of appeal. I maintain, and those for whom I speak maintain, that every man ought to have, with regard to pension, the same right of appeal as the man who is awarded a gratuity. The man who is awarded a gratuity has the right to go to an independent Board, presided over originally by Judge Parry, and subsequently by someone else when Judge Parry resigned, and they consider the facts afresh, and on that fresh evidence give an opinion. I suppose when one makes a suggestion of that kind, one ought to have a constructive suggestion. In the case of workmen's compensation, a man who is damaged has an appeal to the county court under the Workmen's Compensation Act. If he is unsuccessful there, he has an appeal to what, I suppose, is called the Court of Appeal, and, further, if he cares to, he can appeal to the House of Lords. There are three independent bodies which can give an opinion upon the amount of disability to a man under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
  Mr. HODGE: You are quite wrong. They only have an appeal on legal points, and not on matters of fact.
  Mr. HOGGE: I expressed no opinion as to that. My right hon. Friend is rather too hasty in his interruption. All I pointed out was that a man had three opportunities of appeal. If, however, my right hon. Friend does wish to interrupt me, will he bear in mind that he does not even give the man who ought to have an appeal against a pension the right to contest the pension, either on legal grounds or in regard to facts? We have in this country a certain legislative legal procedure which could easily be erected for the purpose of providing this opportunity of appeal. We have in existence in every county court area a court of appeal. We have presiding in that court for the purposes of the Workmen's Compensation Act the county registrar, and, I understand—the Minister of Pensions will bear me out in this, because he has more experience than I—that the county registrar

  649
  is not unusually favourably disposed to the workmen as against the employer in these cases. Supposing you associated with the Registrar of a County Court an experienced physician and an experienced surgeon, and allowed the discharged man who had been refused pension, or whose pension was inadequate to his disability, to go before that Court just as the man who is discontented with what he has got under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and allowed him to be represented in the same way as trade unionists are represented now, by their officials, you would be going beyond the Pensions Ministry to an independent body, you would be utilising machinery which is there, which would not be costly, which would be at the door of every man all over the country instead of, as at present, having it here in London so far as the Ministry is concerned, and you would give that man free and full access to what I consider he is entitled to, a real opportunity of appeal over and above what the Pension Minister provides for him.
  Having disposed of the two items in my Amendment, let me address myself more particularly to the position of pension administration. I want the House, if it will, to grasp the significance of this particular measure which we are considering to-day. This is a measure which is largely administrative, and the Pensions Minister seeks to take unto himself powers from the local war pensions committees, because if we are to believe the Bill, and if we are to believe his speech, these local war pensions committees are doing the work so badly that we require to put more power into the autocratic and bureaucratic hands of the Ministry. I am going to attempt to prove that the Ministry of Pensions is so hopelessly incompetent at the present moment, that the sooner we take all power out of its hands the better for every discharged man within its power. I will address myself to that argument on what, I think, are incontrovertible facts, and I shall be very glad if either my right hon. Friend the Pensions Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary will venture, in the course of the Debate to controvert the facts which I propose to give to the House. Obviously, the largest portion of administrative work under the Ministry of Pensions is that which is concerned with the Soldiers' Awards Department. That has hitherto been located at Chelsea, and now, I suppose, at what is known popularly as Burton Court. Now,
  650
  at Burton Court there are employed just now in that particular office no fewer than 2,000 employés, and, according to the replies given by the Pensions Minister, they are dealing with anything between 15,000 and 20,000 pension cases a week. That, I may say, includes new cases, cases of renewal and cases of revision, but right hon. Friend will not interrupt me when I say that he himself has said that they are dealing with 20,000 cases a week. That means that each employé at Chelsea, on an average, is dealing with only ten cases per week, or less than two cases per employé per day. That is the so-called efficiency of the Ministry of Pensions. You have 2,000 employés, 20,000 cases, 10 each per week, or less than 2 per day per employé, and yet the Pensions Minister comes here this afternoon and asks us to hand over to him, on account of the way he can do things, the work of other people.
  If you consider that further, what do you find? Is my right hon. Friend the Pensions Minister right when he says that they are dealing with 20,000 cases a week? My right hon. Friend and his Ministry took over the control of the award of pensions in February, 1917, and if my right hon. Friend does a little sum in arithmetic he will find that if the figures he has given to the House are true, then his so-called efficient Ministry of Pensions at Burton Court must already have dealt with 4,000,000 cases. Now as a matter of fact everybody in the House knows that there are not a million cases awarded, so that one-fourth of that figure is round about the truth. As a matter of fact Chelsea at the present moment is in a state of absolute chaos, and it is due to the lack of system and the overstaffing by which you have 2,000 people dealing with two cases each per day, and centralisation, so far as soldiers' awards are concerned, is a hopeless, inept failure for which the Minister of Pensions and his Secretary are responsible to this House. The only way of solving that problem is by a system of decentralisation. Go a little further than Burton Court. Go to the Pensions Issue office in Baker Street, which is really somewhat more important than the Awards Office, because after a man has got an award it is surely important that it should be paid to him. What do you find? You find that there are more employés at Baker Street than there are at Burton Court. There are more than 2,000 people employed in paying out the

  651
  awards, and you have the same confusion at Baker Street that you have at Chelsea. Every Member of this House knows that one of his most frequent duties is to write to Baker Street, asking why the form which is necessary to a person to draw a pension award has not been forwarded to a certain post office.
  The administration of pensions is not the only great scheme of administration in this country. Separation allowances are distributed which are five, six or seven times as great as the pensions. They are administered under the direction of General Sir John Carter, Paymaster-in-Chief, but he does not centralise his payment of separation allowances in the War Office. They are paid through the various commands in each part of the country, and I venture to say there is not a tithe of the delay, and there is not a tithe of the mistakes, made by the Paymaster's office, with five times the number of cases to deal with, that there are with the oases administered by the Ministry of Pensions. This problem is not going to be solved—and my right hon. Friend may take this into his consideration—unless you decentralise. After all, Wales, Scotland, England, and to a lesser extent, Ireland, have all contributed enormously in men to the Army. The problem is big enough in Scotland, of which I can speak personally, to enable us to deal with it there, without having any resort to London, and I do respectfully suggest to the House that if you are going to give satisfaction to yourselves, and bring satisfaction to the people who are concerned, you must decentralise Take another argument in favour of that point. Take the question of appeals. The Pensions Minister knows that a man can appeal to what I have called the Judge Parry Tribunal. Does this House know—and I am giving facts now which cannot be contradicted—that the average man who makes that appeal has got to wait six months before his appeal is heard by that tribunal? Is the House aware that to-day there are at least 3,000 men waiting to have their appeals heard? And will the House remember that one out of every two of those cases so far has succeeded? Because those men are required to wait for one perambulating tribunal, those men who have succeeded at the rate of one out of every two, are denied the opportunity of getting their appeal through, simply because you have a
  652
  scheme of centralisation. Yet you have the Minister of Pensions coming here this afternoon and heaping another scheme of centralisation upon the already clogged machinery at Chelsea.
  Take again the further argument of the right hon. Gentleman which deals with the administrative work of the Ministry of Pensions. I would like my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions to be quite honest with this House and to answer me a simple question: "How many thousand cases are to-day awaiting the decision of the Special Grants Committee in London?" If my right hon. Friend will be honest to the House he will get up and say: "Very many thousands." Take a simple case, that of a widow with a couple of children. Her pension is 25s. 5d. on scale. She is entitled, under the alternative pension scheme, say to £2 or £2 10s., or whatever the figure may be. In theory and in practice she ought to be entitled to that from the moment her scale pension is paid, but she cannot get her alternative pension, although she has applied to the War pensions committee in her locality. Suppose it is Edinburgh. The committee there investigates the evidence, but cannot pay the money until my right hon. Friend and the Special Grants Committee approve.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen): No!
  Mr. HOGGE: The Parliamentary Secretary says "No!" Recently, of course, they have been given permission to advance the money; but the giving of this permission does not mean that the local war pensions committee do advance the money. Some of us have a fair amount of knowledge of the practice of the local war pensions committees, and, at any rate, my case remains sound, that the woman is entitled at the same moment that she has the scale pension to the alternative pension. That is true, as a matter of fact, and the delay in getting a decision from the Ministry of Pensions in regard to the alternative pension has been, up to the present moment, thirteen weeks or thereabouts. Because of the inefficient and centralised powers in London of the delay in the decision the widow with two children, who is entitled to that money, is denied access to it. My right hon. Friend comes here this evening and asks us to give him more power to make his Department more bureaucratic, and power to close down a great many of these local

  653
  war pensions committees in order that he may have that particular power. Why, everything apart from the scale has got to come to London—everything, from the Orkneys to the Channel Islands, from the West Coast of Ireland to East Anglia; everything from any war pensions committee has to come to London and get approval here before 1d. can be paid out.
  Mr. BOOTH: Or in the Isle of Wight?
  Mr. HOGGE: Geographically, yes! What I mean is this: Instead of my right hon. Friend seeking the powers he seeks in this Bill, he should propose the setting up of special grants committees in Scot land, Ireland, and Wales, leaving the existing machinery to deal with the position as we find it here in England. It is ridiculous to imagine that the machinery existing can in any way deal with the problem. There are one or two other points to which I wish to draw attention. Under the Naval and Military War Pensions Act, 1915, of which this is a corollary, one of the duties of the Minister of Pensions was "to make provision for the care of disabled officers and men after they leave the Service, including provision for their health, training, and employment." I want to ask the House and my right hon. Friend, before we give the Minister more powers than he has got, to review what has been done in regard to this statutory obligation. I submit that the position of the blinded and disabled officer and man is pitiable in the extreme. I do not think the House of Commons, if I may say so respectfully, has sufficiently addressed itself to that problem.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I am afraid the hon. Member has for some time been travelling beyond the bounds of relevant discussion. It seems to me that Committee of Supply, when the Minister's salary is on the Paper, is the proper occasion to deal with the matter to which the hon. Member is now referring. This Bill deals with the machinery of administration; not with other questions.
  Mr. HOGGE: On that point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the argument I propose to follow is this—quite briefly—to see whether I am wrong or not. I propose to show that the machinery already in existence is not being used by the Pensions Ministry, and I am therefore moving, or supporting, the rejection of this Bill on
  654
  the ground that until the machinery which is in existence is used we ought not to give the Ministry any further powers.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is quite entitled to show that he has a better plan in regard to machinery than the one suggested in the Bill, but he is not entitled to discuss, for instance, the question of the Royal Warrant.
  Mr. HOGGE: No; I do not propose to do that. I shall avoid carefully the Royal Warrant. I have discussed it so often that I think it is about time to deal with something else. As a matter of fact, no single officer has so far been trained by the Minister of Pensions, although the Acts which are in existence give him power, as I have shown, for the words are "to make provision for the care of disabled officers and men after they have left the Services, including provision for their health, training, and employment." If I can show, and it cannot be contradicted as an actual and literal fact, that the Minister of Pensions has not yet trained a single officer, surely that is an argument in favour of not giving the Minister of Pensions any further powers than those with which he can deal! The reason he has not done so is that he has ceded the functions of the Ministry in this matter to the Labour Minister. I want incidentally to protest against that. I shall have to refer to that again before I have finished, for I am not sure that it is a legal thing for the Minister of Pensions to do. Some time I shall raise this question and ask for a ruling from the Chair as to whether it is legal, under an Act of Parliament, to do what has been done by the Ministry of Pensions. As a matter of fact there has been ceded to the Labour Ministry the training and employment of officers. Why? And we are to be told that the Ministry requires these further and greater powers to deal with the local war pensions committees. As a matter of fact the Ministry of Pensions has not been able to deal with one of the most important functions for which it was created by the House. Take the question of the training of non-commissioned officers and men. Here, I think, we are entitled to raise what in my opinion is one of the most serious indictments of the Ministry of Pensions I have yet known. The Ministry of Pensions has been entrusted with the training of disabled men. There are 500,000 discharged and disabled men to-day. I venture to say that the

  655
  Ministry of Pensions could not get up here and deny that there are fewer than 5,000 of these men trained.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENindicated dissent.
  Mr. HOGGE: If I am wrong I am sorry for the public statements of the Minister of Pensions, for we have been told that there are less than one in ten who have accepted training. As a matter of fact—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is just an illustration of what I was trying to warn the hon. Member against. The question he has put is not a proper one to be answered in the present Debate on this Bill, therefore it is hardly fair for charges to be made. The occasion for that is Committee of Supply, when the Minister's salary is under discussion.
  Mr. HOGGE: I only want to be clear on the point. Clause 7, for instance, deals with the question of the suspension of a pension if the recipient refuses to undergo treatment. That is one of the powers given to the Ministry. I am suggesting now in my argument that on the question of the treatment and training, which is part of the same argument I am going to develop, that the Ministry is seeking power to take certain action if certain men do not do what they want. I am trying to show, first of all, that the Ministry has no moral right to ask for that power, and that they are merely touching the fringe of the problem.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The argument of the hon. Gentleman may be perfectly sound, but it is not justifiable, seeing that a reply is scarcely allowable. I am suggesting that he should not raise questions which cannot be properly answered in this Debate. What we are now discussing is as to the best kind of machinery for carrying out the Pensions Warrant, and not the various other functions of the Ministry.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: On a point of Order. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I ask, seeing the hon. Member has made a number of statements in regard to various aspects of the work of the Ministry—most of which statements are inaccurate—whether I shall be in order in replying to them in detail?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is entitled to reply to any point raised; but it shows
  656
  that we must endeavour not to turn this opportunity more than we can help into Committee of Supply, which is a proper occasion for this kind of debate.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. HOGGE: On that point, so far as I am concerned, I have no objection to any argument I have used being replied to. I am so sure of the figures I have put forward that I have no objection to a Committee of this House looking into them to prove whether I am right or wrong. I shall attempt, however, to keep within the four coiners of your ruling, Sir, and say nothing more on that question. In regard to training, then, as a matter of fact the Ministry has so far dealt with this question so adequately that it is futile to entrust them with any further powers to deal with this question. Until they have exhausted or made use of the powers they have got, they are not the people to come to this House and ask for further powers. So with the treatment of disabled men. For instance, 12½ per cent. of the discharged men are Buffering from tuberculosis. Power to deal with these men resides in the Ministry. Instead, however, of the Ministry dealing with them they are dealt with by the Local Government Board, and are located in the workhouse infirmaries of this country. I say again deliberately, and I can enlarge upon it if necessary, that for a Ministry to come and ask for further powers when, at the moment, tubercular soldiers are being dealt with both by the Local Government Board is wrong. I say I am not prepared to give them further powers to deal with any discharged men until they have approved themselves very much more able to deal with the question than they have so far proved themselves. So also the question of employment. It is the duty of the Ministry to deal with this matter. They are seeking for further powers in this respect in this Bill. What have they done in the matter of employment? They have handed that question over to another Department. The discharged man, to whom we gave the Pensions Ministry power in the original Acts to deal with, and to give preferential treatment to, has to-day to take his place in the Labour Exchange queue just as anyone else. There are 7,000 persons employed in the Ministry of Pensions. That Ministry has not trained a single discharged man for an occupation inside the Ministry of Pensions beyond the job of a messenger.

  657
  They have handed over to the Labour Exchange, functions which were given to them by us in the earlier Acts. There are other things I should have liked to have said but I will content myself with saying that I think, instead of giving a Second Reading to this Bill, we ought to create a Committee of this House, and in this respect I am in cordial agreement with the other Amendment on the Paper, which will go not only into administration, but will deal with the larger and more general and more important issues which appertain to the Ministry of Pensions. Unless that Ministry can prove—and so far they have not done so—they are an efficient administration instead of, as I believe, an inefficient and inept Ministry, this House should not give them any further powers to obstruct the flow of the duty and responsibility of the Government and the nation to the widows and dependants of the men who have fought in all parts of the world. If this question is taken to a Division, I shall support the refusal of a Second Reading to this Bill on these, which are to me the most important and necessary grounds.
  Colonel ASHLEY: Representing as I do a large body of discharged soldiers, I must say that I could not bring myself to vote for this Bill, owing to the unfettered and irresponsible powers which it places in the hands of a Government Department. I can quite conceive that it is necessary that some more powers should be given to the Ministry of Pensions than are vested in that Department at the present moment. For instance, the local war pensions committee's secretary in Dublin is at the present time a Sinn Feiner, and he is also the chairman of the local anti-conscription committee, and consequently you can imagine what treatment our soldiers would get in Dublin City with a secretary holding such views. I can quite see that it is necessary that certain executive powers should be given to the Pensions Department, in order that officials and members of committees who obviously do not carry out their duties as they should do should be replaced by people who will do so. I cordially associate myself with the protest made in so many quarters, that when once you have got an efficient local committee it should be allowed to run its own business in its own way, and should not be at the beck and call of any young inspector.
  658
  The House will surely agree with me when I say that English local government is a very efficient thing. It is efficient in our big cities and in our best-managed counties, where it is equal to anything in the world, and consequently it is unthinkable, once you have an efficient local committee having general inspection by the central office, that it should not be entrusted to carry out its work in its own way and should not be subject to the kind of interference to which hon. Members have referred. If the hon. Gentleman who put down the Motion for rejection goes to a Division, I shall vote with him on the ground that I am not prepared to give these unlimited powers to a Government Department. Most of us have had experience of the breakdown of this Department, and the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) has mentioned several instances. In the case of the organisation with which I am concerned it takes months to get cases through, and if that is so, imagine the position of a man in the country who has not an organisation to assist him, and this is the time that the Minister of Pensions comes and asks for greater and absolute powers for his Department, and asks that the powers of the local committees should be taken away. If the Minister of Pensions can come here in six months time and say, "We have now put our house in order," then, I agree, greater powers should be granted; but until he is able to make that statement good it would be insanity to give the extra powers which he now asks for.
  The hon. Member for East Edinburgh, in the Motion which he has on the Paper, lays down three principles with which I am in cordial agreement. He states that the disabled discharged man should have a statutory right to a pension. The man has suffered for his country's sake and has been disabled, and, therefore, he bag gained his right to a pension. With regard to the right of appeal, I think that the assessments made now, generally speaking, are fair on the whole; at any rate, those who assess the pensions are doing their best, and I give them full credit for it. After all, they are only human beings doing their best, but I put it to the House that if these gentlemen make a mistake and they do, it is a very serious thing for the wretched man and his dependants, for he will have no reasonable opportunity of obtaining the proper amount of his pension. All we ask is that there should

  659
  be some independent appeal to which the man may go, subject to proper limitations and safeguards, so that he may have his case reconsidered. As to decentralisation, obviously that seems necessary, because the Pensions Department has broken down. There can be no question about that. It would be very difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to get it on a proper basis, because there is more work going through London than can possibly be done by one Department. The only alternative is decentralisation on a national basis for Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, and let the London headquarters look after England as hitherto. If that is done I think a great improvement will take place. Hon. Gentlemen not so much in touch as the hon. Member for East Edinburgh and myself with this question do not realise what real grave dissatisfaction there is amongst discharged soldiers. The discharged soldier is sometimes unreasonable, but on the whole he is in quite a reasonable frame of mind, and what he does ask for in justice is that what the State says he shall have he shall get directly the award is made, instead of it being hung up for weeks and often for many months. That is quite unreasonable, and it will be impossible to alter this if this Bill is passed. The only way to stop this unrest is to decentralise, so that what a man is entitled to have he shall be able to get without any further delay.
  I shall vote against this Bill on one other quite different ground, which I do not think has been touched upon in this Debate, namely, the power which the right hon Gentleman seeks to take away any single man's pension unless he submits to the treatment which the right hon. Gentleman suggests. A man's disabled pension is his right, and he gets it because he suffered certain disabilities through having fought for and served his country. It is his absolute right to do what he likes with that pension, and it has nothing to do with the Minister of Pensions or anyone else. I quite agree that the Ministry of Pensions should do all they can to induce these men to submit to treatment calculated to bring them back to a state of health so as to enable them to take their place amongst the whole-time healthy workers of this country, but I would never consent to place the pensions of these men at the
  660
  mercy of some medical or other adviser of the Ministry of Pensions. They are entitled to these pensions, and by all means try to induce them to accept your treatment, but you have no right to penalise them by taking away their pensions, thus penalising as well their wives and families simply because they refuse to undergo your treatment. A friend of mine has been to three different medical men for deafness and they have all treated him in a different way, and if a man with this complaint refused the treatment offered him the right hon. Gentleman could refuse his pension. I would never consent to that proposal, and unless the Under-Secretary is able to outline serious modifications I shall very reluctantly vote against it.
  Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I rise to support those who have declared they are unable to vote for this Bill. As has already been pointed out by many speakers, this Bill is unquestionably framed on the wrong lines, and whoever drafted it is evidently impregnated with the ideas of autocracy and bureaucracy. There are two ways of dealing with this question, the autocratic and the democratic. The autocratic way is taking power to oneself and the democratic way would be to encourage and foster local effort and activity. I think it is a very anomalous state of things when we find a Pensions Minister who has been nursed in democratic principles assuming an autocratic role. Undoubtedly there are cases of the failure of local committees. Personally, I have no grievance against the one that looks after the soldiers in my own constituency, and I believe they are thoroughly active and fully alive to the situation and thoroughly sympathetic, and probably where failure does occur it is due to some lack of imagination and not lack of sympathy. I cannot profess to have had great experience in this matter, but I should have thought that it was possible for the Pensions Minister to go down to the local committee and give them some inspiration and some sympathy. I cannot help thinking that the Pensions Minister might have done a great deal more upon these lines than he has done. I have seen very few accounts of conferences with the Pensions Minister, and I cannot help thinking that he has been too anxious to play the part of a dictator. There was a very characteristic incident the other day in Birmingham when a conference was held.

  661
  The pensions officials were not allowed to attend it because it was Held without the Pensions Minister's initiative.
  The hon. Member for East Edinburgh said that this Bill should not be supported because the Pensions Ministry is itself incapable. I am not going so far as to say that—I do not want to say anything to hurt the feelings of the right hon. Gentleman or of my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary—but there is an undoubted failure to deal with the problem of treatment and training of disabled soldiers. I do not know any more sacred duty—nay, it ought to be a privilege—than to see that every disabled soldier has everything that science can offer for his restoration to perfect health and efficiency. If, when we see men limping down the street or suffering from a disabled or crippled arm, or obviously suffering from neurasthenia, we ask ourselves if we really have nothing that science can do for these men, I am afraid that the answer must honestly be in the negative. I know that it is a difficult problem, and the great activity in the labour market at the present moment makes it still more difficult. When we come to think, as the hon. Member for East Edinburgh said, that there are some 500,000 men discharged from the Army and that only some 40,000 or 50,000 have taken any treatment, we must confess that we have made a dismal failure of this question of treatment. That failure is due to the fact that the Pensions Ministry have not been able to cope with this huge problem themselves and have not made up their minds to allow sufficient local autonomy to enable the local committees to deal with it.
  I saw in the "Times" of Friday a long article dealing with the activities of the Pensions Ministry. It was stated that the Ministry had arranged for annexes to be instituted in connection with all the orthopaedic centres. As far as I can remember, it was some twelve months ago when this question of annexes was first approached. I should like to know how many there are in existence at the present time? I shall be very much surprised if there are any considerable number in operation. Again, there is the question of the after-care of the tuberculous soldier. As everybody knows, there is great pressure upon the accommodation at the sanatoria, and men are discharged from them perhaps after two or three months' treatment and before they are properly
  662
  cured. Everybody knows that the efficient cure of tuberculosis depends upon aftercare. I am informed that some time ago the Treasury sanctioned the expenditure of £50,000 upon after-care treatment. What has the Pensions Ministry been able to do? I question very much whether anything at all has been done to institute any system of after-care treatment for tuberculous soldiers. The training question is equally if not even more unsatisfactory, because an infinitesimal number of men have taken any treatment at all. That failure is not due to the local committees. It is due to over-centralisation by the Pensions Ministry. I am told that every scheme that a local committee starts has to go up to the Pensions Ministry, and that it takes an unconscionable time before the local committee can get authority to start. There is the instance of the Kinson Farm Colony for tuberculous patients. It was over a year before the Pensions Ministry could be got to say whether they approved of that scheme. There is another matter which discharged soldiers have told me militates very greatly against the training scheme. The classes are much too centralised. For instance, a man from a town in the Midlands has to go to a town in the North to attend his classes, although the trade which he wishes to learn is very well represented in his own native town.
  Another reason why we really ought to blame the Pensions Ministry rather than the local committees for the small number of men who have been either trained or treated is that there has been a definite failure to make the schemes known in the hospitals. I believe a man is handed a pamphlet when he is discharged from hospital, but there ought to be in every hospital plenty of literature for the men to see what is going to be provided for them when they are discharged. Again, local committees, instead of being browbeaten, should be encouraged to go in for propaganda work. Let them have conferences with discharged soldiers, and let the Pensions Ministry have more confidence in them. I should like to see both the local committees and the Pensions Ministry frankly inviting the co-operation of the discharged soldiers themselves. I am sure that they would respond willingly to any encouragement which the Pensions Ministry gave them for co-operation. There is the question of the officers. I have heard statements made that the Pensions Ministry adopts the

  663
  policy of deliberate obscurantism with regard to what the discharged soldier is entitled to. I will not go so far as to say that, but I do go so far as to say that it is almost impossible for the officer when leaving the Service to find out what he is entitled to. I asked the Pensions Minister yesterday if he could not publish some little book and he said that if he did publish it the officer would not read it. If he will pardon me for saying so, that is ridiculous nonsense. There is really great need for something of the kind. Although there are good schemes for training officers when they are on light duty, I believe there is nothing for officers when they have permanently left the Service. One reason why training schemes for officers are not popular is that they entail a very great sacrifice of money. A discharged officer only gets £175, and £2 per week is deducted when he is taken on under a training scheme. If he is a married man, that only leaves about £50 a year for the maintenance of his wife and family. This question of the officer when he has left the Service is a very serious one, and it requires much more consideration than the Pensions Ministry has yet given to it.
  Sir A. MONTAGUE BARLOW: We have listened this afternoon to a discussion which has wandered a good deal wide of the Motion for the Second Heading of this Bill. I find myself in cordial sympathy with a good deal of that which fell from the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), especially when he spoke about the right of appeal. The work of Judge Parry's committee, as we know it, has certainly been put on an established basis, but the right of appeal has got to be developed. After all, however, that is not what we are here to discuss this afternoon. I cannot help feeling a little sorry for the Pensions Minister. I think he has been badly advised. Reference was made by my hon. Friend to the Jackdaw of Rheims and the curse. I remember something about the Jackdaw of Rheims and the curse, and I think the conclusion was
  "Never was heard such a terrible curse!
  But what gave rise to no little surprise,
  Nobody seem'd one penny the worse!"
  That is not the case with this Bill, because if it goes through I am afraid that a good many people will be a good deal the worse, and it is from that point of view that I am compelled to criticise it. As
  664
  chairman of the Parliamentary Pensions Bureau I have been authorised, with others, to put a Motion upon the Paper. We have considered this Bill carefully, and the difficulty, which we appreciate, is that there are portions of the Bill which are undoubtedly not only desirable but necessary. Clause 1, for instance, making the grant of money, is one which anybody who is interested in the work of local war pensions committees will recognise is obviously necessary. Even my hon. Friend on my right, who spoke on behalf of the London War Pensions Committee, did not, in his severest moments of humorous criticism, take up the attitude that he did not gratefully accept Clause 1. We all of us know that the real difficulty with regard to the local war pensions committees is that their work is extremely unequal. Some committees, particularly the great one in London and others in the North with which I am thoroughly conversant, do their work as well as such work can be done. But admittedly in other areas, in which I have had experience of three detailed cases, the work is not done well. Cases are handed over to the local war pensions committees, there seems to be no machinery for handling them and the men get no satisfaction. That is not a satisfactory state of affairs. Therefore I am entirely with the Minister when he says he proposes to give money to the local war pensions committees to assist their work and that he or someone must have some greater powers of applying ginger to some of the unsatisfactory committees.
  Then, when we have got as far as that, we are faced with the Bill itself. Is that what the Bill docs? Does it give to the Pensions Minister merely the power to stimulate and assist local war pensions committees or does it give him the power in effect to kill them? I have perused the Bill with some care and considered it in the Joint Committee, and whatever the intention in the Ministry may be—and after all, as one of the old judges said, "The devil himself knoweth not the thought of man"—the words of the Bill as it stands in my view give much too wide powers to a Government Department—powers which may very easily be misused. The Minister, by Order, may appoint committees, may dissolve them, may amalgamate them, may suspend them, and he may remove that peculiar article—the obstructive member. Clearly, the obstructive member will be one who criticises the

  665
  officer of the Ministry when he comes to the committee. Then there is that extraordinary power to modify the Act of Parliament, and there is the general power to exercise the powers of any committees in their place. There is the further power of making Regulations, which also goes very far indeed, because it enables the Pensions Minister to make Regulations actually for the procedure of each committee. I appeal to anyone who has had experience of local government whether he would like to work on a committee where that state of things prevailed Would he willingly give of his best to a committee which had such relations with a Government Department as this Bill suggests? Clause 6 is in many ways one of the least satisfactory Clauses, because on many occasions the work of the Special Grants Committee has saved the Pensions Ministry from very serious discredit. I am very anxious that the Special Grants Committee should be properly protected, but under the proposals of this Clause apparently the tenure of its members, the arrangements as to their resignation, and so on, can all be settled by the Minister by a stroke of his pen, and that seems to me to put the Special Grants Committee in a position of uncertainty which is eminently unsatisfactory.
  Then we have had a great deal said about Clause 3 and the question of treatment. I take it there is no doubt treatment includes operations, and, if so, I think really the native blood of an Englishman rises up in one if power is to be taken to compel a man to undergo an operation against his will. Persuade him by all means if you are certain he is going to secure better health as the result of the operation, though you cannot always be sure of that. Do all you can, nurse him back to life, cajole, persuade, induce in any shape, but the power of compulsion, subject to a threat of reduction of pension, is not a power which I think this House would willingly give the Pensions Minister. We are in this dilemma. Some of the powers under the Bill are good, and I should be very sorry to see it thrown out for that reason, because I want the Grant for the local committees, and I want more power for the Pensions Minister to put, not iron pressure, but gentle pressure on local pension committees. On the other hand, we cannot possibly vote for this Bill in its present shape unless we have some very satisfactory undertaking as to what is to be the future course of the Bill, because
  666
  I am satisfied, and I think most of those who have spoken on the subject are satisfied, that if the Bill goes through in its present shape not only will no benefit be done to the wounded soldier, which after all is the chief thing, but you would have a perfect uproar in the country from all the local war pensions committees. We hear the mutterings of the storm already, and I understand a meeting is taking place to-day, and we shall probably hear more rolls of thunder in the newspapers tomorrow morning. I am certain the Pensions Minister does not want to get at loggerheads with the whole of the war pensions committees of the country, and therefore I think what we might look forward to reasonably is something on the lines, though not quite in the shape, of the Motion which was put on the Paper by myself and others representing the Parliamentary Pensions Bureau.
  I will quote, if I may, the Pensions Minister's assurance, on the political aspect of pensions, that he would always be quite willing to co-operate with a Committee of this House. It is part of the skill, tact, and knowledge with which he has conducted pension matters generally, to which I give most readily a cordial tribute, that he gave that assurance, and I crave it in aid at this moment. I am not so much dealing with the question of setting up a general Select Committee to deal with pensions in this House. I hope to raise that matter at another time. I think there is a great deal to be said for it, and it is a curious and interesting parallel that the Montagu-Chelmsford Report has recommended that very thing in the case of India, that a permanent Select Committee of this House should be set up in order to assist the Indian Minister with regard to Indian matters. If you take the paragraph in the Report and delete the word "India" and substitute "pensions" for it, you have the whole case which I submit to the House for setting up a Committee of the House to assist the Pensions Minister. But I am not going into that particularly at this moment, though the matter will be proceeded with, and over 300 Members have given their adhesion to that general principle. What I want is to assist the Pensions Minister out of a dilemma in which I think he is with regard to this Bill, because if he goes to a Division pure and simple on the Bill he runs a great risk of losing it in the present temper of the House, in view of what has been said.

  667
  The Motion standing in my name and that of my colleague is that the proposals of the Bill be referred to a Select Committee before the Second Reading. What I suggest as a reasonable way out of the difficulty—and I understand in various parts of the House that would meet with a certain amount of approval—is that assuming the Bill is given a Second Reading it should be referred to a Select Committee, assumedly composed of those interested in the matter in all parts of the House. I believe if that sort of line commended itself to the Minister he would get his Bill without very much difficulty and we might get on on reasonable lines. If he cannot see his way to that, I think a great many of us will find ourselves, much to our regret, forced to vote against the Second Reading.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am sorry that even in my most optimistic moments I cannot flatter myself that this Bill has had an entirely good reception, but I sincerely hope that before I have finished I shall be able to remove some of the misapprehensions and that the House will see the necessity for the Bill and that it will be willing to give us a Second Reading. I will take as my text the very apposite question which was asked by my hon. Friend the chairman of the London War Pensions Committee. He asked, Do we want local war pensions committees to assist us in our work or do we not? I say, most emphatically, that we do, that we appreciate to the full all that they do, that we realise that without these bodies of public-spirited men and women, who were doing this work long before there was a Ministry of Pensions, our task would be infinitely more difficult than it is, and we are exceedingly grateful to that large band of volunteer workers who have stood up and befriended the disabled man and the children and the dependants, have looked after supplementing the separation allowance and also assisted in the way of pensions, and I realise that it would be a fatal error if anything we did was calculated to destroy these local committees and substitute a cold-blooded officialdom in their place. Therefore I wish to make it perfectly clear both that we appreciate the local committees and wish to preserve them. I will say the same thing about another body. We have on the Special Grants Committees, which are to some extent the successors of the Statutory
  668
  Committee, a number of public-spirited, able ladies and gentlemen who have been of the greatest assistance to our work, and if there is anything in Clause 6, which is the only Clause, as far as I know, which deals with the Special Grants Committees, to which they feel legitimate objection, which they think puts them in a false position, which subjects them unnecessarily to the Minister and his Regulations, we are prepared to reconsider that Clause in Committee.
  But may I put to the House the real object of the Bill and the real difficulty of the Ministry? The local committees are invaluable. I do not think we could begin to do our work without them. From another point of view they are of the greatest value to us. They are a most valuable buffer between men or women with grievances and the Ministry, and from the point of view of self-preservation it would be most unwise to remove that buffer. But we have to recognise that local committees are most uneven in the methods on which they work. There are some which are admirable—they could not be better. We never have any trouble with them. They do their work in the most enlightened way and give the greatest satisfaction to the discharged men. There are others which are not so good, and there are some—I am sorry to have to say it, but, after all, it is much best to be perfectly frank—which are distinctly bad. Let me give an example which took place in a county committee, not in Ireland, but in Great Britain. It is a committee of about thirty members. The quorum is seven. It meets once a month. Its duty is shared up by a number of sub-committees, who have very small powers of their own and have to refer all important cases to the monthly meeting of the county committee. A few weeks ago that committee met, and there was not a quorum present. All these cases are held up for a whole month—cases where assistance was badly needed in many instances for deserving men and women—because out of thirty members seven were not willing to attend and look after the business they had undertaken to perform. When that sort of thing not only can but does happen it is absolutely necessary that we should take steps to bring up the bad committees to the level of the good ones, and that is the real object of this Bill. It is to serve the interests of the discharged men their widows, dependants and children, which we all have at

  669
  heart, and we feel we must have greater powers in some cases to look after these committees, for we have practically he powers now. A committee can absolutely defy us. It can refuse to do its work. We have no powers of coercion whatsoever. It may be that in this Bill we are taking too big powers. I am quite willing to consider that, but some powers we must have—otherwise the work is not done.
  Take this case of separation allowance. Under the new scale, as I read it, a childless wife who cannot work is to receive an addition to her flat rate, to be paid by the local committees. It is to be obligatory on the local committee. But as things stand now we cannot compel the local committee to pay that rate. It is necessary that we should have coercive powers to compel local committees to do their work, and, if they refuse to do it, it is necessary to have the power given us in Clause 2 (g), after holding a public inquiry and discovering that the committee is in default, of suspending it and appointing other people who will carry on the work. I venture, therefore, to appeal to the House, in the interests of discharged and disabled men to give us some powers over local committees, because we are really in a position of absolute impotence at the present time. It is quite true that these committees are in the form of local self-government. We believe in local self-government. My right hon. Friend and myself are thorough democrats. We believe in local self-government for a democratic nation, and we believe there will be sympathy from people appointed in that way which you will not get from a Ministry. But these committees cannot claim quite the full powers that other local bodies have, because we pay the entire expenses. In the case of other local bodies part of the expenses, and in most cases the greater part of the expenses, fall upon the local rates. Under this constitution not only is all the money that is expended in grants and allowances paid by the State, and not out of the rates, but under this Bill the whole of the administrative expense is to be paid by the State. Therefore, I think it is only, reasonable that when the State pays the whole of the cost we should have a considerable voice in the way the money is expended. We have always heard in the old days that there must be no taxation without representation, but, unless we get some of these powers this will be representation without taxation, which
  670
  means going a very long way in the opposite direction. What we ask, therefore, is that we should have certain powers to control the committees and to compel the committees to do their work. I do not say there are many of them, but in a few instances they have not done their work. We think that the provision of Clause 3, which has not been criticised up to the present moment, enabling the Pensions Ministry to add members to the local committees, up to one-fourth is, when we are paying the whole of the expenses, very reasonable, and we say that a provision of that sort ought to be given to us by the House.
  I do not think this is the occasion for me to occupy the time of the House by dealing in detail with the varied criticism which has been made of the Bill, and of other things which are not in the Bill; but may I point out one or two matters where I think there has been a misunderstanding? The right hon. Member for Aberdeen and Glasgow Universities—
  Mr. WATT: Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I apologise. The right hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Sir H. Craik) says we are taking away from the Treasury the power of controlling the administrative expenses of local committees. That is not so. The administrative expenses now are not controlled by the Treasury but by the Local Government Board, and we are merely transferring the control from the Local Government Board, which, excellent body though it is, is not fully au fait with pensions administration, to the Pensions Ministry, which at all events thinks that it knows something about pensions administration. The distinguished junior Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities—
  Mr. HOGGE: He is Member for Edinburgh and St. Andrews Universities.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am afraid I have got the universities all wrong. The distinguished Member for Edinburgh and St. Andrews Universities (Sir Watson Cheyne) objected very strongly to Clause 7, in which we seek power to take the pension away if a man deliberately refuses to accept treatment. He said that that was a new principle. It is not a new principle. By Article 4 of the Warrant

  671
  to-day, we can halve a pension if a man unreasonably refuses treatment. All we seek to-day is that in cases where a man continues unreasonably to refuse treatment we should have the power, which we need not necessarily use, to take away the whole pension.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does the Warrant include operations?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The Warrant does include operations, but as a matter of practice we laid down the principle very early in considering how we should deal with the Warrant never to enforce that for refusal of operation, and we do not intend to do so. It never was intended, and if it is necessary to safeguard this Clause by the insertion of words that we will not enforce it in the case of refusal of operation, I am sure nay right hon. Friend will agree to such modification. There are thousands of men who ought to have treatment. The Noble-Lord the Member for Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck) spoke about that. It is very difficult to get these men to accept treatment. What is the result? If a man unreasonably refuses treatment, he thereby gets a bigger pension than he otherwise would because of some disablement that might be removed, I will not say by operation, but by massage, electricity, orthopaedic treatment, and so on. Because the man refuses treatment the State has to pay a higher pension, which we think is unfair to the State. Apart from that I have always held, and I think my right hon. Friend holds, that health is of greater importance than any pension, and that it is most important that we should endeavour 10 get every man to make himself as fit as he can notwithstanding his disability. Some of our Dominions have a Clause similar to this. I cannot at the moment recollect which, but in one of the Colonial Warrants there is a clause that if a man refuses treatment his pension is reduced by the amount of extra disability which the medical people decide he has in consequence of his refusal. Therefore the principle is really not a new one. It is a principle accepted by several of our Dominions, and it appears in the Warrant at the present moment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) made a long, slashing attack on the Pensions Ministry.
  672
  The burden of his song was this, that we are so hopelessly incompetent that it is no earthly good giving us further powers.
  Mr. HOGGE: Hear, hear!
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I do not think that is the opinion of the House, and I am sure the country does not think that. I am sure my right hon. Friend has so administered his office that it is realised generally in the country that, notwithstanding the difficulties we have had to put up with, on the whole we have vastly improved pensions administration. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh was inaccurate in other things. He made a long attack on the Special Grants Committee because he said there were delays in fixing alternative pensions. The Special Grants Committee has nothing to do with alternative pensions, so that the hon. Member was incorrect in that.
  Mr. HOGGE: I never said they had!
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am within the recollection of the House, and I am of opinion, and I think most hon. Members are of the opinion, that the hon. Member said that the long delay in regard to alternative pensions was due to want of businesslike ability on behalf of the Special Grants Committee.
  Mr. HOGGE: On the part of the Ministry of Pensions.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The hon. Member also said that a microscopic number of discharged men had been trained. It was difficult to follow his figures. He said that 500,000 men had been discharged disabled, and that only one-tenth of them had been trained, which meant 5,000.
  Mr. HOGGE: I never said that!
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Those are the words I took down.
  Mr. HOGGE: I cannot help that. I never said it.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Did you say 5,000?
  Mr. HOGGE: I said out of 500,000 discharged men, 5,000 had been trained by the Ministry. Then I was interrupted by my right hon. Friend, and I referred him to his own speech, in which he said that one out of ten had been trained, but, as he knows, that includes all the other voluntary agencies.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The statement that only 5,000 have been trained is quite incorrect. Altogether between 17,000 and 18,000 have been trained. I admit that it is not as many as we would like. Nothing is more misleading than to say that 500,000 have been discharged disabled and only 5,000 have been treated, or that only 18,000 have been treated, because it must be remembered that we have only to train those men who by reason of their disability are not able to go back to their own trade. We hold that if a man can go back to his own trade that is the best thing he can do. Therefore the percentage of men who are, so to speak, eligible for training is an exceedingly small proportion. I have only dealt with this point because I think it unfair that my right hon. Friend and the Pensions Ministry should have this attack made upon them without having an opportunity of saying a few words in reply. I could controvert many more statements of the hon. Member, but this is not the occasion to do so.
  7.0 P.M.
  The hon. Member for Salford (Sir Montague Barlow) has suggested that as a way out of our difficulty the House should give a Second Reading to the Bill and then refer it to a Select Committee. I would appeal to the House not to adopt that course. I am a, very old Member of the House, and I have served on many Committees, including many Select Committees, and if you want to shunt a Bill or to put it off to the Greek kalends, or put it off to goodness knows when, I know of no better way than to refer it to a Select Committee. If the House refers this Bill to a Select Committee, which can summon witnesses and cross-examine them and go into every sort of detail, and introduce a vast number of subjects not always relevant, I do not believe we shall get this Bill this Session, probably not this Parliament. We have to contemplate the fact that, granting the excellent qualities of the majority of local war pensions committees, there are committees which are not doing their work, there are powers which it is necessary the Ministry should have, and there are men and women suffering because the work is not being done. I would, therefore, appeal to the House, in the interests of the gallant men who have suffered, to give us the powers we ask, which are necessary to enable the local committees to do their work properly. I wish to be
  674
  perfectly frank with the House. My right hon. Friend and myself have profited largely by the criticisms put forward to-day. I am quite prepared on his behalf to say that a good many of those criticisms are justified. I think that perhaps in seeking powers which are necessary we have in some cases gone too far. The Bill will have to be very carefully considered in Committee, and my right hon. Friend is prepared to make large concessions on those points to which special objection has been taken this evening. I will go further. While ray right hon. Friend cannot accept this suggestion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee for the reasons I have given—the reasons of delay he realises the admirable work done by the Parliamentary Pensions Bureau on which all parties are represented, and he is prepared to undertake that before the Committee stage is reached he will have a conference with that body and go through the points to which special reference has been made in the hope that we may come to an agreement on the Amendments to the Bill. I hope with that assurance, and in view of our great desire to get a strong Bill in order that we may do our work properly and efficiently, the House will consent to give the measure a Second Reading.
  Colonel Sir J. HOPE: I cordially welcome this Bill, and I do not gather that any arguments have been put forward which show that any other course could have been adopted. Of course there are, in connection with pensions administration, various kinds of committees, good, bad, and indifferent, and it is desirable that the Minister should have power to deal not only with bad committees but with indifferent ones. It has not been shown that the framework of this Bill is incapable of improvement. We have just been told by the Parliamentary Secretary that it does require modification and that the Minister is quite prepared to accept Amendments in Committee. It appears to me, for instance, that the power proposed to be given in the Bill to arbitrarily suspend a whole committee, is bad, and I hope that on the Committee stage the Government will consent, if they wish to retain this power, to allow any Order to enforce it to lie on the Table of the House for 30 days before it becomes operative. Further. I hope he will consent to modify the Clause which gives power to alter and amend an Act

  675
  of Parliament. One realises that the present pension administration has not kept pace with the increased volume of work. In many cases the work of administration has quite outgrown the local organisation. There are many districts where local sub-committees have not yet been appointed and where perhaps one or two of the old voluntary workers are doing their best under difficult circumstances to carry on their work effectively, without knowing what their exact position is. There are many cases where local committees have not given delegated powers to district sub-committees, and here again both district sub-committees and voluntary workers are doing their work under great difficulties.
  As has been pointed out, many secretaries to local committees in the past have been appointed simply on account of their position and because it was thought that, as they could carry out the work of the local authority, they could also do the pension work. That, of course, is quite impossible. Some local committees have made mistakes in appointing secretaries and have found it very difficult to get rid of those appointed. The paid secretary to a local committee is a most important person, he should be a whole-time officer, preferably he should be an ex-soldier, he should have good knowledge of the work, he should be sympathetic and anxious to do his best for the discharged soldier. He should not take up too official an attitude, but should help these soldiers, their wives and dependants; he should explain to them what they are entitled to and assist them in getting it. We all welcome the advances which have recently been made to meet the cost of living both in pensions and superannuation allowances. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry has alluded to the case of the childless wife whose allowance remains at 12s. 6d.—the statutory allowance, I mean, whereas the amount which could be given under Regulation 71D has been increased from 4s. to 6s. 6d. There has been a great deal of outcry against the inadequacy of the amount paid to the childless wife, and that might have been avoided if this particular Regulation had been given effect to. Either the recipients did not know they were entitled to the increased amount or the pension committees did not understand the condition under which the amount was to be given. I hope the Pensions Minister will ensure that local
  676
  committees shall give the increased allowances to women who did not work previous to their marriage or previously to their husbands enlisting. Many local pensions committees have only been giving grants when they are satisfied the woman cannot find employment. It is very important that this should be put right, and I hope that the Minister of Pensions will see that this Regulation is very liberally and generously interpreted.
  There is another Regulation 71A, with regard to contractual liabilities which admits of an increased grant. A good deal of discontent has in the past been caused because grants have not been administered by local and district committees. I do not wish to cast any reflection upon local committees, they have done excellent work, at any rate the majority have, but there are areas where the local committees have not done their work, and we must bear in mind that one discontented man makes more noise than a hundred men who have obtained their rights and are satisfied. I hope that when the Minister of Pensions gets this Bill through he will take steps to see that grants are given to these women and that the soldiers and their wives and dependants will have explained to them what they are entitled to. There is great danger that under this Bill a large bureaucracy may develope, and I hope that the Minister of Pensions will guard against it. We know that officials are rather apt to judge minor officials by the amount of money they save, and by the test as to whether their offices and books are in order. It is obvious that economy gains more credit from the official than extravagance, but I trust the Minister of Pensions will impress on his inspectors that when they go down to inspect local offices they must not be satisfied merely with seeing that the books are well kept and that there has been no breach of the regulations. The right hon. Gentleman should direct the inspectors to see that there is no discontent in the area of the office, and I would suggest for his consideration that he might issue an order to the inspectors not merely to visit the offices of the local committee but to advertise in the local paper the fact that they will be attending at a given time and be prepared to listen to any representations which discharged and disabled soldiers or their dependants may desire to make, and to investigate any complaint that may be put forward. Probably they

  677
  would get a number of unreasonable complaints, but, on the other hand, this plan would provide a safety-valve for those who are chiefly concerned when they know that they have an opportunity of making their complaint. The travelling inspector should report not merely on the state of the office and the books, but should be Able to show that he has been in touch with the people in the area, that the pensions are paid, and that the pensioners are sympathetically and efficiently treated.
  There is another point to which I would like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, and that is the question of offices. We all know that the voluntary workers have done, good work, and we trust they will continue such good work in the future, in visiting soldiers' wives and dependants in their homes and giving them advice and assistance. There is no doubt there have been complaints that some of the wives and dependants object to being visited. This may perhaps in part be due to over-sensitiveness, but it may also be traceable perhaps to an unsympathetic attitude on the part of the visitor. I would suggest to the Minister of Pensions that it might be possible to arrange with every local committee and district sub-committee to open an office for two or throe hours once every week at which soldiers and their wives and dependants can attend and see a representative of the committee. I do not want small offices kept open for long hours on every day in the week, but it would be quite easy to arrange to open an office in every district for an hour or two one day a week, and possibly the parish council offices could be utilised for the purpose. I hope the Ministry will consider all these suggestions. Just before I came down to the House I was speaking to an ex-Army man, who is now honorary secretary to one of the voluntary regimental organisations. He has been in contact with a good number of soldiers, and has come to the conclusion that a great deal of trouble has been caused by the official attitude taken up by the secretaries of some of the local committees. They may not mean any harm, but the manner in which they tackle the discharged soldier and ask him to prove his case has given rise to trouble, and he suggests that the Ministry should do what he formerly did in his own business when he employed travellers to go out and sell goods. It should discuss with the visitors the best method of approaching people.
  678
  I would suggest that there might be a sort of training school for officials, not merely in Regulations, but also in attitude and manner in addressing discharged soldiers and their wives and dependants, and in their method of dealing with these cases. I commend that to the notice of the Minister of Pensions. I hope that he will not forget the question of local offices being opened for a short time and also that of travelling inspectors, who will give everyone an opportunity of having complaints heard. I hope also that he will have reports of these travelling inspectors laid directly before him and not allow too many ordinary official channels to interpose between him and the soldiers and dependants who are to benefit.
  Sir G. TOULMIN: I agree very largely with the position taken up by the hon. Member for Salford (Sir Montague Barlow) in criticising this Bill. Our opposition, however, has been diminished by the statement which the Parliamentary Secretary has made, which suggests a willingness on the part of the Ministry to consider some drastic Amendments in the administrative previsions of the Bill. I expect that if the Second Reading be carried the House will desire to have full control, and that the Bill will be taken in Committee of the Whole House? Perhaps the Minister would give me an answer on that point.
  Mr. HODGEindicated assent.
  Sir G. TOULMIN: I do not propose to curse entirely this Bill, as some of the hon. Members who have criticised it have permitted themselves to do. The minatory Clauses have already been dealt with severely, and I cannot help agreeing with the Noble Lord the Member for Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck) in the opinion that they have been drawn up by the opponents of the system of local committees, as they imply an extremely critical attitude, and embody a power of centralisation which cannot but discourage members of these committees. They suggest a kind of control which will be very seriously resented. They give the Ministry power over individuals and over committees. Committees which do not meet the requirements of the Ministry may be taken over and the Minister is also to be able to remove a member whose conduct is not satisfactory. This description of a condition under which a member is to occupy a position on one of these committees is rather

  679
  nebulous. The Parliamentary Secretary said that Clause 3 had not been very much criticised, but I assure him that attention has been paid to it, and it has been pointed out that it enables the Minister to appoint more than a quorum of the committee. One-third of the present number of members is to be added, and that will make one-fourth of the total. I was very glad to hear the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary as to Clause 6 in reference to the Special Grants Committee, and his expression of willingness to work this Clause with the agreement of those who specially favour that committee. I assure the Ministry that there is a feeling of great repulsion to a cold, hard, official administration. I do not suggest it with regard to the heads of the Department, but in reference to the method of administration through officialdom and to the dilatory recognition of what are undoubted claims. I think that the Ministry would be wise if they would adopt the interposition of a Committee, entirely non-party in character, of this House, whom he could consult on principles in regard to the administration of pensions, and when the measure leaves this House we should rather seek to encourage than to check local committees. We should give the greatest possible encouragement and assistance to local committees, so that their local sympathy and knowledge may be applied to the cases of these men to whom we owe a debt which commands our overwhelming gratitude.
  The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Minister wants local pensions committees. I think that we must accept his statement, and I do not doubt that the Ministry are indeed, as he said, profoundly grateful to them; but I am quite sure that some of these committees will not read that into this Bill. He claims as a reason for the Bill that there are negligent committees whose existence constitutes the reason for some of the most stringent provisions as to the government of committees. Clause 2, Sub-section (1) (g), applies after a public inquiry, and after proved negligence and default, but many of the provisions regulating these committees apparently are to be applied on the mere will of the Ministry alone. After joining in so much criticism, perhaps I may now come to a Clause which has given me a great deal of hope. I cannot say that I am entirely satisfied with Clause 8, but it does give me a great deal of hope and
  680
  pleasure. In that Clause we find the recognition of the duty of the Ministry to make provision for the care of some children of men who have died or are on active service, who, by reason of the mothers being dead or for any other reason, come within the Clause. I spoke in May on this point, but I claimed not merely for those who are under this Clause but for all these children who are included in the words which I have already read without the exception which is introduced by the words which follow. I claimed that all these children are the wards of the State. In the case of the children of these men who died or who are on active service, where the wives are perhaps dead or the mothers are dead, or perhaps, for some other reason, are unable properly to care for them, it is our duty to provide for them and to see that their future is properly safeguarded, but I hope that before the Clause leaves the House we shall make the Pensions Ministry undertake the guardianship of the whole of these children and the supervision of the whole of them, and that we shall not have to wait until there is suffering from neglect or want or proper care proved.
  There may be much suffering undetected in cases where 10s. a week is simply handed out with no supervision. The form of the Clause makes it a punitive Clause. It is, as I read it, only to come into effect if children are suffering from neglect or want of proper care, and in that respect I think, that the Clause should be expanded to include all cases. We desire to secure the contact of a non-official influence on the individual, like that of some of the boarding-out committees in another connection, with some central control. I should like to know whether the Ministry has in view for that the Special Grants Committee which will undoubtedly accumulate a large amount of experience in special cases? I should like to know whether committees under Sub-section (2) of Clause 8 are to be connected with the Special Grants Committee, as referred to in Sub-section (3) of the same Clause? In this Subsection the Minister, after having given his confidence to the committee, seems, to a certain extent, to withdraw it, because the question in reference to "grant" is not for decision but for report. Why not for determination? It seems to me that it would strengthen the Minister if he had an absolute decision from this independent committee. Reading the whole Clause together, I really should

  681
  like to know whether these provisions suggest a limitation of the funds, owing to an intention by the Pensions Minister to perform the duties under this Clause by the means of private funds at his disposal, because, I think, that it is the duty of the State to make provision. If it looks in certain directions to private funds, well and good, but the main duty is a duty which the State owes to these children. Can the Minister assure the House that there is now no waiting list of tuberculous children? Is the treatment of these children to be limited by the amount of private funds?
  We are lagging behind our neighbours in legislation in regard to this matter. Our neighbour, France, in July of last year, declared State guardianship of war orphans. That is the position which, I think, we ought to adopt. Our financial provision for these children is very much improved, but there are the delicate children for whom, I think, we ought to do more and for whom special provision ought to be made. There are too many mothers of children indicated in this Clause who have failed to secure the health and well-being of the children. I wonder if the Minister has any idea of how many such mothers there are? I am afraid that the number is large. These children require to be nursed back into full health. Then there are children of mothers in asylums, with bad hereditary history, children who require not merely months but years of open-air life, accompanied by appropriate education, for whom such a thing as an open-air school community is required. Under this Clause I suggest that the Minister has an opportunity of making a most magnificent social experiment if the State does its duty and is wisely directed. These children are here now. The powers of the Special Grants Committee are not so generally known as, I believe, they might be, and I hope that it is part of the intention of the Ministry to see that those powers are used more by the local committees. I do not propose to vote for the Amendment which has been moved, but I must say that the Bill requires considerable amendment before it finds its way to the Statute Book.
  Mr. C. PRICE: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the Bill which he has introduced, though I think he has been too long in coming to Parliament with it. I listened to his description of his inability to carry out certain matters because of
  682
  what local committees had done or failed to do, and I think that he would really not have done his duty to himself if he had failed to come to the House of Commons for the powers which he now seeks. Never in my life have I known such great discontent amongst the women of the country as exists during the present time. During the last fortnight I have received a number of complaints in regard to this subject, and, unless something is done, the country will be face to face with a very grave condition of things. The Bill now before us is undoubtedly a very great advance, and I am glad that it proposes greater power of control over local committees in order to see that they do their duty. One of the gravest complaints, made by a deputation which visited the right hon. Gentleman last week, was that little has been done to make known to the people what they are entitled to. I say that the State has no right to keep men or women ignorant of what they are entitled to under the Act of Parliament. Numbers of cases have been brought to my notice where people did not know to what they were entitled, and a great many of the complaints arise from the fact that people have not been enlightened about what they are entitled to under the provisions of the Act. A deputation of the Scottish Federation of Discharged Sailors and Soldiers waited upon the right hon. Gentleman, and their greatest complaint, in regard to which they gave a large number of instances, was that the local committees had absolutely failed to hold meetings—in one case, I think, for twelve months. This Bill, I hope, will be some remedy to that complaint. I am very glad that the State is going to bear the expenses of the whole administration; and a second point of importance is that full-time secretaries are to be employed, while power is to be taken to add to the local committees ad hoc members, and I think these should be either discharged soldiers or sailors or their wives, because they have a far greater knowledge of the subject in regard to which complaints are received. At present there is far too much patronising by members of these committees. Instead of visitors being employed as voluntary officers to deal with the work of the committees, I submit that these committees should have a paid official to make visits, because in many cases people feel that with a purely official visitor they will get better consideration than is received

  683
  from persons who have been nominated. Of course this Bill does not in my judgment meet the great source of discontent, and that is the allowances which are made. The sum of 12s. 6d. a week is out of all proportion to the cost of living, though it may have borne some relation to that cost in 1914. When speaking on this subject in Edinburgh I got from some local representatives in the meeting complaints that 12s. 6d. is not enough. I secured returns of the cost of living from the Local Government Board of Scotland, and that statement shows the average weekly cost of living. The figures were real testimony in respect of certain important areas of Scotland to the real justice of the claim made by the people. In 1913 the whole average cost of living was 11s. 4d.; in 1914 it increased to 11s. 8d.; in 1915 to 12s. 5d.; in 1916 to 13s.; and in 1917 to 17s. 6d. I have not got figures for the whole of Scotland, but in one area the figure was 11s. 1d. in 1914, and I am told that it has risen to 18s. 8d. It is a perfect scandal that these poor people should have to buy the necessaries of life at so great a cost, and that the Ministry of Pensions should have done nothing for the wives and families of soldiers and sailors.
  Mr. SPEAKER: How is that relevant to this Motion?
  Mr. PRICE: With very great respect, Sir, my point is that the Ministry of Pensions has the administration of the Act, and I submit that I have a perfect right, or I thought I had a right, to call attention to the fact that the amount which is administered is not enough to meet the cost of living.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That would be very proper on the Vote for the Minister, but it has no relation to this Bill.
  Mr. PRICE: There are two other points to which I wish to refer. First of all, I submit that disabled men should be forced to learn a trade. That is a matter of very grave importance. The very fact that so many men now disabled can get easy work at good wages is a great temptation to take that work, but I submit that they should be induced to learn a trade in which they could in future obtain employment when properly qualified, instead of taking employment which is easier to obtain and where the wages are larger. I submit that something should be done by the Ministry to induce and help the
  684
  men to learn a trade by giving a larger grant during the time that they are learning it. They would thus be equipping themselves for future employment, instead of taking easy employment at a larger wage that may cease a few months later. I submit that there should be a legal right to pensions established by Parliament. It is absolutely wrong when a man becomes disabled in rendering service to his country that he should not have a legal right to pension. When the value of his services to his country has been assessed to pension, the man should have a legal right which would enable him to enforce its payment in any Court of law. These are matters which I trust will be seen to by the right hon. Gentleman in the course of this Bill through the House.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: My hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions made a very conciliatory speech, which I must say has disarmed a great many of the criticisms which I had intended to make. He made a remark which rather surprised me, that the Ministry of Pensions were profoundly grateful to the local committees. If that be so, all I can say is that whoever drafted this Bill dissembled very cleverly and did their best to camouflage that gratitude; because nobody could read this Bill and could imagine that it was drafted by anybody who had any gratitude whatever to the local committees. That view is apparently taken by the local committees themselves. They had a conference to-day at Birmingham, and I would like to read a telegram which I have just received as to the result of the conference:
  "Conference to-day at Birmingham of war pensions committees of sixteen principal cities of England and Scotland urge that the Second Reading of the War Pensions Bill should be deferred to allow local war committees to have an opportunity to express their views."
  This is from a conference of sixteen of the best local war committees, and I must confess that I feel great sympathy with them, because the title of this Bill is very misleading. All these words representing the title of this Bill might be dispensed with, and the true intention of the Bill might be explained by simply saying that it was a Bill to enable the Pensions Ministry to do whatever it liked without reference to anybody, and without any Parliamentary control. I suggest that although my hon. and gallant Friend claimed to be a thorough democrat on this

  685
  subject, yet these are not democratic lines on which to frame a Bill. They are autocratic lines, or bureaucratic lines—anything save democratic. If this is his idea of a democrat, I think I can claim to be a better democrat than he is. I do not for a moment dispute the fact that there are some local committees that required what is called gingering up, and ginger, properly administered where required, may be useful. I have frequently endeavoured to inject the Ministry of Pensions, and in many cases with success, but it is one thing to administer ginger in moderate quantities where required, but it is another thing to dose every committee throughout the country with such quantities as would kill the self-respect of every good man on those committees. That would be a mere abuse. Although I am not what is called a temperance reformer, I would suggest to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that in this matter the draftsmen of this Bill might have been more temperate. I am very much disarmed by the proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, made on the authority of the Minister of Pensions—if I understand him rightly; I hope he will correct me if I am making any mistake—that, if we give a Second Reading to this Bill to-night, a reasonable interval will elapse before the Committee stage is brought on, and that during that interval the Ministry of Pensions will discuss what alterations should be made in the Bill with the Parliamentary War Pensions Bureau, representative of all parties in this House, and, therefore, representative of all sections in the country. I would much rather that he accepted the suggestion of the hon. Member for Sal-ford, that it should be a Select Committee but if he is very firm on that point, and will not agree to that suggestion, then I certainly must admit, in turn, that I would not vote against this Bill in view of the arrangement which he has sketched out and which I have endeavoured to state definitely and in clear language. I do not know whether there will be a Division or not, but if there should be I should not feel justified, after what my hon. and gallant Friend has said, in voting against the Ministry; on the other hand, I do not at present feel justified in voting for this Bill in any form or shape, and, therefore, I shall abstain from voting altogether.
  Amendment negatived.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a second time; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Wednesday, 30th October.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

  IRISH LAND (PROVISION FOR SAILORS AND SOLDIERS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. HAZLETON: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words,
  "while this House declares its willingness to make generous provision for all Irish soldiers and sailors who have fought as volunteers in the present war, it declines to proceed with a measure which would be unworkable and impracticable, which would absolutely undermine the land settlements effected by the various Land Purchase Acts, and which would be unjust to many Irish soldiers and sailors, for whom it would be impossible to provide land."
  The House has been considering the whole of this afternoon a very important measure making provision for soldiers and sailors who have been engaged in this War. The House has just passed that measure unanimously and now comes on for consideration another measure, also to make provision for soldiers and sailors who have been engaged in this War. I would ask the House of Commons to note the contrast which now presents itself, namely, that whereas, except for some criticisms of some of its details, the Bill just passed has got the unanimous assent and approval of Members of all parties of the House, the Bill now before us meets with the resolute and unhesitating opposition of the great majority of the Members of Parliament from Ireland. It may be significant perhaps in passing to note that the reason may well be found in the fact that the first measure which the House passed unanimously applies to the whole of the United Kingdom, to England and Scotland, Wales and Ireland, and that therefore, it is of necessity responsive to the public opinion of this country and must be in accord with it, while the Bill we are now asked to consider deals with Ireland only, and the House of Commons is not called upon to have regard at all to what Irish opinion may be.
  Mr. BOOTH: Where are the Irish officers?
  Mr. HAZLETON: They are at dinner, and I suppose will not be here until they have finished.
  Colonel ASHLEY: May I move "That the Debate be now adjourned," on the ground that there is nobody here representing the Irish Office to explain this Bill?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It would be a strong order to move the Adjournment of the Debate after two or three minutes. I understand that the Minister has been sent for, and that he will be here shortly.
  Mr. HAZLETON: I agree that the usual practice of the House of Commons when a Bill has just been printed and on Second Reading is for the Minister to come down to the Box and explain it. I venture to say there never was a Bill which needs more explaining than the present Bill, because it may mean nothing or it may mean anything, and the House is entitled to know. The reason for the Bill, the extraordinary Bill which the House has now to consider, is that it applies to Ireland and that Irish opinion at the present time is not supposed to count. Although the explanation is hardly necessary, I desire to explain that there is no idea whatever from these benches of the slightest hostility to any of the soldiers or sailors, but, on the contrary, we stand where we have always stood—on the splendid patriotism and heroism and self-sacrifice of the Irish soldiers who have gone out to fight in this War for the cause of the Allies, and that we are ardently anxious to see them rewarded in every way that is possible for the services they have rendered to liberty and for the sacrifices which they have made. Therefore I wish to emphasise that in opposing this Bill we are not animated in the slightest degree by hostility to any of those to whom the Bill purports to be of benefit.
  I would like to point out what has been the genesis of this Bill. We have had no explanation from the Chief Secretary of the provisions of this Bill so far, though the Second Beading has been moved. It is not, as I understand it, a Bill to benefit the great mass of Irish soldiers and sailors who have enlisted and fought in this War. It is not intended to apply at all to the great mass of Irish soldiers and sailors enlisted in the War. The genesis of the Bill is a Proclamation issued by Lord French in the month of May last, when the Government had backed down upon its Conscription proposals, and when he
  688
  called for 50,000 voluntary recruits from Ireland. In that Proclamation he made what amounted to a promise, and what really looked as if it were intended to be a bribe, that those who would respond to this appeal might hope to be given after the War a patch of land. I think it only due to the men who have volunteered in this War from Ireland to say that they want no bribe from this Government. They entered this War to fight not for a patch of Irish land but to fight for the liberty of their country, and the liberty of their country is the reward at stake, which they had hoped and still hope that they will receive for the sacrifices they have made. This Bill is to be a partial measure to apply only to the men who have responded to Lord French's appeal of May last, and not to the 175,000 or 185,000 Irish soldiers who joined the Army before that. Therefore it would be a measure of the most extraordinary partiality and injustice, because—let us face the facts—the men who have since volunteered in response to Lord French's appeal are very unlikely to have to face all the dangers and difficulties and perils which the men of the earlier period of the War had to face. Indeed, it is quite likely that many of those men whom it is attempted in this Bill to bribe, and to whom is to be given a preference over the hundreds and thousands of men who are not to benefit at all under this measure, will never see a shot fired in anger in this War.
  There is no doubt that from whatever point of view you approach this measure it is absolutely unworkable in every particular. Everybody acquainted with the conditions of Ireland and who has any knowledge of the history of the land question for the last thirty years knows that, without bringing in new complications at all, there is not enough land to go round in Ireland at the present time for the settlement of the land problem to the satisfaction of the people. You have spent, this House has spent, the Government has spent, more than thirty years endeavouring to work out a practicable settlement of the Irish land question, and here you come forward at this hour with a proposal which—and in my judgment there is no doubt at all about this—may very well threaten to wreck the whole system and the foundation of the land settlement in Ireland and its future. This Bill, in Sub-section (1) of Clause 1, which is the operative Clause, proposes to put any men who have served in any of His

  689
  Majesty's naval, military, or air forces in the present War in the same position as if they were tenants or proprietors of holdings not exceeding £10 in rateable value, notwithstanding that they are not in fact tenants or proprietors of any such holding. I draw attention in passing to the words which provide that the Land Commission may give land to any men who have served in any of His Majesty's naval, military, or air forces in the War. It does not say any Irishman; it does not say any Englishman, or even any Scotsman. It might be men from any part of the Empire, so that this Clause is drawn in the widest possible sense, and gives the widest possible powers to the Land Commission to make a new plantation of Ireland should it enter into their minds to do so. That, of course, is a provision which will require amendment. I should like to point out that in ordinary circumstances, either in the congested districts or elsewhere, one of the gravest and most difficult problems in attempting to work out the settlement of the Irish land question is the problem of migratory, tenants or landholders from one district to another, even where those people, I will not say go from the same parish, but go from one part of the same county to another. In such circumstances there is always grave danger of friction in planting them down in new surroundings and amongst new neighbours.
  You propose by this Bill to give power to the Estates Commissioners to bring men, perhaps from outside Ireland, and certainly from the various provinces of Ireland, probably from Ulster down to Connaught and from Connaught to Ulster, although I do not think that it is likely, because according to the contention of the Ulster Members there is no land in Ulster which is available for the purposes of this Bill. Therefore in this matter there is an automatic exclusion of Ulster from Ireland, and Ulster is to benefit in so far as there would be any benefit from this Bill by a new invasion of the other provinces of Ireland. The Bill contains most extraordinary provisions and gives the Estates Commissioners and the Land Commission the most sweeping and remarkable powers. I want to know from the Chief Secretary who is responsible and what Department is responsible for the drafting of this Bill and for the powers that have been put into this Bill? Even if it is proposed to carry out the terms of Lord French's Proclamation, and we contend it
  690
  to be utterly unworkable and impossible no matter what you may desire, what was the necessity for putting these drastic, sweeping, and widespread powers into the Bill and giving them into the hands of the Land Commission in existing circumstances? I want the Chief Secretary, when he comes to speak, to explain the meaning of Sub-section (4) of Clause 1, which reads:
  "The resumption of any holding or part of a holding by the Land Commission on an estate purchased by them may be authorised for the purposes of this Act under Sub-section (6) of Section five of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, whether the holding is or is not subject to statutory conditions."
  8.0 P.M.
  I want the Chief Secretary to explain that Clause. Why was that put in? What does that Clause do? What was the necessity for it? I say that that Sub-clause as it is drafted gives power to the Land Commission to dispossess every existing tenant in Ireland that they choose to dispossess. It gives power for a new plantation outside the purposes of this Bill altogether. It is all very well for the Chief Secretary to tell us, as I suppose he will tell us, that this Bill is only intended for a special purpose. We know the value to place on assurances from the Treasury Bench, from the Cabinet, and from the Irish Government. We know how we have been tricked and deceived month after month and week after week by the Government in its dealings with Ireland, and I say we are prepared to place no reliance whatever on any assurance from that bench, from the right hon. Gentleman, or from any other member of the Government. If this House is to be called upon to consider this Bill it will have to have the Bill watertight, and cannot tolerate the granting to any Department of such extraordinary powers as are proposed in Subsection (4) of Section 1. It gives power to the Land Commission not merely to take untenanted land but to terminate tenancies, to purchase an estate on which there may be one or two hundred tenants, and to turn round and say to those tenants, "Get out! We want your land for soldiers and sailors." I and we do not hesitate to say that under the system of government that prevails in Ireland at this moment we have grave suspicions as to how that power might be used. Take an obstreperous district which at present you put under your martial law or your coercion—what is there to prevent the Government, through the Land Commission,

  691
  going down to that district, which may be giving the right hon. Gentleman trouble, and saying to those people, "You behave yourselves or we will buy this property under Sub-section (4) of Clause 1 of this Bill, and turn you out from your holdings." I say that there never was a proposal more calculated to undermine the last shred of confidence in the impartial administration of any Government Department such as the Land Commission than the proposals which are contained in this Bill.
  It is impossible to escape drawing a distinction between what is proposed to be done in Ireland and what is proposed to be done here in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is not to-day, it is not this Session only, that the House was asked to consider a Bill for giving facilities to soldiers and sailors to go upon the land after the War here in England and in Scotland. The House passed in 1916 a measure for small allotments, which it amended this year, and that measure provided that not one acre more than 6,000 in Great Britain could be taken for that purpose, and that it must be taken by agreement only, and the Bill, such as it was, was a Bill which contained and began with this provision, that it was only to operate during the continuance of the present War, and for a period of twelve months thereafter; whereas there is no limit to the time operation of the Bill which is produced by the Chief Secretary to-day. It may go on being a thorn in the side of the country, and a difficulty, and a threat, and a danger to the peace of Ireland for years and years to come. The British Bill was not even primarily intended to give land to English or Scotch soldiers and sailors, because it said, as it were in passing, that in the selection of persons to be settled on the land so acquired, the Board of Agriculture shall give preference to persons who have served in the naval and military forces of the Crown in the present War. I would like the House to note how in a measure of this kind English opinion must be consulted by the Government. English opinion counts with the Government. Irish opinion does not count at all. Here is the English provision which you were compelled to insert in the Bill you passed earlier in this Session. It says:
  "Provided also that no portion of the additional land authorised by this Act to be acquired by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries shall be so acquired except after consultation with the
  692
  chairman of the council of the county in which the land proposed to be acquired is situate, or with a committee of that county."
  Under the Bill of this Session you increase the area to be taken in this country from 6,000 to 60,000 acres, but you insert that provision that it can only be taken with the consent of the chairman of the county council or a committee of the council. Is there any provision of that kind in the Irish Bill? Is it referred to the chairman of an Irish county council, or to any committee of an Irish county council? No; these autocratic and impossible powers are taken by the Government and given to this reactionary Government Department, over which public opinion has no control whatever, and which is prepared to flout and ignore public opinion, and I say that the House ought to note the contrast between the treatment which is meted out to England and the treatment which is meted out to Ireland in these matters. We shall want to hear from the right hon. Gentleman, as definitely and as fully as it is possible for him to give to the House, a statement of what exactly are the proposals that the Government intend to carry out under this Bill. I say that the Bill ought to have been drawn not in the broad, wide way in which it has been drawn, but to meet the conditions which the Government has in its mind. I have endeavoured to point out that under the existing situation in Ireland a measure of this kind is one which it would be impossible to work without friction, without danger to the peace of the community, not because there is any hostility to the soldiers, but because this whole Irish land question has been and is so complicated and so difficult that throwing a monkey wrench into the machinery, such as this Bill proposes to do, can but end in the gravest threat to the peace and order and security of the districts where it is proposed to operate. I say that Ireland is the last country where a measure of this kind ought to be introduced. If you deliberately tried to exasperate and further to unsettle public opinion in Ireland, you could not devise a surer way than by telling the people of Ireland, as you practically tell them in this Bill, that the whole foundation of the Irish land system, such as we have known it, is to be put into the melting pot by a measure of this kind, that these new and extraordinary powers are to be taken and used by a Government Department, we do not know how; and I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we

  693
  are bound to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill and to resist it with our whole energy at every stage in the future.
  Mr. DORIS: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I wish to say, coming from an extremely congested district, that this measure, if passed, will cause a great deal of trouble and a great deal of dissatisfaction. In this congested district the people have been expecting for a long time additions to their wretchedly small holdings. Thy Congested Districts Board have been telling them that they have been unable to get the necessary money from the Treasury, and some of us on these Benches have been telling them to have patience and that in due time they will get these lands. Now under this Bill as it stands it will appear to these people tomorrow that you are going to send soldiers, who have done good work for the State and whom the State ought to recompense, on to the land that these poor people and their families have been expecting for years. You pass Acts of Parliament here declaring that these people should have these lands. You have not put those Acts into force as regards the people for whom they are intended, and now I can imagine how these people will hear that you are going to send soldiers from all parts into their districts to take up these lands. There will be endless confusion and disturbances, as if we have not sufficient already, and I warn you that this Bill will breed discontent for years to come. If you sent angels from Heaven instead of soldiers it would be precisely the same thing. The people cannot live on the wretched holdings they have at the present time. They want all the land that is available, and I say you have no right to rob Peter to pay Paul and to recompense your soldiers, who have done such good work, solely at the expense of these poor people while, you have plenty of money at your disposal for the purpose.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Shortt): I regret that owing to the Debate on the previous matter ending rather more quickly than I expected, I was not here to explain the Bill before it was necessary for the Amendment to be moved. But, I think, perhaps, that no harm has been done, because I shall be able first to clear up some of the misapprehensions upon which the Amendment is based. Indeed, so far as I have been able to judge, the whole arguments
  694
  in favour of the Amendments have been based on a total misapprehension of the Bill and what the intentions of the promoters of the Bill are.
  Mr. HAZLETON: We do not go by intentions.
  Mr. SHORTT: This Bill, as its title denotes, is to facilitate the provision of land in Ireland for men who have served in the naval, military, or air forces of the Crown in the present War. I agree with the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, who desire to do something for those who have served their country, and there will be no difference of opinion there. I quite appreciate, and hope I shall be believed, that I am satisfied no opposition to the Bill does come from any lack of desire to do anything that can be done for soldiers and sailors, and I hope I shall be able to show hon. Members that their fears with regard to the workableness of this Bill are totally unfounded. The Bill, as has been said, is brought in pursuance of a statement by His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant in June last, and that statement was that
  "Steps should be taken to ensure as far as possible that land shall be available for men who have fought for their country and the necessary legislative measure is now under consideration."
  In past Debates it would appear that people are under the impression that the whole question in June this year, when that statement was made, was a new matter, that it was something in the nature of a wild-cat scheme which had been created in the minds of those who had been acting the part of a new broom. Nothing could be further from the truth. When that statement was made by His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, the matter had been carefully considered for months. May I remind the House what really is the origin of this measure which we are discussing to-night. In, I think it was August, or at any rate some time about August, 1916, a measure was passed in this House providing for the settlement of soldiers and sailors in Great Britain. That Bill did not affect Ireland in any way whatever, and there were many people who believed that some measure of a similar nature ought to be extended to Ireland if possible. In consequence of that my predecessor in office, Lord Justice Duke, appointed a Committee to go into the whole question. Now, Sir, that Committee consisted of four gentlemen who represented the Irish Local Government

  695
  Board, the Irish Board of Agriculture, the Congested Districts Board, and the Irish Land Commission, and I say without fear of contradiction, at any rate without fear of contradiction which can be substantiated, no bodies of men can be found who are more conversant wth the Irish land question than those four Departments. They are in constant touch with it, they are dealing with it in every aspect from day to day, they are familiar with its every ramification and they are just the four Departments who could form an absolutely sound opinion upon, first of all, the practicability, and, secondly, the advisability of any such measure as that which we propose. They sat and considered this question in every aspect, and in the spring of 1917, they reported to my predecessor in office, and I will just read one short sentence from their Report, and it is this:
  "The Small Holdings (Colonies) Act, 1916, was passed with the object of providing small holdings and allotments for discharged soldiers and sailors in Great Britain."
  And they go on to say:
  "And we are unanimous in recommending that similar opportunities should be given to Irish soldiers and sailors to obtain small holdings and allotments in their own country."
  Mr. HAZLETON: Has that Report ever been tabled?
  Mr. SHORTT: I am not sure. I do not know.
  Mr. HAZLETON: On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted from a document. Am I entitled to ask that that document should be laid on the Table of the House of Commons?
  The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): Unless there is some over-riding public interest concerned, it is usual that a document which is quoted from should be presented to the House and laid on the Table.
  Mr. SHORTT: There is no over-riding public interest and no possible reason why I should object to put it on the Table, and if hon. Members require it they shall have it on the Table, and see it, if it will be helpful to them. That Report was made by gentlemen who knew every one of the difficulties put forward to-night. They knew exactly the land hunger that exists in Ireland; they knew that people were waiting in many districts for the land they hoped one day would be theirs. They knew just every difficulty which the
  696
  Mover and Seconder have pointed out, and with all that knowledge and experience they made that recommendation. They went further, and recommended that as there was in existence the machinery for carrying out any scheme, that the carrying out of any proposal should be put into the hands of the Estates Commissioners of the Land Commission and pledged themselves loyally to support the Estates Commissioners in carrying out any proposal. Now, Sir, these proposals that have been made to-night so far from being the wild-cat scheme of new brooms, are the result of consideration by the four Departments who know most of the whole conditions of Irish land. That was the position when His Excellency and I myself took office. I quite agree that it would be idle to suggest that the whole of the land in Ireland was available for soldiers and sailors.
  I quite agree that, when you are proposing to settle upon the land those who have served in the War, you cannot take it that the whole of the land which may be vested in the Land Commission or Congested Districts Board, or which they may be under agreement to purchase—you cannot take it that the whole of that land is available. Clearly it is not in many districts, where it would be inadvisable or impossible to introduce an interloper of any sort or description. All that has been considered, and has been before those who are responsible for the provisions of this Bill. We had, of course, before bringing this Bill in, to consider two things: What amount of land was available and what number of persons were likely to make application. May I remind the House—and I think it is advisable, as there may be, though it does not seem very likely, some who are unfamiliar with the provisions of the Irish Land Acts—what the powers of the Estates Commissioners are. The provisions of this Bill are based absolutely upon existing powers with one exception, namely, the exception which gives to the Department of Agriculture powers from the English Act of 1916 with regard to co-operation and so on. With that exception, they are all based upon the powers of the Estates Commissioners.
  Put briefly, the Estates Commissioners are empowered to purchase estates for the purpose of resale to tenants, and the main portion of the land which they are able to give the people who are not existing

  697
  tenants on estates is, of course, the un-tenanted land. They are at the present moment limited in the area from which they can choose their tenants. They are entitled under Section 17 of the Act of 1909 to take as tenants, and to make advances to as tenants, tenants or proprietors of holdings of not more than £10 rateable value. They are entitled to take men who, in a congested area, have given up their tenancy in order to relieve congestion, and they are entitled to take evicted tenants. The words are rather wider than evicted tenants, but it was intended to meet the case of evicted tenants. Generally speaking, their powers are buying estates in order to create small proprietors from those three bodies. This Bill proposes that any soldier or sailor who does not come within one of those three categories should be deemed to do so. That is to say, a man who desires to hold land, and who does not come within one of those three categories, should be deemed to do so in order to qualify him to get land. It has been suggested that any soldier from anywhere—
  Mr. HAZLETON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how much land it is proposed to give each soldier?
  Mr. SHORTT: Really, I think the hon. Member might leave me to make my speech in my own way. I was coming to that presently. It has been suggested that any soldier from anywhere would be entitled to come within that category. If any hon. Member really seriously thinks that anybody but an Irishman is concerned, words can be introduced to make the point perfectly clear. Many a time before doubts have been expressed as to whether it only refers to those who are enlisted in Ireland. There has been a suggestion made to-night that it only refers to those who enlisted after June. There is nothing in the Lord Lieutenant's statement, and nothing in the Bill, to justify any such suggestion. The proposal is that this Bill should apply to Irishmen. There are plenty of Irishmen who have enlisted, and who have fought magnificently, outside of Ireland. I can speak, at any rate, for one body with which I have some connection, namely, the Tyneside Irish, and if an Irishman who had enlisted in the Tyneside Irish desired to settle on land in Ireland and came forward, and was a man who really wanted to settle on the land in Ireland, he would be absolutely entitled to do so.
  698
  The intention is to meet the needs of Irish soldiers who have fought in this War, and if that is not sufficiently clear, or if Members really do doubt the genuine sincerity of the Estates Commissioners in carrying out this Bill, provision can easily be made to meet it. That is the intention. That is the proposal, namely, that Irishmen who have fought in this War, who have risked their lives and everything that they have for the purpose of their country, should be brought within the category of those who are entitled to be tenants under the powers of the Land Commission.
  The numbers of men, of course, are very difficult to estimate. In the first place, some men who have fought would be qualified without this measure. For them this Bill is not necessary, but of the others, judging from the information we can get as to the class of men who have been fighting in the Irish regiments or Irishmen fighting in English regiments, the number of men who require an economic holding—that is, a holding varying from 15 to 20 acres or up to 30 acres—would not be very great; but there would be a very large number of men who would desire to take to a life on the land, and a still larger number of those who, while their occupation was a town occupation, would desire small parcels of land which they could till, and by which they could add to their income. Those are the three classes of men, so far as one can judge from the information one gets as to the class from which the soldiers and sailors would come whose necessities have got to be met. With regard to those who require an economic holding, it is very difficult indeed to estimate how much land there, is available. Indeed, to all those questions, whereas you can be satisfied that there is sufficient to do such substantial justice to soldiers and sailors as amply to justify this Bill, it is very difficult to give anything approaching a definite answer; but the fact that you cannot give a definite answer is no reason for saying that where you can do substantial justice to soldiers and sailors, that justice should not be done. We have made what inquiries we can. To-day there is vested in both the Lands Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board a certain amount of land. Not a great deal of that would be available for this purpose. Some of it is allocated. Most of it is in those districts where strangers could not very well be brought in. There is a further amount of land

  699
  which is under agreement to purchase. As to that land, very much of it, in the opinion of the Commissioners, would be available for soldiers and sailors. It would not be all available, of course. The same considerations apply to that as apply to that which is already vested in those bodies, but a very substantial amount of that land would be available.
  In addition to that there is a very considerable amount of land in Ireland, the owners of some of which have already expressed their willingness to sell on reasonable terms for the purposes of this Bill—untenanted land, which they would sell the moment the scheme was in operation, and have expressed their willingness. There is other land of the same description which would properly be taken, and as to which compulsory powers are inserted in this Bill—land which could very well be taken for the same purpose, and as to land of that description which would deal with that portion, and by far the smaller portion, of the soldiers and sailors who would require an economic holding, they think that something like 3,000 could be accommodated with holdings of from 15 to 20 or 30 acres in extent. There is another source from which further land could be obtained for economic holdings. There is undoubtedly in Ireland great scope for land reclamation. I have read reports from experts of the greatest experience, who have gone into that question, and undoubtedly by arterial drainage, and by building sea-walls on slob lands, there is great scope for increasing the agricultural area. That land would be available for the same purpose, so that there would be, even if inadequate, even if not nearly to the extent which one would desire, sufficient land to provide for economic holdings for a sufficient number of soldiers and sailors amply to justify the bringing in of these provisions.
  You come to the next object of this Bill—those who wish to be instructed to become farmers, to be put into groups where they may co-operate. Provision is also made in the Bill for men of that class. There is a provision in Clause 2 applying to Ireland the provisions which already apply to England to enable the Irish Agricultural Department to form groups of any number that are available and that would care to act in co-operation. There is power to
  700
  instruct these. There is power also now as, of course, hon. Members know, in the Estates Commissioners, to equip the land, to stock the land, to fence and to drain it, in fact, to do everything that is necessary to make it fit for those who are going to take it. There is all that power; and, in addition, there is power to finance those concerned by credit banks, and also power to inspect their work. There would thus be little groups of men co-operatively working who would be able to make a good living. Hon. Members opposite know perfectly well that co-operation is no new thing in the Irish agricultural industry. You have only to look at the creameries such as I have seen in Ireland lately with the best and most up-to-date machinery, working in the most admirable way, and with very great profit to the very large number of members from the surrounding districts. There is provision also that that sort of thing can be done under the provisions of this Act. Still further, there is a class, and a class which, I am advised, will probably be the biggest class of all, namely, those soldiers and sailors who, having had a country upbringing in their boyhood and knowledge of the country, as practically all Irishmen have, who will desire, while working at some town occupation, to have something up to, say, a couple, or even three, acres in the neighbourhood of their dwelling. That provision, I am led to believe, will provide for a larger number of men than can possibly be provided for under a system of even economic holdings. These, shortly, are the provisions of the Bill.
  Dealing now in more detail with portions of the Bill, it provides, as I have said, first of all—and as the main point—with the soldiers and sailors who have become eligible to have advances made to them by the Estates Commissioners. When I say advances, I mean that they are not only advances for the purchase of the land, but that the land will have proper buildings put upon it, that it will be stocked, drained, fenced, and equipped in every way—while an annuity will be fixed exactly as to-day. Having regard to the economic value of the holding, it will probably be fixed at from sixty to seventy years. Then there is power to deal with land which belongs to the Congested Districts Board, after consultation with them, the reason for the latter, of course, is that by agreement with the four bodies the whole of the working of this scheme is put into the hands of the Estates

  701
  Commissioners. My hon. Friend opposite asks me the reason for Sub-clause (4) of Clause 1—that dealing with the resumption of any holding or part of a holding by the Land Commission on an estate purchased by them. Really, I think, if my hon. Friend considers he will find that all his worst fears about the clearing of any area of persons whom we were afraid would be a disturbing element are absolutely groundless. The object of that provision is this: It may very well be, and it is anticipated that men who have economic holdings of, say, 20 acres, near to the big towns will be quite willing to substitute such a holding for one further away from the town in order that it may be split into, say, eight, ten or twelve holdings, for men who live in the town. That, however, can only be done under the strictest restrictions, with full compensation, and on reasonable grounds. If my hon. Friend will consider a little and look at what the provision is, he will find that all his fears are absolutely groundless. I think that that probably is the only definite point with which I need deal in respect to the more minute details of the Bill.
  The cost will be considerable. That is a matter which we had to face, and have faced, with the Imperial Treasury. Previous to the War the loss upon an economic holding was something like £200. It is very improbable that we shall be able really to make an economic holding without a loss, say, of something like £300. That on 3,000 to 4,000 holdings will come to something like £1,000,000. But I imagine that, however serious the loss may be considered, if in the provision of 3,000 to 4,000 holdings we are doing nothing but what is fair to a number of men who have fought for their country, it will be by no means too large a sum for the purpose, and I am quite sure the House, if they think of it, and if they are satisfied that this measure is really going to have the effect which I claim for it, will come to the conclusion that the money is well spent. I would remind the House that the loss will be spread over a large number of years. If the Bill fails in its object it would mean that the loss would not be incurred, at any rate so far as regards the soldiers and sailors. There is a provision by which purchases which would otherwise have been extended over a longer period may be expedited for the purposes of the Bill. That does not in the long run affect
  702
  the call upon the Imperial Exchequer; it simply means that they begin to lose the money a little sooner than otherwise would be the case. These, I think, are the main features of the Bill. It is not a difficult Bill. It is a simple Rill. It is simple for this very reason, that there is in existence in Ireland the necessary machinery and the necessary men for carrying out any proposals of this kind. All you have to do, therefore, is to extend the existing machinery and the existing powers so as to cover the people whom you wish to benefit. I know a great deal is being said about this being an impracticable measure and unworkable, that it is fraught with danger, and will be the creator of disturbance in Ireland. It may be impracticable in some respects, but I deny that it is unworkable, and I do say, on the authority of those responsible for the framing of this Bill, and those responsible for originating this measure, people who know all about the intricacies and ramifications of the Irish land question—those are the men responsible for this measure. They say it is neither unworkable nor impracticable, but, on the contrary, they strongly recommend it. With regard to the creating of disturbance, I have admitted that if it is unwisely administered there is a possibility that disturbance might be caused—
  Mr. DILLON: Was there over any Act which was wisely administered in Ireland?
  Mr. SHORTT: I think so; and if my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) gets his way he and his friends will have the working of this Act.
  Mr. DILLON: When?
  Mr. SHORTT: I ask the hon. Member to remember that he may have to work it.
  Mr. DILLON: God forbid!
  Mr. SHORTT: These gentlemen who know the working of it say it is not only practical, but they recommend it. They appreciate the difficulties, and they have faced them, and it is only by absolutely grotesque maladministration that the dangers foreshadowed can ever be realised. I ask the House to say that this is a measure which has been carefully considered by those who are best qualified to decide—[An HON. MEMBER: "Who are they?"]—it has been considered by the chosen representatives of four bodies who are dealing day after day with this very

  703
  subject. [An HON. MEMBER; "Who chose them?"] The intention and motive of the Act is one which appeals to everyone. Even my hon. Friends opposite, who are opposing this Bill, admit that what the Bill desires to do they would desire to do. Therefore all we have got to do is to make the House appreciate that these proposals are workable and that they will do good, and if they once appreciate that the House will accept this measure without going to a Division.
  Those are the provisions. I have tried to deal with the points which I think require elucidation, and I ask the House now to say that this is a measure which, if it is practicable, is the due of those men who have fought for their country. If it is practicable, then it is the least we can do for those men. I ask the House to say that it is practicable, and I ask hon. Members to trust the judgment of the representatives of the great Irish Department consisting of Irishmen, and on the Congested Districts Board consisting of members of the same politics and the same religion as hon. Members opposite. They have approved of this measure and recommend it, and for these reasons I ask the House to accept it.
  Mr. DILLON: If this were a Bill really designed, conceived, and brought in to reward the Irish soldiers who have volunteered and fought in this War I would approach its consideration in a wholly different spirit than that in which I do approach it. I want to point out, as has been already stated by my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment to the Second Reading, that the Irish soldiers who really fought in this War to the number of upwards of 170,000, I think, asked for no bribe, and accepted no bribe. They were not asked to volunteer for twenty acres of land or for £500, as the right hon. Gentleman correctly puts as the cost of these holdings. In the early days of this War, when Ireland was heart and soul in it, and when at the invitation of my late Leader the Member for Waterford, the Irish rushed to the Colours with more enthusiasm than the people of this country, they were not invited by a bribe. They were asked to fight for liberty, and the Irish have never refused to do that from the day our nation was born. The reason I am opposed to this Bill is that it is an unreal Bill It is window-dressing. It is unworkable, and I
  704
  can show, before I sit down, that of all the grotesque proposals introduced to deal with the eternal Irish question, this is one of the most grotesque.
  The right hon. Gentleman made an appeal to these Benches to exhibit their confidence in the spirit of the administration and trust to the Irish administration. No, Sir, we never trust the Irish administration. We have had a long and bitter experience of Irish administration, and what we have found out is that when we did pass a good Act in this House, the administration of that Act destroyed it in Ireland and turned it into machinery of injustice. Therefore, to tell us at this time of day that if this Bill be defective, as it is defective in innumerable particulars, we can trust to the spirit in which it will be administered in Ireland to remedy these defects is simply adding insult to injury, and is making a mockery of the whole Debate. The right hon. Gentleman says that I and my colleagues will be in charge of the administration of this Act. He did not tell us when, and he has exercised the most extraordinary reticence on that subject not only in the present but in previous Sessions. He has always hinted that some great miracle was going to take place which would place us in charge of the administration of Ireland. I do not see any signs of it and he will pardon me if I am a little curious as to what lies behind that statement.
  He went on to say, or rather he commenced by saying, that all the arguments against this measure were based on a total misapprehension, both of the Bill and the intentions of the Government. He said it was not a new matter, that it all took its origin from certain proceedings in the spring of 1917, and I think he went back even to 1916, when a Committee was appointed to inquire into this matter. That Committee never published their Report, and I remember that they sat in secret in Dublin. We heard certain mysterious rumours, and they made a Report which was never published and no action was taken upon it. Observe the implication in that. It is that this Committee reported in favour of a measure of this character, and declared that it would be quite easy to carry it out, and 170,000 gallant Irish soldiers have been fighting in the War, many of whom will never get any benefit under this Bill. It was not considered necessary then by the Government to make any provision as regards

  705
  Irish land to reward those men who went into the War without any bribery and simply for the love of liberty. They were not worth a Bill like this. The Government's conscience was untouched and their withers were unwrung. I venture to say, but for further recent developments, they never would have thought of passing this Bill. Nothing was done upon the Report of that Committee. No action was taken until last spring, when the Government found themselves in a mess, as they very often do in their dealings with Irish affairs, and did not know what the devil to do. They cast about, after they had plunged into this insane policy of applying Conscription to Ireland, to see what was to be done, and they hit upon this plan of making an appeal for 50,000 men.
  I should like to read the wording of the Proclamation which the right hon. Gentleman hesitatingly quoted, because I contend that it clearly indicates what undoubtedly was the intention of the Government. They are now ashamed to defend that intention, because it is utterly indefensible, but unquestionably it was the intention of the Government—it was taken to be their intention by every newspaper in Ireland, and not only by every newspaper, but by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson), when he ridiculed this proposal in the House on its first publication—that this reward should be limited to the men who responded to Lord French's appeal. That was the interpretation put upon it in Ireland, and there is no use the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head, because, whatever may have been in the mind of the Government, I am speaking of the facts. That was the interpretation put upon it by all the Press in Ireland, and it was not contradicted then. The wording of the Proclamation lends itself to the interpretation that this reward was to be confined to the men who responded to Lord French's appeal and who, in all human probability—thank God for it—will never be in the trenches and never see a shot fired. They are to be rewarded £500 a man, while the men who fought at Ypres and at Mons and at Gallipoli, and who won from Colonel Repington the famous and unwilling testimony that they were the bravest troops in the British Army, are to go unrewarded because they volunteered from patriotism and from love of liberty. The Government had got in a mess, and they thought that they
  706
  would get a certain number of recruits by offering a bribe. The other day I met a gallant British general, an Irishman, a distinguished man—I dare not give his name and I will not give it—who is a friend of mine, and he told me that he went to the Government and said, "If you want to get Irishmen and to have any chance of your voluntary recruiting campaign being a success, use neither bribes nor threats." They used both bribes and threats, and that is what has damned the recruiting campaign. You have men going about in Ireland—I heard them myself in the village in which I live in Mayo—telling the pepole, "Come in and join the Army. If you do not, you will be ignominiously dragged in." That is not the way to get Irishmen, and, if it were, the devil much use they would be to you when you had got them into the Army. They are built upon different lines. Neither by bribes nor by threats will you get them to come into the Army. You ought to have taken the advice of this general and have approached them upon totally different terms. You would then have got a few more. Here are the words of Clause 5 of the Proclamation:
  "We recognise that men who come forward and fight for their Motherland are entitled to share in all their Motherland can offer. Steps are being taken to ensure, as far as possible, that land shall be available for men who have fought for their country."
  9.0 P.M.
  That was put into the Proclamation as an inducement to men to respond to Lord French's invitation. "As far as possible." Does it not stand to reason if the men who were already in the fighting line and who had borne the burden of the War were to be accommodated with land, that there would be none left for Lord French's volunteers? How could there be? What did the right hon. Gentleman say himself just now? He looks forward, under this great and mighty measure for rewarding Irish soldiers, to accommodating 3,000, or possibly 4,000. I think he greatly overestimates the possibilities of the case. But suppose we take his own figure. What a superb proposal! He proposes to accommodate 3,000 or 4,000 men. Could there be imagined a more insane proposal? Surely if you are going to accommodate 3,000 or 4,000 discharged soldiers on holdings worth £500 a-piece at a cost of £1,000,000, those holdings must go to the men who survived Ypres and Mons! Surely they have the first claim! What, then, is to become of Lord French's

  707
  men who have been invited to join under this Proclamation? They will not come within 50,000 or 100,000 of those who get the land. I say that it is humanly impossible to give one single acre of land, even if this Bill is passed, to the men who are asked to come in by Lord French in response to the bribe. Does not that alone knock the bottom out of the whole proposal? The thing is a monstrous farce and a bit of window dressing. It is a farce so grotesque that I am amazed the right hon. Gentleman has the courage to go on with the Bill. Before entering upon the real merits of the proposal, I wanted to draw attention to the financial provisions. The right hon. Gentleman said that they had made a most careful estimate, and that they thought that from three to four thousand might be accommodated with economic holdings. From three to four thousand out of one hundred and fifty thousand! Suppose we put it at 100,000 soldiers who have survived, one hundred thousand of those who volunteered in Ireland. That takes no account of the Irish in Great Britain. From three to four thousand men out of those can be accommodated with land at a cost of £1,000,000. What about the English soldiers? Are you prepared to give £300 apiece to all the English soldiers, and, if not, why not? Are you going to set up in Ireland a privileged class of Irish soldiers who are to get £300 apiece, or £300 worth of land? What about the five million English soldiers and sailors who are to be discharged? Are they to have nothing to say in this matter? And if you propose to reward English soldiers—and how can you deny it?—on the same scale as those 3,000 selected—I do not know who on earth is going to select 3,000 Irish soldiers who are to get £300 or £400 apiece—how much does that amount to? £500 apiece for 5,000,000 discharged soldiers is £1,500,000,000. How can this House go to an English soldier and say to him that, because it suited the Government to get out of an Irish mess—and that is the only reason; they never would have dreamt of it if it had not been for the mess they got into—they are going to give 3,000 Irish soldiers £300 apiece and the English soldiers must do without any? The thing is grotesque, and, therefore, this proposal, if it is carried through, will involve an irresistible demand from the English soldiers for a burden on the country of £1,500,000,000. I do not see how
  708
  any Government could possibly resist that claim unless it was prepared to say that a few soldiers in Ireland are to be treated as a privileged class, while the great body of English soldiers are not.
  Let me come to the question of the Report of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman has evidently not looked into his case very well and was not aware whether this report, from which he quoted, had ever been published or not. I do not think it ever was. Rumours are prevalent in Dublin that the Committee was most unwilling to tackle this business. The right hon. Gentleman spoke as if they were perfectly independent men who were called in without any indication of what the Government wanted them to do. They were called together to carry out the wishes of the Government, and they knew perfectly well what they were expected to say. At the same time, I do not think the Report, when it is published, will bear out the optimistic interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman put upon it. Was there not a separate Report from the Congested Districts Board? Has he ever heard of that? I am informed there was. When he puts that other Paper on the Table I should like also to have the Report of the Congested Districts Board. I think it will become apparent from the reports of these bodies, as well as from general information which is familiar to all of us, that this scheme, which is calculated to work the most grotesque injustice in view of the amount of results which are expected from it, will completely destroy the whole of the settlement of the land question which resulted from half-a-dozen land Bills and an agitation extending over forty years, and do an incredible amount to upset the whole of Ireland and to create centres of disturbance and ill-will throughout the whole of the country. Not at all because the soldiers are unpopular, not at all because of any desire to deny a fair reward to the soldiers for what they have done, but because you are raking up the dying embers of bitter controversies which have lasted for centuries. I dare say the right hon. Gentleman is too young a Member of the House to remember the historic speech made by Mr. Wyndham in introducing his great land settlement when he described the condition of the West of Ireland as the result of centuries of oppression and misgovernment. That speech described a condition of things which this House has been at work for

  709
  thirty years in endeavouring to remedy, and now in a light spirit the right hon. Gentleman proposes to throw a blazing torch into this powder magazine and to set the whole country on fire again, and for no good purpose. I ask him, when he is putting the Report of the Joint Committee on the Table, also to publish the separate Report of the Congested Districts Board on the same subject. I feel confident that the Board has reported that there is not an acre of land in the congested districts which can be spared without denying to the people those essential improvements and enlargements of their holdings which have been over and over again promised in Acts passed by this House and have been horribly delayed by faults of administration on the part of the Treasury and in Ireland.
  The right hon. Gentleman ridiculed the idea that the Bill would be used for any purpose except settling Irish soldiers upon the land in Ireland. As it stands it is open to settle any soldier, and I think you will find you will be up against a very unpleasant situation when you propose to introduce an Amendment excluding English soldiers, because that will raise the whole question of what is the parallel advantage which is provided for the English soldier as compared with the Irish. The right hon. Gentleman said a measure was passed for the English soldier, and the suggestion made in the course of the Debate was that a similar measure should be passed for Ireland. Is this anything like a similar measure? It is different in every particular. One of the main differences is that the English measure says that before any land is acquired for the settlement of these colonies of soldiers in England, two conditions should be fulfilled. First of all, the land should be acquired only by agreement, and secondly, it should be acquired only after consultation with the chairmen of county councils or the committee of the council. Will you put that into the Irish Bill, if you are going to have a similar measure?
  There is another question to which the right hon. Gentleman gave a sentence or two in his speech, and that is the question of the Irishmen who enlisted in Great Britain, and who, I regret to say, have been shamefully overlooked and snubbed in the whole of this War. We have been taunted over and over again, and are taunted every day of our lives, and we are told that the Irish regiments now
  710
  serving at the front are no longer Irish, and that more than half of them are English and Scotch. That may be true. Owing to the operations of the War Office, it is quite possible it is true. But what about the English and Scottish regiments? What about the Northumberlands, what about Durham, the Lancashire and Yorkshire regiments, and the Highlanders, and even the Scottish Borderers? Some of these regiments are very nearly half Irish. Take my own Division. There is hardly a cottage that has not got someone serving in a British regiment. Undoubtedly we have been over and over again taunted that there are few volunteers from Mayo, but in every second or third cottage they have a man serving in a Lancashire, Northumberland, or Durham regiment. Take the Tyneside Irish. How many men joined there? Five thousand five hundred from Tyneside alone. Take the Liverpool Regiment, Manchester and all through the North. Are these men to be ruled out? They add to the 150,000, and swell that number enormously. My hon. Friend (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) tells me that upwards of 200,000 Irishmen have joined in Great-Britain, and I believe it to be true. Are they to come in for their share?
  But there is another question and a much more vital question than the right hon. Gentleman imagines. In my Division of East Mayo there is not a single cottage from which there is not one, two, or three men fighting in the American Army. I spoke to a friend of mine the other day in East Mayo and he told me that he had five brothers fighting under the American flag—five from one house. Yet you tell us we are taking no part in this War. Are these men to be denied? They are children born of the soil of Mayo, and as anxious to get a holding on their own native soil as anyone else. Are they to be excluded because they are fighting under the Stars and Stripes and not under the Union Jack? You raise a very ugly question if you exclude them, and yet if you open the doors to the Irish who are fighting under the Stars and Stripes you bring in close upon another million. I should say a full million, because the estimate is that Irishmen compose 30 per cent. of the whole American Army and 40 per cent. of the Navy. Therefore, between the two you would bring in probably 1,500,000. I intend to move an Amendment to this Bill if it ever gets into Committee to open it to the men who are fighting under the

  711
  Stars and Stripes as freely as to those who are fighting under the Union Jack. Can you attempt to oppose that? What about the Australian Irish? What about the Irishmen from New Zealand and Canada?
  Captain CHARLES CRAIG: Good heavens! if you admit them what will be left for us?
  Mr. DILLON: I know there are only 3,000 altogether, but are you going to shut them out? I intend to put that issue to the House. It is a grotesque proposal Now that that challenge has been made by the hon. and gallant Member, I am very glad to see him back in the House, and this is the first opportunity I have had of welcoming him—I would say what about the Ulster men?
  Captain CRAIG: I will say something about them shortly.
  Mr. DILLON: I should like to say a word of the Ulster men because the hon. Member has been out of action for some time. There is no land in Ulster. Are you going to bring the Ulstermen down to Connaught?
  Captain CRAIG: I will tell you in a minute.
  Mr. DILLON: We feel uneasy about it. We would like to welcome the Ulstermen into a united Ireland, but we do not quite like the idea while Ireland is still disunited of having them translated beyond the Shannon. You have no land in Ulster, therefore, under this precious Bill it is proposed either to boycott the Ulster Brigade or to make a new plantation in Ireland. I would say to the Chief Secretary that he had better be careful of the path he is treading. He is treading amongst the ashes of old fires which may burst out into very fierce flame again. Has he read the history of Ireland, and does he know the memories and associations which hang around the word "plantation?" When this Bill goes to Ireland to-morrow the people of Ireland, who are now, I regret to say, in a very morbid frame of mind, will see in it not the benevolent purposes which the right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to place before the House—our people are too quick to be deceived that way—but they will see that the Bill is quite unworkable, unless it is worked as machinery for the replanting of certain regions in Ireland.
  712
  The interpretation which the people in Ireland will place upon this Bill will be that it is not a Bill honestly intended to reward soldiers, but intended to be used as a political weapon to replant certain districts in the West of Ireland and to wreak vengeance upon men who have been bitterly opposed to the Government.
  For these reasons I am wholly against this Bill. I am against it because it proposes to achieve, even on the showing of the Chief Secretary, preposterously small results at a grotesquely immense amount of expense. I am against it, because inevitably if it is put into operation, it would involve an amount of jealousy and quarrelling amongst soldiers which is contemplate, and because it would mean vast sums of money being granted to the soldiers which it would be impossible for the State to meet. My principle in regard to men who have fought so gallantly in this War is—and I cannot conceive how the Government can combat it—that there should be some general principle adopted, and that the State should be as generous as it can afford in rewarding these soldiers. There should be, say, a grant of a certain sum of money made to the soldiers. I think that is the best, and then let the men fend for themselves, the grant to be fenced with certain safeguards when the soldier is discharged from service. Whatever form of recompense or reward is decided upon on their return to civil life, all those who have equal service should have equal reward. If you are to take 3,000 or 4,000 men and put them upon a pinacle and give them £500, say, and tell the other men to go and shift for themselves, that is grotesque and absurd. This is not a sincere Bill. It is a Bill which will do incalculable evil in Ireland, and I think, therefore, that every man who desires the good of Ireland and who desires to give a just reward to the soldiers of the King ought to give it unbending opposition.
  Captain CRAIG: It is very pleasant, after having spent two years in Germany, on my return to this House to find myself so soon mixed up in the mazes and intricacies of an Irish Land Bill. I have taken part in the discussion of a very considerable number of Land Bills in the fifteen years or so I have been in this House, but I have never taken part in the discussion of such an extraordinary Land Bill as we have before us to-night. The first indication that I had of this Bill was about six

  713
  months ago when I read in a German newspaper, or rather when someone read it to me, because I cannot read German, that every man in Ireland who joined up as a soldier was going to get a bit of land. As far as I can recollect after this lapse of time, my observation was "Good heavens, what is going to happen next?" It has been denied that this is in any way a bribe, or that it was ever intended in any way to be a bribe to Irishmen to join the Army. I was very glad to hear that, but when I heard of it from the "Frankfurter Zeitung" I looked upon it in that light. We are told to-night it is no such thing and we must accept the assurance of the Government in regard to that.
  This is a very extraordinary Hill. When I came into the House to-day I was strongly opposed to the Bill, but I have been converted and the honour of that conversion lies entirely with the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I was opposed to the Bill during the earlier part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but when he came to that part in which he said that if the measure were passed into law large areas of unreclaimed land in Ireland would be reclaimed, I at once thought of the Bann and of the Suir, the Suck and the Barrow. As far as I could make out from the Chief Secretary, this Bill is going to provide £1,000,000. Irishmen in these hard times cannot refuse that offer, and therefore with the assurance that we are to get £1,000,000, and that it will require only about 1,000 little bits of land over there to be handed out to the soldiers, I think we are bound to accept the offer; and if the right hon. Gentleman tells us that the greater part of that £1,000,000 is going to be expended in the constituencies of hon. Members through which run the rivers Suck, Suir, Barrow, and Bann, then surely they too cannot refuse the offer!
  I am bound to say, however, that in other respects this is one of the most ridiculous Bills I ever saw The hon. Member for Mayo has very properly pointed out that at the very best it is only going to benefit—if it can, indeed, be called a benefit—2,000 or 3,000 people out of the hundreds of thousands of Irish men who, coming not only from Ireland but from England and Canada, have taken part in this War. I cannot conceive what is the object of the Government in making any such proposal. I agree absolutely with the hon. Member for East Mayo that the proposal is bound to create
  714
  a great deal of discontent among the thousands of men who, much as they may desire it, will not be able to benefit by this Act, and, therefore, any advantage which may accrue to those who are fortunate enough to get a holding under the Bill will be neutralised entirely by the bitter agitation which will immediately arise among the tens of thousands of those who will not be able to get a holding. Still, if the Bill is going to drain the Bann for me, I will accept it.
  Captain SHEEHAN: For my part I cordially approve the Bill, even although it may only benefit 3,000 or 4,000 of those Irish soldiers who have patriotically fought for their country and for the liberties of the world. It is a fair measure to be proposed in every sense of the word To my mind the man who has fought for the land has a first claim on the land. Under the Irish Land Acts as they stand there are thousands of men well qualified to work the land who have no opportunity of getting on to the un-tenanted land of the country. Therefore, I say any measure which will give these men an opportunity of getting on the land on the same terms as other men in the country is one which must have my cordial and hearty approval. We have heard a good deal to-day about this being a bribe. I confess I regret exceedingly that this question has been connected with the recent recruiting campaign, and that this generous offer should thus have been sullied. I have good reason to know, however, that this proposal was being considered by the Irish Government long before the recent recruiting campaign was thought of, and I myself put questions to the Chief Secretary's predecessor, who gave me an assurance across the floor of the House that Irish soldiers would be placed on a footing of equality as regards resettlement on the land as soldiers in this country.
  This is to my mind an elementary principle of justice. If I find any fault whatever with the Bill it is because it does not go to the same extent as the similar Bill applicable to Great Britain. We have heard a great deal about the possibility of bitter controversies arising in the future; but I do not anticipate, if the Bill is worked reasonably and sensibly, that anything of that kind will occur. I cannot understand men telling me that they approve of the sacrifices of our Irish soldiers, and would be willing to reward them in every possible way, and then

  715
  coming down to this House and opposing a measure which will confer a benefit upon some thousands of the men who went out to fight for high and noble principles. I approve of the manner in which it is proposed to work the Bill by means of colonies, of small economic holdings whereon men who were comrades on the field of battle will have that comradeship and friendship perpetuated in the fields of effort and endeavour at home, and where they will work side by side in Ireland as they fought side by side in France. Let me say this, that anything you can confer on the men who went out to fight in the way of material benefit can in no sense reward the glory of their deeds or the nobility of their efforts. They gave their services voluntarily in the earlier years of the War; they were heroes every one of them, and to my mind it is a poor and paltry thing to try and deprive some at least of them of the chance of going on to the land of their country when they come back from the war. In my judgement every other claim should yield to the claim of the fighting man.
  In so far as the soil of Ireland has been redeemed and saved it has been redeemed and saved by the 170,000 Irishmen who went out in the years 1914–15–16 and 17 to fight for their country. They preserved the soil of Ireland for the people, and when we are told they are not to get a rood of their native land because for some motive it does not suit some people to have a measure of this kind introduced into the House, I say I cannot understand such an attitude. I do know this, the soldiers want this measure. I got thousands of them to go out and fight with me and my family, and all sense, all reason and all gratitude must induce us to see that this measure is carried through into law in spite of whatever opposition may come from quarters behind me, inspired by a motive which I do not care to inquire into or to seek to understand. The test I would wish to see applied in giving this land is the test of priority and length of service. I do not want to see the men who came in in the recent recruiting campaign preferred to the men who went out in the earlier years of the war, and gave their services freely and voluntarily. They did not ask reward, but that is no reason why they should not get it. I for one hope that the reward will be given in full and generous measure, even more full and more generous than is proposed
  716
  under the provisions of this Bill. It is said that the Bill is unworkable. I know something of the Irish Land Acts. I had a great deal more to do with their operation than some who have been criticising this measure, and I know that it is a workable measure. I wish to give the Chief Secretary and the Irish Government every encouragement in a measure which I believe to be the merest justice to the men who have fought. I want this measure to become law and also to become operative. There is no use in saying that there is not sufficient land to go round. The land of Ireland maintained twice its present population at one period of Irish history, and there is no reason why it should not do so again. It can only do so by the creation of small economic holdings and by putting people on them. The men who have fought at the front will be able to work at home. I feel strongly on this matter. I want to see this measure enforced and to see this money available for useful purposes. The townsmen can work the land in Ireland. The English townsman is possibly a man who knows nothing about the land, but every townsman in Ireland works upon the land in harvest time. He understands land as well as the agricultural labourer. Therefore if these people want to settle in town give them an opporunity of having the three or four acres which they want, and of building better lives for themselves and let them realise that the Government do not forget their services.
  I remember some of the difficulties which I had when I went voluntarily recruiting in Ireland. I was told in one place that the reason the labourers would not come along was that they were told that when the Germans came in they were going to get seventeen acres of land each, and they were waiting for the Germans to come in. That was the propaganda of falsehood. I want you to oppose to it the propaganda of fact by giving this land to as many soldiers as you can. Many may not want it, but great many more will want it and will be glad of the opportunity of going on the land. There is plenty of unfilled grazing land all through the country. I do not want the Chief Secretary or the Irish Government forcibly to take land from anybody. I think that unless there is a willingness to give over land it would be an injustice to take it, and I would not countenance the application of compulsion upon any person for the purpose of this Act. But there is plenty of land. If—

  717
  and it must come to this in the future in any case—you take over land from the men who do not till it properly, there are vast opportunities for land reclamation in Ireland. I heard a great deal of laughter when the Chief Secretary referred to the reclamation of waste lands under this Bill, but it can be done. It only requires the money and the authority to do it. I deny that you do injustice to anybody by passing this Bill. A greater injustice, in my view, would be to forget and neglect the men who fought for liberty and justice when the foundations of the world were shaken. Settle these men on the land. Make provision for doing it properly. Stock their holdings; provide them with suitable appurtenances; let them have opportunity for co-operation—as the Chief Secretary remarked, the Irish people understand co-operation—and you will be discharging your obligation of duty and honour to the men who fought for you, but you will not be doing one-tenth part of what these men deserve.
  Mr. FITZGIBBON: I am in a difficulty in approaching the discussion of a question of this kind in a House, the vast majority of whom know little or nothing of any Irish question. There are so many phases of this question that it is very hard to know where exactly to begin. I am as anxious as the Member for Mid-Cork (Captain Sheehan) that the Irish soldiers who went to fight for liberty should receive an adequate reward, but I am very conversant with the many difficulties that would beset a measure of this kind. To start with, I object entirely to the machinery. The Estates Commissioners are the body to be entrusted with the administration of this measure. I do not know why they were selected, except for the purpose of just doing as they are told. I am a member of the Congested Districts Board, and it is certainly news for me to hear that that Board took part in the recommendation that the Estates Commissioners should be the body to administer this Act. I have some experience of the Estates Commissioners. I was a very short time a member of the Congested Districts Board when the Board had acquired a very large farm in the county of Roscommon, on the Lord Crofton estate. They were approached by the Estates Commissioners with a request to surrender that farm for the purpose of relieving congestion. The Estates Commissioners had been dealing
  718
  with Lord Crofton's estate, and on that estate there exist a number of uneconomic holdings. When that proposal came before the Board I was present, and on a decision being taken, every man of the Board came to the conclusion that the tenants on Lord Crofton's estate were the men that were going to be relieved by the giving up of that farm. The Estates Commissioners gave to a largo grazier this particular farm, and transferred them to another farm where there was some trouble, thus creating fresh trouble in the county of Roscommon.
  Naturally the people said that Lord Crofton's tenants were not relieved, and they are unrelieved up to this date. The Congested Districts Board found it was plainly sold by the Estates Commissioners, who had created trouble in Roscommon, without consulting in any manner the Congested Districts Board as to the disposal of that farm, which was distinctly given for the purpose of relieving congestion. A body capable of doing such mischief is one in which I have no confidence. They will come into the congested areas, and they will cause mischief far greater than that which took place at Ballybeg, near Tulsk, in the county of Roscommon. This is a very big question, much larger than the Chief Secretary for Ireland has tried to make the House believe. I respectfully draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the Report of the Dudley Commission, which stated that in order to relieve congestion in the particular areas that were afterwards scheduled, it would be necessary that these holdings should be broken; that, in point of fact, land where it was purchased through the Estates Commissioners, wherever it was non-residential, was necessary for relieving congestion. This House, of course, has to pass a measure that will be acceptable to the House of Lords, and these provisions were left out, with the consequence that the congested districts are now left with not at all sufficient land to go round, and if any encroachment is made it will simply be cutting the joint smaller, and depriving of land other soldiers whom we must look to from the Irish point of view—that is, the soldiers of the land war, the men who brought about land reform in Ireland, and these men, like all soldiers of the people, are very often the last men rewarded for their victory. These men were left to the administration of the Act of 1903, which was badly administered, because, instead of applying the remedy

  719
  to the sore part of the body, the remedy—that is, the funds, that should have gone in the first instance to relieve these people—were eaten up by the purchase of such estates as that of the Duke of Leinster, which, if left for thirty years unpurchased, would not have at all affected the condition of Ireland.
  I do not know whether the Chief Secretary is really eager in the prosecution of this Bill—whether he intends to go on with it. It certainly is one calculated not to promote order in Ireland. When faced with the condition of congestion in the West, I wonder if Members of this House realise what it means. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, like many other Chief Secretaries, has been paying flying visits to Ireland, and he comes to this House, I am sure, feeling that he knows Ireland better than any of us. I am sure he is a man of good intentions, and I will not here mention the term which O'Connell used respecting Chief Secretaries sent to Ireland. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do!"] I will. O'Connell termed them "shave beggars" when they were sent to Ireland. How was congestion created in Ireland? It was simply by driving people from fertile plains into bogs and mountains. The people had to squat, and rather than go into the workhouse they built mud cabins. In one case a man obtained 10 or 12 acres of land from a landlord who was possessed of an amount of bog or heather. These acres were reclaimed, and then the landlord raised the rent according as the tenant improved the land. That particular tenant who had this 10 or 12 acres, rather than see his children emigrate—for at that particular time emigration of the Irish people to America and elsewhere was very uncertain, and it took three or four months to reach the shores of America—divided his bog-holding among his children. That was done in many instances among the people intending to emigrate, but owing to the uncertainties the tenants divided their bog-holdings. In this way, in the West of Ireland to-day, there are thousands upon thousands of this class of tenant that the. Congested Districts Board has not yet been able to reach. The country, no doubt, has been transformed through the operations of the Board, but only the fringe of the question has been touched, and no matter how quickly the operations of the Board went on, supposing it had not been interfered with by this unfortunate war, it would have
  720
  taken them at least twenty years to have resettled that country in anything like a manner that would lead to the happiness and prosperity of these people. They have been living in hopes that when this War was over this land would be available, and how the Congested Districts Board is brought into this measure or mentioned at all I cannot understand, well knowing the difficulties that the Board have to provide anything like economic holdings to a number of people. I wish to remind the Chief Secretary that there is land in Ireland which you cannot compulsorily acquire, because the Estates Commissioners do not possess those compulsory powers in their province which the Congested Districts Board have in Con-naught or the other congested areas. There is no effort made to take up any of those lands, and you simply deal with the two bodies over whom you have control, namely, the Congested Districts Board and the Estates Commissioners. You propose to take from them what should belong to a class of tenants for whom this House passed measures of relief in 1003 and 1909.
  You introduce into your measure the problem of reclaiming land. It is the Estates Commissioners who are to carry out that, and what machinery have they for the purpose? I could understand if the Congested Districts Board was asked to carry out measures of reclamation of land in their areas with the staff that they have, and I could understand if you proposed that such reclaimed lands should be placed at the disposal of men who fought in the War. I may say candidly, and I am sure in his heart the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me, that this matter of the reclamation of lands is one which will be left for the Irish Parliament to deal with whenever it meets. There will never be as much as a sluice put up to help the drainage of a single one of the rivers mentioned by the hon. Member for West Antrim. That proposal is simply an adornment to the Bill and put there in order to appeal to the men who are anxious to have those rivers drained. But there is nothing to go to show that any serious step will be taken in that direction, because what you propose in this Bill simply indicates that there is not the slightest idea or intention on the part of the Government to carry out that reclamation. You mention the sum of £1,000,000, but how many millions would it take to carry out the drainage of those

  721
  rivers or the reclamation of those lands? If such a measure were brought in and soldiers were to get employment for the reclamation of their own holdings, it would be quite a different thing, but to interfere with land that has been specifically set apart for a particular purpose, I declare to-night, as a man who knows intimately the conditions of the country, a more mischievous thing you could not do, and you could not introduce or pass a measure more calculated to disturb Ireland than this measure should it become law.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. O'MALLEY: We were all very pleased on these benches, and I am sure the whole House equally so, at the presence amongst us of the hon. and gallant Member for West Antrim (Captain Craig). I would like to congratulate him upon his safe return from Germany and also upon the admirable and interesting speech which he delivered. The Chief Secretary in his speech to-night presented this Bill in the most agreeable possible manner, but I am sorry to say that his speech was not convincing. When the proposals embodied in this Bill were first put forward by the Government it was apparent, I think, to everybody that they were put forward as a bribe to young Irishmen to join the Army. They were proposals to counteract the No-Conscription organisation and agitation in Ireland, an organisation that practically embraced the whole country. It was in that spirit that this scheme was conceived, and I am afraid it is in that spirit that this Bill is now before the House. It certainly was not, in my opinion, conceived with the object of rewarding those Irishmen who voluntarily joined the Army in the early stages of the War. Those men joined from a spirit of patriotism, and because of their loyalty to Ireland and their late Leader. Many of those brave men are now beyond any earthly reward. The only reward those men looked forward to was the freedom of their country, the freedom of Belgium, the freedom of France and Serbia, and the safety and security of the British Empire, an Empire in which they felt that they had an honourable part when the Home Rule Bill found its way to the Statute Book. They went out to free the world from a hideous tyranny. They were men who hated tyranny, whether practised at home or abroad. Many of those patriotic sons of Ireland, as I have said, are dead and beyond relief,
  722
  those of them who do survive certainly deserve all the consideration and all the relief you can bestow upon them. The heroism, the sacrifices of those voluntary soldiers will be remembered in Ireland and by the Irish race when the criminal follies and antics of Sinn Fein will be forgotten in the charity of silence. We on these benches, the representatives of Ireland, of the Ireland of Parnell, Davitt, and Redmond hold those voluntary Irish soldiers in the highest esteem and admiration, and we should much like to Bee them receive some reward for their bravery and their patriotism. The best reward you could offer to them would be to allow them to live in a self-governed Ireland. They never expected any other reward than that, but that is a form of reward which apparently the Government of this country is not prepared to give them.
  Your policy during the last three or four years has been such that these soldiers and their countrymen are compelled to look across the Atlantic to the great liberty-loving people of the United States and to their great President, now gloriously fighting the great battle for human liberty. It is to America and the American President that Ireland has to look for that freedom which you profess to secure by this War for all small nations except the small nation at your own door. We have no choice but to look to President Wilson and his people for a proper reward for our Irish soldiers, and this Bill is really an insult to Ireland and her soldiers. We in this House and in our constituencies have been striving for many long years to secure the land of Ireland for the people of Ireland. To a large extent we have succeeded, but a great deal more remains to be done. What do you do by this extraordinary Bill? By it you propose to do it by robbing Peter to pay Paul, for that is in reality what it amounts to. You rob these poor tenants in the West of Ireland, in the congested areas, of that untenanted land that has been promised to them, and which your Congested Districts Board was set up to accomplish. Now this very Board, through the Estates Commissioners, and by the assistance of the Lord Lieutenant, is called upon to hand over these lands to soldiers and sailors, no matter what part of the country these soldiers and sailors may come from. It is a monstrous proposition, and it is a cruel proposition. It is cruel to the tenants and cruel to the soldiers, who, as

  723
  I have said, never expected to be rewarded for their patriotism at the expense of their own poor fellow-countrymen. This is a mean Bill. I do not hesitate to call it a shabby Bill, a fraudulent Bill, and I hope to see it defeated. Should it by any chance become law and be put into operation you will have the whole of Ireland, and certainly the whole of the people in these congested districts, up in arms against it. If you want to make the state of Ireland worse than it is now—and that is bad enough—you could have gone no better way about it than by passing this Bill and enforcing at the bayonet's point its provisions. Judging by your recent Irish policy, it certainly looks as if that were your object, rather than any genuine consideration for the Irish soldiers and sailors. I hope there is commonsense and justice enough in this House to reject this apple of discord that the Government wants to force down the throats of the Irish people. I heartily support the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Galway, and I hope the Chief Secretary before this Debate closes will come to the conclusion that the wisest policy for him is to withdraw this Bill.
  Mr. FARRELL: I wish to say a few words on the proposals contained in this Bill, and I wish to do so for two reasons—first, because of the effect it will undoubtedly have on the country as a whole, and secondly, if it is applied in my county it will destroy any chance which the people of that county have of obtaining even a modicum of the small portions of untenanted land in the county. Since Mr. Wyndham introduced his Land Purchase Bill in 1903, which contained the promise of the sub-division of this untenanted land in counties such as Longford amongst the people, I have been agitating in this House for that to be done, and with very little result. Every obstacle which officialism, whether landlord officialism, or estate commission officialism, could put in our way has from time to time been placed in our way to prevent us getting hold of these lands, and in the meantime large numbers of people who have had to eke out a miserable existence on the mountain side or in the bog have been expecting relief owing to the promises of British Chief Secretaries in this House. I say that both from the point of view of the soldiers who are to be benefited by the Act, if it becomes an Act, and of the civil population of Ireland, this Bill
  724
  is a huge mistake on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. I think the true test to apply in search of the benefits which it proposes to confer is to examine the figures. When the right hon. Gentleman was challenged as to the nationality of the soldiers who would be, so to speak, repatriated under this Bill, he said they would all be Irish and that no other nationality would benefit under the Bill. Let us examine how that will work out.
  Of course it has been the custom and the practice of the enemies of the Irish National Party in this House and out of it to assert that there are fewer Irish soldiers in the War than any other nationality within the Empire. We, of course, dispute that. We say that, pro rata, we have a larger representation in the fighting line than any of the other races. If you take the Irishmen at home from Ireland you admit that there are 170,000. If you take the Irish from Great Britain there are at least 200,000; but if you go across the seas, to Canada, Australia, and the United States, and examine the present American army, which has turned the flank of the enemy for you, and which has turned defeat into victory for you, if you scan the lists of casualties in the American army, you will find that the vast majority are of Irish birth and descent, and that many of them emigrated directly from Ireland to America before joining the American army. If the test, therefore, of all Irish benefiting under this Bill is applied, you will have at least a million of Irishmen to provide for under this Act. Where is the right hon. Gentleman going to get land in Ireland to do that? [An HON. MEMBER: "He said three thousand!"] Oh, yes, that is what he said—that is the camouflage by which this Bill is to pass through this House. I notice the right hon. Gentleman did not answer the Member for Galway when he asked for the figures. He spoke of 3,000 men as being the possible limit. These were the men who were to be near the towns, who were to get allotments near the towns. Do I understand that 3,000 is the total number which he estimates to benefit under this Bill; and, if it is, what is the result? What becomes of all the others, to give the limit as 370,000 Irishmen in the British Army as from Ireland and Great Britain? What becomes of the 367,000 to whom you give no holdings, no reward of this kind? From that view

  725
  alone the Bill is utterly ridiculous and unworkable. Then the question is, How are they to be selected? Is it to be for services rendered? Are you to institute examinations to prove that one man is better entitled to a share than another? Are you selecting them because they are members of the Ulster Division, or members of the Irish Division? Are you selecting them because they responded to Lord French's appeal, and excluding men who fought from Mons down to the present time?
  The more the right hon. Gentleman goes into this question the more difficult he will find it, not alone as regards the soldiers, but the country. The right hon. Gentleman has not been Chief Secretary six months, not more than a year anyhow—five months the Member for Galway says. In those five months I do not know how many times he has visited Ireland, but at all events it is clear that for his knowledge of Ireland has must depend on the permanent officials of Dublin Castle. He is not in touch with popular sentiment in Ireland; he is not in touch, but is cutting himself off from knowledge of men who know the country, who have been born and reared and lived all their lives in it, and know it, with all respect, better than he can get his information from the permanent officials. Yet in five months he believes he has got as much information as would enable him to pilot through this House a measure which will tear up all the land settlements of forty years, from the Decies Act of 1870 down to the last Land Purchase Act passed in this House. Is he aware of the tremendous feeling that exists amongst Irish tenant farmers, of the intense love they have—greed you may call it if you like, avarice or land hunger—is he aware of that terrible feeling there is for the untenanted land of the country, and does he seriously think that it is going to make for law or order, or comradeship, or any spirit of friendliness to cast aside the claims of these poor men who have been looking on these untenanted lands for years, who have been taught by Chief Secretaries on that Bench by their speeches that sooner or later they would come into possession of this land, and then will see themselves ousted in favour of men against who personally we have no feeling whatever, but say they should not be rewarded at the expense of their own poor fellow countrymen?
  726
  We were engaged this afternoon in discussing a Pension Bill of some sort, in which I was rather surprised to hear the Pensions Minister, who, at all events, poor man, is doing his best for everybody, ridiculed and attacked by Conservative Members, and Liberal Members, and I think some Labour Members for his shortcomings in supplying pensions to everybody who has suffered as a result of this War. The right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, is doing his best for all classes, but he is limited in his efforts to relieve the soldiers and sailors who have suffered in this War. Why? For want of money. It is a question again of the Treasury, I suppose. Why should a State, for whose protection and safety these soldiers have fought and bled, cast their sufferings and their wants as an apple of discord amongst a poorer class of the population than any you have in Great Britain? The uneconomic Irish tenant farmer is, or was up to recently, the very poorest class in the whole community. I have often heard the hon. Member for Cork, in his speeches on Land Bills in this House, say that he used to hear the late Mr. Joseph Biggar say that farming was the poorest business in the land. These men, who were driven to eke out an existence with small holdings on bad land, I assert are the very poorest of the population in the three Kingdoms, and yet it is against them that you make your soldiers and sailors, so to speak, a competing force, instead of providing generously for those soldiers and sailors out of public funds, and seeing that whatever they are entitled to they should get, not as a compliment but as a matter of right.
  If this Bill is proceeded with—and I hope the right hon. Gentleman, even at this late hour, will listen to a little advice on the subject—and if this Bill is carried out and its application handed over to the Estates Commissioners, you may look out for more trouble in Ireland, and a great deal worse trouble than you have had up to the present. You will disappoint a large area of the population whose feelings have been aroused by promises made in this House—the evicted tenants on the roadside in the mud hovels of the country. All their sufferings and waitings for relief will be cast aside in order, as the hon. Member for Mayo said, that you may get out of the mess which you have created for yourselves by your present recruiting policy in Ireland. I should like the Attorney-General, if he replies, to tell us

  727
  who composed this precious Commission which reported so confidently to the Chief Secretary. Was Sir Henry Robinson, the Vice-President of the Local Government Board in Ireland, a member of the Commission I Was Sir Frederick Wrench a member? The right hon. Gentleman mentioned four bodies—the Local Government Board, the Estates Commissioners, the Board of Agriculture and the Congested Districts Board. Now who are the other two members? Was the right hon. Member for Tyrone consulted in this matter? As Chief Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman, I believe, is chairman of the Congested Districts Board. Was the vice-chairman, or who was the member of the Congested Districts Board who was the fourth member of this Committee? Does the right hon. Gentleman know that Sir Frederick Wrench has always been looked upon as an enemy of the Irish tenant farmers? And what claim has Sir Henry Robinson, if he was the other member—I do not say he was—but if so, what claim has he to enable him to be a good judge of the settlement of the Irish land question?
  I think the whole thing, so far as it has gone—so far as we know at present, at all events—is surrounded with that doubt and suspicion which attach, and have always attached, to the machinery of Dublin Castle. There is one failing which the right hon. Gentleman has shown in one little matter. It is a failing in his character which is rather a bad one. The more he is advised the more obstinate he is. I had a short interview with him on the question of the coal supply. The right hon. Gentleman then seemed to have got hold of the wrong end of the story, but he stuck to it, and has given us no relief since. Neither I nor any of my colleagues desire to stand up here to injure any reward or prospect of reward to any Irish soldier or sailor who has fought at the front. We are quite as anxious to see them properly rewarded as is any hon. Gentleman above the Gangway or on the other side of the House. But you ought not to reward them at the expense of their poorer countrymen; or, as you are doing by this Bill, set them up as competitors or opponents for the clearings of their fellow-countrymen. For my part, I most earnestly again appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to reconsider what will be the effect of
  728
  this Bill if passed! First of all, you cannot justify it on the ground of doing any practical good to the soldiers. Consider 3,000 out of 270,000, that is much too small a percentage to justify the passing of such a Bill. Secondly, you ought not at the present time to make the sufferings of the soldiers to compete with the sufferings of the poorer classes of the community. For these and for many other reasons, which I will not detain the House to enumerate, I strongly support the reasoned Amendment of my hon. Friend. He has, I think, justified his claim that this Bill should not be proceeded with; that it is ill-considered; that it has not the support of any considerable section, or indeed any section, of Irish opinion even in this House. The hon. Member for South Antrim must have given the Chief Secretary a cold douche when he described the Bill as a ridiculous measure. We also consider it a ridiculous measure, and at the same time a mischevious measure. From that point of view we oppose the Second Reading, and if persisted in by the right hon. and learned Gentleman we will take all the steps we can under the forms of the House so to remodel this measure in Committee as to limit the tremendous injustice which it proposes to inflict on the poorest classes of the community, whilst at the same time wishing, if it has to have any effect at all, it will have some more general application than is intended by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. HARBISON: I do not think I would have joined in this Debate to-night, but for the speech that we have heard from my brother Ulsterman, the hon. and gallant Member (Captain C. Craig) who has just returned from Germany. That speech has given one a gleam of hope that this unfortunate and misconceived measure may proceed no further in this House. I should like to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for South Antrim on his return from Germany. I hope we shall all have as safe a return to Ireland. We are living in a time when self-determination seems to be the rule, or is going to be the rule, for all nationalities. We here to-night in this House have made our claim complete for self-determination on the question of allotting lands in Ireland to the soldiers who have been fighting the battle of Ireland on the Continent, and I

  729
  hope that the Chief Secretary will allow us to determine in what manner we shall reward our fellow countrymen who have gone out not only to fight the battle of Ireland, but to fight the battle of justice the world over. I do not wish to go into the details of this Bill, and I only wish to object to it on one ground, and that it is a ground against which there can be very little argument. According to the proposals of this Bill, certain lands in Ireland are to be allocated to these soldiers and sailors, and what are those lands? They are vested at present either in the Congested Districts Board or in the Land Commission. Have those responsible for the framing of this Bill forgotten, or have they ever learned the history of the land question in Ireland? There are Members of this House sitting around me who have been in this fight for the repatriation of Ireland for over forty years, and one of the results of that fight has been that certain Acts of Parliament have been passed, beginning with the Land Act of 1870 and followed by other Acts in 1881, 1885, 1903, 1909 and others, and under these Acts certain lands have been vested in Commissions set up by this Parliament, and those Commissions have been appointed as trustees to hold those lands, for whom? Not for the 'soldiers of the War of 1914–18, but for the men who were driven out of the lands that justly belonged to them into the bogs and mountains, and in equity and justice those men who were driven out, or their descendants—I speak to the right hon. Gentleman as a lawyer—those men have a first charge upon these lands. That is the point I wish to make in this Debate, and I trust it will not be considered blasphemy in this House to say that I think this Bill as presented to the House is ultra vires, and that this House has no power in equity, law, or justice to alienate that land from the men to whom this Parliament decreed that that land should be given.
  There is just one other view of this case that I would like to take and to impress upon the House. I have not been long in this House, and I hope my stay will not be much longer—I hope another Act of Parliament will send me across the Irish seas—but one of the many revelations made to me since I came is the fact that when one of the most vital matters concerning the county I represent is being discussed it is discussed with almost empty Benches, so far as the English Members are concerned. It may appear a trivial
  730
  matter to the Members of this House, but I can assure them that in the immediate future it will not be a trivial matter. The doctrine of self-determination is about to have effect, and in order to have self-determination on this question there must be peace in Ireland. This Bill is about to raise another hell in Ireland. As an Irishman and as the representative of a constituency containing thousands and tens of thousands of families who were driven into the bogs and fastnesses of Tyrone, I say that these men have a first claim upon the few acres of land that the Land Commission and the Congested Districts Board have in their disposition at the present time. When I say that I do not say that the noble men who have gone out to fight our battles should not be rewarded. I say that they should be rewarded, but not with a few paltry, poor acres of land which they are not qualified to occupy or to put to its best use. I know the land of my county, and I know that ton, fifteen or twenty acres will not support a man and his family. I do not want to see the men who risked their all in our defence sentenced to such a fate as to have to eke out a precarious existence upon a few miserable acres of land. I think I am not going beyond my brief when I say that I have the authority of the people I represent to my nation for saying that we wish to treat these men honourably, justly, sensibly, and, if you like, generously. Let each man of us bear the burden, and let these men be treated as they ought to be treated, both Englishmen and Irishmen. Let them all be put upon one level, and let this miserable, paltry Bill, which does not deal even with the fringe of the question, die. Let it be forgotten as a misconception. It is not worthy of this nation. It is not worthy of this great Empire. I ask this House not to create a further difficulty in Ireland—and by passing this Bill you are doing so—because in creating that difficulty you are making it hard for us and you are making it harder for yourselves. There will be a peace after this War and there must be peace the world over, because the great democracies of the world have said there must be peace and self-determination and you cannot begin reconstruction if you have a rotten brick in the centre of the bridge. I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to persist in this fatuous attempt. I give him credit for the best intentions, but he is plunging Ireland into a sea of difficulties and in doing so he is not lessening the difficulties of England.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Arthur Samuels): I am glad that at any rate there is one subject on which we are all agreed in representing Ireland this evening and that is in the admiration for the gallantry of the Irish soldiers who have fought in this War, from wherever they have come—from every part of Ireland, from every part of England and Scotland, from the Antipodes, and from the great Republic across the Atlantic. I wish we were agreed also in the attempt that we make, as a small portion of greater schemes of reconstruction I hope, to give some reward and some recognition of their splendid valour and sacrifice. Unworthy motives have been attributed to the Government in bringing forward this Bill. It has been called a bribe and it has been called a Bill without reality. Before my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Charles Craig), whom it is a pleasure for all the House to hear once again, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Sheehan) fought together in the battles, in which the valour of the Irish soldiers will ever be immortalised, on the Somme, the lines of this Bill had been thought out and its intentions had begun to take shape. From the Ulster Benches and from the benches on the other side the Government were pressed to bring forward a Bill which would recognise the rights of the gallant men of Ireland to some similar advantages to those which were being extended to English soldiers in the way of the allotment of land. It was promised by the late Chief Secretary. It was promised with concurrence, as we understood it, from all sides on the Irish Benches. There is one thing to be said, at any rate, and that is that from no single Member for England or Scotland was any suggestion made against recognising the services of these men who so gallantly volunteered and fought. The object of the Bill as far as it stands is to provide that those who have fought for the freedom of Ireland will get a freehold in Ireland, and these men will be the forbears of a gallant progeny in time to come.
  Who are the men for whom this Bill is designed? We have heard about the poor, desolate peasantry in Ireland who are to be robbed of the benefits that they were to expect under a long series of Land Acts. Who are the men we expect to come in under the benefits of this Bill? The very sons of this peasantry—the very
  732
  sons of these tenant farmers. The hon. and gallant Member for Mid-Cork (Captain Sheehan), who pressed this upon the Government, has told the House that he has been appealed to, is a soldier who speaks for soldiers in Ireland, and I am sure that in his views he is representing the real feeling of the Irish people in this Debate. The mass of men whom we expect to come in and look for land will be men who are the sons of labourers and the sons of tenant farmers, and who under the existing Land Acts cannot get any benefit. Where is the land to come from? There seems to have been a great amount of misapprehension. There is a certain amount of land—but that will not be touched—at present in the hands of the Land Commission. There is other land in the hands of the Congested Districts Board. There are numbers of people who have claims already on that, and there are other people who have not claims on it. The very families of these men will welcome the idea that a second son or a third son may get a little bit of land in his own native land. There is other land. We have been generously offered by landlords, who have demesnes and other property in their hands, land for this purpose which possibly, under other circumstances, would not have been made available. They are going to put this land at our disposal. There will not be a want of that patriotism which has distinguished the Irish landlords and the Irish squirearchy in this War, and if they can help the soldier peasantry they will gladly do so.
  Mr. HAZLETON: Are they going to give the land or to sell it?
  Mr. SAMUELS: They are going to put it at the disposal of the Government for this purpose, and the hon. Member knows perfectly well the circumstances under which estates are purchased in Ireland. How is it going to be carried out? It will be carried out by the existing machinery, and in dealing with this matter we in Ireland are in a far better position than England would be in trying to deal with a similar problem. Every Clause of this Bill, from beginning to end, has proved to be workable, and we are going to see that it is worked. Who are the people who are to work it? The Irish Land Commission. It is a very common thing for every official in Ireland—no matter how hard he is worked—to be abused. But, after all, a great deal

  733
  has been achieved by the efforts of officials and experts in carrying into effect the policy of the Land Acts from the time the first was placed on the Statute Book. We are under a very great debt to the permanent officials in the Land Commission, the Congested Districts Board, and Agricultural Department, for their work in the administration of these Acts. There is one Clause of this Bill which has been spoken of as a novelty—the Clause relating to co-operation. But co-operation is no novelty in Ireland; it is understood by the farmers and the labourers, and we hope to bring it into vigorous operation under this scheme. There has been a good deal of misapprehension regarding the number of soldiers we hope will get the benefit of this proposal. Of course we never anticipated we could thus help the 170,000 soldiers who have come from Ireland. But we are going to try and help some of them. The hon. Member for Mid-Cork urged the claims of priority and length of service. I may remind him that the late Chief Secretary promised that priority of application and length of service would not be forgotten. It has been said that this Bill is intended as a bribe. It is not, but it is intended to enable gallant men from a gallant land who have gone to fight their country's battles to come back and live in their own land and carry on the traditions of their race. We intend to press this Bill. We hope to get the Second Reading to-night, and I wish it were possible for hon. Members opposite to reconsider their position and accept the Bill, and to throw themselves heart and soul into the commencement of this work of reconstruction. This country has large Colonial possessions, and if we cannot satisfy the claims of men for land at home may it not be possible to find holdings for them in other lands where they may enjoy prosperity among those who have helped with them to link more closely together every part of the Empire. As regards the finance of this measure, we have been handsomely met by the Treasury. We hope these men will get not merely the holdings, but that they will be well stocked. It was done in the case of the evicted tenants. Why should it not be done in this case?
  Mr. SHEEHY: Will Treasury money be forthcoming for this?
  Mr. SAMUELS: May I say that when this Bill is in Committee this point will be
  734
  more fully developed. There is no question but that we have been met generously.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Tell us about the generosity.
  Mr. SAMUELS: With regard to the suggestion as to the evicted tenants, all the evicted tenants have been dealt with—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"
  Mr. BYRNE: Not half of them.
  Mr. SAMUELS: All the evicted tenants who were qualified under the Act have been dealt with. The Act expired on 31st December, 1912, and all the evicted tenants have been dealt with, except about 300, whose turn is to come on.
  Mr. BYRNE: That is not correct.
  Mr. SAMUELS: This will be seen from the OFFICIAL REPORT. However, the House is now in possession of the Bill. It is a Bill which is meant as a measure of reconstruction. It is not as large a measure as it would be if we had a larger Ireland, but we do hope that Members on all sides in Ireland who express such admiration for the gallantry of these Irishmen, and who profess anxiety to assist them, will help us to work this Bill through Committee and to put it into operation.
  Mr. SHEEHY: I beg to move that the Debate be adjourned.
  Mr. J. O'CONNOR: I am loth to inflict my voice on the House at this late hour. If I may mention a personal matter, I am just recovering from a very prevalent disease. It affects my voice and I should be very loth to inflict myself on the House if it were not a solemn occasion. The speeches delivered to-night have been of the most serious character, and if I were able to make a speech it should be of a very serious character, because I represent a county that is composed of very various elements. In the district of Kildare, that I represent, there are vast tracts of land suitable for the settlement of soldiers or any other people who would engage in agriculture. There is also in my Constituency a vast amount of bog land. The great Bog of Allen takes its rise in ray Constituency and flows, if I may use the expression, into three or four counties adjacent, and on the borders of these bog-lands, and in the bogs themselves, are numbers of people who are eager to get more land than they at present possess. I represent the richest districts of Ireland,

  735
  from where you get your food in abundance in the shape of cattle that grow and flourish on the land and become fit for the butchers' knife upon the soil of the land without the aid of any artificial feeding whatever. I also represent poor land, as I have said. With regard to soldiers, I have a tender chord in my heart, because on the borders of that bog there were men who were recruited to the fighting ranks of the Army, and there were men who—
  It being Eleven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS [EXPENSES].
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of the administrative expenses of any local or joint committee (including the expenses of any Sub-committee thereof) established or appointed under the Naval and Military War Pensions etc., Act, 1915, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the better administration of the enactments relating to Naval, Military, and Air Force War Pensions, Grants, land Allowances—(King's recommendation signified)—To-morrow.—[Mr. Hodge.]
  Mr. HEALY: Will that be the first Order to-morrow?
  Mr. HODGE: This is in connection with the Pensions Bill, which has been read a second time.
  Mr. HEALY: Will it be the first Order? [HON. MEMBERS: "To-morrow is Women's day." "To-morrow isn't Thurs-day."]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  FOOD SUPPLIES (FAT CATTLE).
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. FIELD: I desire to say a few words on the subject of the Order relating to restrictions on the importation of fat cattle from Ireland. I would not venture to trouble the House but for the fact that I
  736
  have received a resolution by telegraph from the Irish Cattle and Stockowners' Association to the effect that the proposal made by the Food Controller for restricting the sale of Irish fat cattle for the next two or three weeks cannot be acceded to by that association. I also received a telegram from the South of Ireland Cattle Dealers' Association, as follows:—
  "Embargo on Irish fat stock without warning, ruinous to trade, and causing enormous losses. Over 1,000 fat cattle belonging to southern dealers, bought for shipment, in compliance with Government grading system, held up in Dublin in starving condition; deteriorating rapidly into stores. They are awaiting shipment for ten days and over. The South of Ireland Cattle Trade Association request permission to ship these cattle under the circumstancs in priority to fresh arrivals at Dublin port."
  I want it to be understood that I raise this question in the interests of the consumers under the Food Controller, and I think the trade should be consulted before this serious step is taken. The trouble began before the time of the present Food Controller, when the price of cattle was fixed at 60s., and when it was lowered instead of being raised and the whole business turned upside down. The result has been that ever since there has been more or less fluctuation and uncertainty in the trade. The result of this action means that only 4,500 cattle and 7,000 sheep are to be permitted to be exported every week. In order to arrive at the logical steps or the correct course to be taken, I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that during the last three months of last year the average exports per week were 12,000 sheep and 12,375, cattle, which means cutting down cattle to one-third and sheep to nearly half. The result of this is dislocation of the livestock trade, uncertainty of prices in fairs and markets, and uncertainty of supply and demand. The ultimate result will be a decrease in food production, which is exactly what you want to prevent. If I am credibly informed you were some thousands of sheep short a year ago, and if you reduce stock in Ireland it will be a serious matter for the people of this country. The Food Controller and the Department of Agriculture asked stock raisers and farmers in Ireland to increase food production. The Department of Agriculture particularly asked and requested increased production of beef and mutton. There was no regular agreement but it was certainly understood that the market would remain open, because it would be an extraordinary thing to ask

  737
  the farmers and stock raisers to increase production if you intended to shut the market. I think that is a very logical way of putting the position. The limiting and restriction of the market was done, as I understand, in opposition to the voice and protests of the cattle traders' associations, and if I am correctly informed, the Department of Agriculture was against curtailing the exports. We have, then, the fact that those in the business and the Department of Agriculture in Ireland were against this step being taken by the Food Controller in England. I look upon this action as more or less a breach of faith. It is an extraordinary thing to happen at this season since we have an enormous export during the last few months, and it is, if not a want of common sense, at least a want of prevision not to make some arrangement for a situation of that kind. This glut is due to imports of dead meat, and those imports have helped to increase the profits of the American Meat Trust. I know that this is not an occasion in which I can enter into the merits of that question, but let me mention four of the big packers of that meat have during 1915–16–17 pocketed higher profits to the amount of 178 millions of dollars than the average of the year before. Now we are told that this glut all comes from the export of Irish cattle. Another extraordinary business proceeding on the part of the Food Controller is that he puts up the price 2d. per lb., and, notwithstanding the differences of value, they charge the same price for frozen meat as they do for fresh. I think there must be a bit of profiteering in that, and I would like to have an opportunity of glancing at the accounts to see how it is possible that frozen meat, which is imported at about a half or a third of the price, can be sold for the same price—how they can reconcile to their consciences selling an inferior article at the same price as a good article. If there is a loss on the transaction, why should the Irish live-stock trade have to suffer? I have sympathy with the British feeders, but sympathy is the cure by Government for all kinds of complaints, particularly for Irish complaints, and I do not see why the Irish cattle trade should hare to suffer. I want to point out that the live-stock industry in Great Britain is nothing like as important as it is in Ireland. It is our staple product, and if you injure the live-stock industry in Ireland it rebounds upon Great Britain,
  738
  because you want meat and you want stores. I thought the object of the Food Controller was to encourage home produce, and meat and milk are two essential foods. I suggest that the way to meet the difficulty would be to increase the rations in England at the present time, and from my practical knowledge I assert unhesitatingly, without fear of contradiction, that keeping fat cattle and sheep is a wasteful policy, and the proposition of increasing prices later on will not meet the present position. The Order ought to be withdrawn or modified, and consultation ought to be taken with the trade as to the best method to avoid friction and carry on the business and so increase production, and in that way help the Food Controller.
  Mr. DILLON: I wish to say a very few words in support of what has fallen from my hon. Friend. This is an extremely important and urgent matter, and the chief evil in this Order is that without due notice the entire trade in Ireland is dislocated and heavy loss, terrible loss, inflicted on those engaged in it. It has the result of damming up a stream and that all the tributary streams are dammed up, because this loss is immediately reflected in an exaggerated way at the fairs and markets throughout the country. The result is that you profoundly discourage the producers of food throughout the whole of Ireland. That I consider the gravest fault that is to be complained of in the method of procedure of the Food Controller. Of course, we complain; we are bound to complain of the enormous loss which has been inflicted on these men without due notice. If the men had got sufficient notice that this Order was about to be issued, then the condition of things that has been described would not have arisen, and although the Order is bad policy, in my opinion it would not have inflicted such cruel loss. One of the worst features of this Order is the feeling which it has spread amongst producers of cattle and live stock in Ireland that you cannot trust the Government at all, and that all their promises and inducements held out to a particular industry are to be broken. The effect will inevitably be to discourage production and prevent men investing their capital in increasing the amount of food in the country. Now that is the result of the continuation of repetition of the enormous blunder that was made by the Food Controller last year. He was warned by every skilled expert in the

  739
  business here and in Ireland that that policy would produce enormous loss and what was the result? During several months last year we were consuming more meat than was ever consumed in our history and then when Christmas came we were face to face with a meat famine. It was prophesied by every skilled trader in the country. This year the blunder has been committed because you issued this Order. The moment the Order was issued you limited the meat ration and reduced the consumption of the whole country. The whole country realising the quantity of frozen meat in storage reduced enormously their demand for fat cattle, and at the same time you came to the conclusion to completely deprive the dealers of the feeding-stuffs necessary in order to keep cattle fat and carry them on to the Christmas market, and therefore in all ways you paralyse the trade, and it stands to reason, if it was really necessary, though I doubt it—I think there is a good deal to be said against that argument—but suppose it was necessary to so enormously reduce the supply of feeding-stuffs you ought to take that into consideration and either give them longer notice or considerably modify the stringency of those rules reducing the consumption so that the markets would not be glutted and the absurd spectacle presented of a people with reduced rations, whilst the cattle is being driven back from the markets and their owners have not the foodstuffs to keep them fat, and the flow of cattle is interrupted with ruinous loss and discouragement to the trade. It really appears to me that the action of the Food Controller illustrates the warning which I ventured to give when the whole system was set up, namely, that the Food Controller has power apparently to override and overcome the Department of Agriculture in this country. That has happened over and over again, and in every case that I can remember the Department of Agriculture has proved to be right and the Food Controller wrong. That is quite natural, because the Department of Agriculture is far more skilled in these matters than the Food Controller.
  Then we were told the other day that the pig policy of the War Cabinet has been totally altered, and that they are now importing large quantities of American bacon and depriving the home market of the necessary food. Pigs have to be slaughtered or starved. I very much
  740
  doubt whether the shipping has been put to the best public use. In the future the Government ought to give more ear and weight to the advice of the Department of Agriculture—to those who are skilled in the industry of agriculture, and the farmers, and whenever they are convinced, after full consideration, of the necessity for stringent Orders of this character, the Government ought to give to those engaged in the business ample notice of their intention, and carefully to consider—not only so, but to convince the public that they have carefully considered and given full weight to the advice and recommendations they are sure to receive—before they inflict their stringent Orders on the trade. Whatever may be said in favour of this Order, there can be no doubt that the hardship has been cruelly aggravated by its suddenness and want of warning in issuing it.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Major Astor): I have no complaint whatever against the hon. Gentlemen opposite for raising this question this evening or for the manner in which they have brought it forward. I can only repeat the regret I expressed the other night that a matter so vitally affecting agriculture and food production should have had to be discussed at the tail-end of a day. There are only a few minutes, and therefore I will try to avoid covering the points I dealt with the other evening, because I want rather to elaborate and continue what I was saying then. I want to make it quite clear that my right hon. Friend the Food Controller, and I, and all at the Ministry of Food, thoroughly appreciate and realise the difficult position of cattle owners and the inconvenience to which they are put at the present time. I myself have had my own cattle turned back from the market, and therefore I have a personal sympathy with those who have had their cattle turned back.
  Mr. FLAVIN: You can afford to lose the money; small farmers cannot.
  Major ASTOR: It is equally irritating.
  Mr. FLAVIN: I agree.
  Major ASTOR: Another point just made was that we did not give adequate warning of our action. The warning which we have been able to give has been equally short for all. Unfortunately, we were not able to tell English cattle owners that their cattle could not be taken in the numbers in which they

  741
  were coming forward. We have had to apply the same treatment to all cattle whether they came from England or from Ireland. As regards length of notice, we discussed this question with the Central Agricultural Advisory Council, on which Irish farmers were represented. We interviewed the Irish Board of Agriculture two or three weeks ago, and I understand that some time ago they had a discussion with the Irish Cattle Traders' Association. I want to tell hon. Members of the practical steps which the Food Controller proposes to take. He quite realises that men who have cattle now ripe for slaughter will be put to considerable inconvenience and expense if they are asked to keep their cattle for several months more. He quite realises that if they keep those cattle on their farms they will do so to meet the general convenience of the Government and public, and therefore he wants to deal as fairly as possible with them. Further, he also encourages cattle owners to hold back their cattle, and not to put them on the market now, but to let us have them in the early months of 1919—February, March, and April. We shall be badly in need of cattle in March, April, and May. In order to deal with this the Food Controller proposes to give an additional price for cattle later on in the year. He has already promised an increase in the price which was fixed a long time back. Now he proposes a further increase in order to meet the additional cost to which cattle-owners will be put. The actual owners of the cattle now ripe for slaughter will have to hold. If the present owners have not got the requisite feed, there are, and in Ireland, men who have got the feed. Only the other day, in the "Irish Times" of 11th October, I read the following statement:
  "A peculiar feature of the situation in the Dublin market is that the feeders and the farmers for the last few weeks have been much in evidence here and have drawn largely upon the better cattle…."
  So that there are in Ireland men with feed who presumably will be prepared to feed and hold the cattle if they see an adequate prospect of adequate remuneration. The Food Controller hopes his project will not increase the prices to the consumer in view of the recent increase in the retail prices. The increases proposed will apply to first-grade cattle only. These additional prices will be given, of course, to English as well as Irish cattle owners. We propose to make these increases on a graduated scale following the normal
  742
  course. The highest point will be reached in May when the price will be 85s. per live cwt.—that is to say, more than the original price announced, or 5s. more than the increase promised by the Food Controller a couple of months ago. That is the highest point. We shall begin increasing the price in December, when we shall give an additional 1s., or rather 2s., because we have already promised 1s.—that is to say, the price in December will be 77s.; and so it goes on. I need not give all the figures to-night, for they will be published tonight or to-morrow. They will go on increasing—77s. in December, 78s. in January, 80s. in February, 81s. in March, 83s. in April, 85s. in May, and 85s. in June. Then they begin to go down. The object of these increased prices is to remunerate the farmers for the additional expense which they will be put to in holding their stock, and it will also induce them to hold their stock and to bring them in later—in February, March, April, and May. I want to repeat what I said the other day. We fully appreciate the position in which the farmers are placed. We hope the proposals we make will help to meet some of the difficulties. If there are any further points which occur at any time, I can promise that they will receive sympathetic consideration and careful attention. We fully realise the importance to Ireland and to Great Britain of this live stock. The Food Controller is trying to conserve the live stock of the country. He does not want to do anything to prejudice the future position. Hon. Members opposite, I hope, will assist in explaining to people outside how the present situation has arisen and what he is doing to remedy it. I have been as frank as I could. I have given all the information I could in the time. I am certain that the farmers will respond like all other sections of the community and will put up with the inconvenience during the War just as all other classes, feeling that they will be contributing towards the successful prosecution of the War. If we could have avoided the present difficulties we should have done so, and we should be pleased at any time to consider all practical proposals which hon. Members may make.
  It being Half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'clock.

WAR
  MINISTRY OF INFORMATION (STAFF).
  MINISTRY OF INFORMATION (STAFF).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  LIVE STOCK.
  LIVE STOCK.
  FEEDING-STUFFS.
  FEEDING-STUFFS.
  MILK.
  MILK.
  IRISH CREAMERIES (PAYMENTS FOR CHEESE).
  IRISH CREAMERIES (PAYMENTS FOR CHEESE).
  TILLAGE SCHEMES (TENANCIES DETERMINED).
  TILLAGE SCHEMES (TENANCIES DETERMINED).
  DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, IRELAND (STAFF—WAR BONUS).
  DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, IRELAND (STAFF—WAR BONUS).
  IRISH LICENSING COMMISSION (RECOMMENDATIONS).
  IRISH LICENSING COMMISSION (RECOMMENDATIONS).
  NATIONAL SHIPYARD. BEACHLEY (COMPENSATION CLAIMS).
  NATIONAL SHIPYARD. BEACHLEY (COMPENSATION CLAIMS).
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887 (AMENDMENT).
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887 (AMENDMENT).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  MEN OVER FORTY-FIVE.
  MEN OVER FORTY-FIVE.
  EXEMPTIONS (WAR OFFICE OFFICIALS).
  EXEMPTIONS (WAR OFFICE OFFICIALS).
  YORKSHIRE REGIMENT (PRIVATE MOWBRAY).
  YORKSHIRE REGIMENT (PRIVATE MOWBRAY).
  MOTOR TRANSPORT REPAIR DEPOT, CIPPENHAM.
  MOTOR TRANSPORT REPAIR DEPOT, CIPPENHAM.
  ARMY HORSES (PRICES).
  ARMY HORSES (PRICES).
  TRADE UNION CUSTOMS, ETC. (RESTORATION).
  TRADE UNION CUSTOMS, ETC. (RESTORATION).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (ACCIDENTS).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (ACCIDENTS).
INDIA
  ROWLATT COMMITTEE (REPORT).
  ROWLATT COMMITTEE (REPORT).
  MATCHES.
  MATCHES.
  TUBERCULOSIS (SANATORIUM ACCOMMODATION).
  TUBERCULOSIS (SANATORIUM ACCOMMODATION).
  HOUSEHOLD FUEL AND LIGHTING ORDER
  HOUSEHOLD FUEL AND LIGHTING ORDER
  RAILWAY FARES (SCHOOL CHILDREN).
  RAILWAY FARES (SCHOOL CHILDREN).
  COAL OUTPUT (GREAT BRITAIN).
  COAL OUTPUT (GREAT BRITAIN).
  DISABLED MEN (RE-EMPLOYMENT).
  DISABLED MEN (RE-EMPLOYMENT).
  Marylebone Police Court (Assault Case).
  Marylebone Police Court (Assault Case).
  Edinburgh Register House.
  Edinburgh Register House.
  Post Office Accommodation (York Place, Brighton).
  Post Office Accommodation (York Place, Brighton).
ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and, to be printed.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Would the noble Earl the Leader of the House say whether any plan has been made as to the subsequent stages of this Bill? My reason for asking is that, while I do not anticipate any difficulty about the Second Reading, there were a good many Amendments made in the later stages in another place, and I think it would be convenient if we could have time between the Second Reading and the Committee stage here to communicate Amendments to Scotland in order that they may be considered fairly and properly in the Committee of this House. If a few days could elapse between the Second Reading and the Committee stage it would be for the convenience of your Lordships.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, in reply to t he question of my noble friend, I think of putting down the Second Reading of the Bill on Wednesday of next week, and then I will endeavour to arrange for an interval of a few days between the Second Reading and Committee stage, for the reasons which the noble Lord has pleaded.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: And take the Committee stage the week after?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I will endeavour to meet the view of the noble Lord, but I should not like to give a definite pledge at the moment without a clear idea of what our plans will have to be.
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

MIDWIVES BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

PETROLEUM PRODUCTION BILL.
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ELPHINSTONE: My Lords, the Bill to which I am asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to-day is a very short and a very simple Bill, and one which is exceedingly limited in its scope. I cannot help thinking that there may be, and indeed that there must be, in the minds of some of your Lordships a certain amount of misconception as to what the intentions of the Government really are in this matter and as to what the effect of this Bill is. As your Lordships are no doubt aware, a previous Bill dealing, with this subject was introduced in another place some six months ago or thereabouts. That Bill differed from this one in that it raised several acutely controversial questions, and the Government were of the opinion that it would not be right or proper at this moment, in the crisis of this world-wide war, to press what evidently was a controversial measure. Therefore, that Bill was withdrawn, and it has been superseded by this one, from which I think your Lordships will agree all these controversial points are absent.
In one respect I am quite sure that we are all agreed, and that is that if it should be proved that petroleum does exist in this country it is absolutely necessary that it should be properly protected and not allowed to be wasted. That, my Lords, is the only thing which this Bill sets out to do. It is true that the question of petroleum in this country is a novel one, and one as yet entirely unproved. At the same time we have the experience of other oil-producing countries to guide us in this matter, and I think your Lordships will agree that it would be a national calamity if indiscriminate and wasteful borings were to be allowed when the war is over. In some parts of America it has been calculated that as much as front 25 to 85 per cent. of the oil has been wasted in the ground, and that, owing to indiscriminate and wasteful methods of boring, the extraordinary supplies of that country are in great danger of being exhausted in the comparatively short period of about thirty years.
The sole aim and object of this Bill is to protect the petroleum in this country from a similar fate; granted, of course, that any petroleum exists here. That is

735
done by prohibiting, when the war is over and when the Defence of the Realm Regulations have lapsed, all boring or searching for petroleum except with the authority of the Government. Beyond that this Bill does not profess to go, and I would point out that it leaves absolutely unprejudiced all controversial questions—such as, for instance, who has any right in petroleum if it should be found. It does not prejudge one way or the other the rights or claims of the owners of the surface. All these questions will have to be decided by Parliament when the war is over; and the reason that. I say that all these questions will have to be decided then is this. If your Lordships will look at Clause 2, subsection (1), you will notice that the Bill is so drawn, and deliberately so drawn, that further legislation will be necessary before the industry, if petroleum is found in the interval, can be carried on.
It is true that in Clause 1 the Bill makes it impossible for any individual to bore on his own account, but it equally will be impossible for the Government to do so when their present war powers lapse, for the Bill confers no power on the Government to enter upon any one's land for the purpose of boring. Therefore a deadlock is created, and the Government of the day will be forced then to come to Parliament, and that is the time when all these very difficult and controversial points will have to be settled—questions such as who has any rights in the petroleum if it is there, and on what basis it is to be worked. All these questions of the rights or claims of landowners are in no way prejudiced by this Bill. They are neither denied nor are they admitted, but they are left to be decided by Parliament when hostilities are over and when our thoughts can once more be diverted from the all-aborbing topic of the war.
I might, perhaps, in case there is any misunderstanding on the point, briefly sum up what the position as regards oil in this country is at the moment. The position is that as long as the war lasts the Government, as your Lordships are aware, are proceeding under the Defence of the Realm Regulations; and neither the Bill which I am bringing forward to-day, nor the Bill which the noble Duke is bringing in, can affect the situation as long as those Regulations hold good. During the time that the Government is working under the Defence of the Realm Regulations,
736
compensation is provided for under those Regulations. It is open to the landowner to appeal for whatever compensation he thinks is due to him, to the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission. That is already provided for.
But, my Lords, when the war is over and the Defence of the Realm Regulations are no longer operative, there would, in the absence of any legislation such as I am proposing, be a scramble of speculators, and great waste in the oil, if it exists. Equally, when the Defence of the Realm Regulations lapse, the Government have no further power to enter on any land for the purpose of boring, for this Act will be the Act that deals with the subject. But at that moment, as you see by Clause 2, subsection (1), of this Bill, nobody can bore, and the right is not given to the Government to go on anybody's land for that purpose. That is the deadlock to which I referred, and that is why, if the oil industry has in the interval been proved, it will be absolutely necessary for the Government to come to Parliament to have all these points of controversy settled.
I hope, my Lords, that I have been able to dispel some of the fears of opponents of this measure, and that I have shown that the claims and rights of landowners are in no way prejudiced by this Bill; they are left exactly as they were. By reading the Bill a second time to-day, all that your Lordships do is to signify your agreement that if there should be oil in this country it must be properly protected against indiscriminate boring. And I hope, my Lords, I have shown that it will be necessary, before the industry can be carried on, that the Government of the day shall come to Parliament to settle on what lines it is to be carried on.
Before formally moving the Second Reading of the Bill, I think it would probably be for the convenience of this House, and would possibly save time and also a certain amount of duplication of debate, if I were to refer for a few moments to the Bill which is being brought in by the noble Duke and to the Motion which stands on the Paper in his name. On one point—it is a very important point—I am glad to see that we are agreed, and that is as to the necessity of protecting petroleum from indiscriminate boring. I might almost have hoped, as the noble Duke feels that as strongly as we do, to

737
have found him an ardent supporter of the Bill of which I am in charge, because this really is all that the Bill sets out to do—to protect the oil. But when we home to the Bill introduced by the noble Duke, what do we find? We find later on all those controversial points, or the principal ones, raised in his Bill which it is the aim and the object of the Government to avoid raising now during the war, leaving them, as I have said, to be settled by Parliament when the war is over.
Take, for example, Clause 5 of the noble Duke's Bill. That introduces what is, I think, the most controversial question of all—the question of royalties. It is true that in the Bill they are not called royalties; they are clothed in different language; but the fact remains that they are royalties. And, my Lords, the royalty is not, as was suggested in the previous Bill, a certain fixed sum, but, as far as I can make out, is to vary according to the success of individual landlords in driving a bargain with the licensee. I would ask the noble Duke whether he really seriously thinks for a moment that there would be the slightest chance of the House of Commons accepting his Bill with that clause in it when one considers the fate of the Bill six months ago which proposed a certain definite small royalty; here you have an indefinite, possibly a large, one.
My Lords, I do not think it is necessary for me to go into the noble Duke's Bill at any length, although I think it might, on reflection, be found that Clause 6, for instance, might work to the detriment of certain landlords under his proposal as to the division of the proceeds, whatever they may be, amongst the landlords in a certain specified area, not according to the oil which has been extracted from below their land, but according to the surface acreage which they possess in that area. I do not wish, however, to go into those questions, because, as I have already said, the Government base their objections to his Bill on the grounds that I have already stated—that in their opinion this is not the moment to attempt to pass a very controversial measure. The Government, my Lords, prefer to leave these questions unprejudiced either way, to be solved by Parliament after the war.
I recollect on more than one occasion in this House hearing the accusation made against His Majesty's Government having brought in controversial measures
738
during the war. In my opinion, this is really what the noble Duke and his friends are now doing, and I would most respectfully suggest to him that the moment for bringing forward his suggestions as to the methods in which oil should be worked in this country is not now, but when the war powers under which the Government are at present acting lapse, and when the Government are forced, as forced they will be, to come back to Parliament under their own Bill to settle all these difficult and controversial points. For these reasons, my Lords, the Government are unable to accede to the noble Duke's Motion that both Bills be read a second time and then committeed to a Select Committee. And I very much hope that I have been, successful in showing that the Bill is not what, I think, some of the opponents, thought it was, and that it merely protects the oil from indiscriminate boring, leaving all questions as to the ownership to, be settled later. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Elphinstone.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, the noble Lord has made it perfectly clear what the object of the Bill is, and, if I might say so at once, I think he has acted wisely. The Bill proposes to separate two things altogether from each other. The one is inquiry as to what petroleum is available, and its preservation from destruction in the meantime. The second is a stage which is not attempted in his Bill—the stage defining the rights, personal or otherwise, for getting it. The Bill of the noble Duke goes further. For myself, I think there is a great deal in what has fallen from the noble Lord about the impossibility of getting a more controversial debate on at this stage, and there fore it is wise to proceed with the limited Bill which the noble Lord has explained, and to which I shall confine my observations.
The purpose of the Government is to find out what petroleum there is available, and to protect it. That is all. Clause 2, in the middle proviso, makes it clear that the Bill interferes with no existing right. It does not exhaust anybody's title. That is left for subsequent legislation. But there is a point to which I take some exception. The noble Lord's Bill provides for obtaining knowledge of what petroleum is there. And what powers does it give? It empowers any officer of the Ministry of

739
Munitions to exercise the same rights for the production and examination of plans and sections kept at a mine in pursuance of section 20 of the Coal Mines Act and section 19 of the Metalliferous Mines Act, 1872, as are by those Acts conferred on inspectors. Now, my Lords, that is wholly inadequate for the purposes of the Bill. The question of what petroleum is underground is a very complicated one. I speak as one having sat for two years as Chairman of the Coal Conservation Committee. All these matters came under our review, and it became clear to us that what is needed above everything else is more knowledge. There is a Department which is charged with this business, and for some reason—I suppose because the Bill was drawn up by the Ministry of Munitions who did not give much attention to it—they are wholly excluded from the Bill. I am not sure at this moment what the position of the Geological Survey is, but I hope that it will presently come under the noble Earl who leads the House, and who is President of the Council and President of the Department of Scientific Research which has recently been established. Anyhow, it is there to obtain all the information that can be got regarding such questions as the strata which contain the hydro-carbons of the petroleum as well as of other oils. The noble Duke in this respect has, much better than the Government, provided for an Advisory Committee nominated by the Director of the Geological Survey to inquire into all these things and obtain the necessary knowledge.
But here is a Bill which is introduced for the purpose not only of the production of the petroleum that is under the ground, but for finding out where that petroleum lies, and yet it sets up no machinery which is even approaching adequacy for the purpose. All that the Ministry of Munitions officers will be able to do is to exercise the powers of the inspectors of mines to call for plans. That is not enough. The full research power which is under the noble Earl should be called into counsel, and the Director of the Geological Survey should be the person to give the advice and information which is needed. It would be very easy in Committee for the Government to introduce a clause to that effect. A few words would Do, carrying out the spirit of the noble Duke's Bill. That would make the Government's Bill worth a great deal mote than it is at present. So far as getting knowledge is concerned,
740
I hope to see that change made, and will introduce an Amendment myself if the Government prefer it, though I think it would be very much better that the Government should do it themselves. I think, however, that the Bill is a very good one as a sort of step in the desired direction, if it is amended in this respect.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I think that your Lordships will all agree that the main purpose of any measure such as that the Second Reading of which the noble Lord has moved to-day should be to ensure the production of a maximum amount of petroleum in the shortest possible time, and it should safeguard as far as possible the interests of all those concerned in petroleum production, and, most important of all, should ensure that Government control, in so far as it is necessary, should be exercised in as fair and as impartial and disinterested manner as possible. I would draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 2 of the noble Lord's Bill. Clause 2 confers absolute power upon the Minister of Munitions to grant or to withdraw licences as he may please to anybody. Furthermore, it empowers him to impose any terms or conditions upon licensees—that is to say, the Minister of Munitions may favour one person and may reject another, or he may impose such terms upon one man that it will not pay him to bore for petroleum. It seems to me worth while inquiring whether it is desirable that the Minister of Munitions should be granted these powers. These powers, in fact, perpetuate the present conditions under the Defence of the Realm Act, and I think it can be shown that the powers which have under that Act been granted to the Ministry of Munitions have been used in a way to retard and to hamper instead of hastening the production of petroleum; that they have not safeguarded the interests of those concerned in its production, and that they have been used in a manner which is the very reverse of impartial. If that can be shown, I think that your Lordships will agree that a very strong case has been made out for at any rate not allowing this Government Bill to pass in its present form.
In order that these charges may be substantiated, I will draw your Lordships' attention to the Government's record in this matter. The Government made a declaration as long ago as June, 1917, that

741
drilling for oil in this country was an urgent necessity. Nothing was, however, done after that declaration until October of that year, when a Bill was introduced and failed to pass the House of Commons. Another three months elapsed, until January of the present year when this Defence of the Realm Act Regulation was issued empowering the Government, practically in the same words as in Clause 2 of this Bill, to enter on and to acquire land for the purpose of boring for petroleum and to grant licences to anybody they pleased. One would naturally have supposed that after the issue of that Regulation the Government would have lost no time in setting to work; but strange to relate, it was not until a few days ago that the first well was drilled on the Duke of Devonshire's property—that is to say, the first well was drilled nine months after this Defence of the Realm Act Regulation was issued, and sixteen months after the Government had declared that oil production was an urgent necessity.
This very strange delay in the production of petroleum has aroused a considerable amount of public interest in the Press, and various insinuations have been made against the good faith of the Government, which I venture to think, failing a satisfactory explanation, must rather tend to have the effect of undermining public confidence in the Government to a serious degree. In order that I may make what I am going to say quite clear, I must refer still further to the past history. About three and a half years ago certain landowners were in negotiation with Messrs. Pearson for boring petroleum on their estates. Those negotiations lasted a considerable time, and eventually fell through because Messrs. Pearson wished for an option of such an extended character that it practically amounted to a monopoly. These negotiations having fallen through, Messrs. Pearson entered into negotiations with the Government, and it is a remarkable fact that from the moment that Messrs. Pearson entered upon negotiations with the Government a course of consistent and apparently—I only say apparently—but on the face of it deliberate, obstruction has been adopted by the Government to all those persons trying to bore for petroleum in this country.
In order to explain what was the state of affairs produced by this obstruction I should like to read to your Lordships an
742
extract from a letter written to the Daily Chronicle by Mr. Cunningham Craig. Mr. Cunningham Craig was an expert employed by the Research Department of the Ministry of Munitions on this subject of petroleum production, and this is what he writes—
"Unfortunately the Production Department was put into the hands of officials with a very meagre knowledge of the subject, and to that alone the whole mess and muddle is due. Possibly resenting the necessary control by research, possibly from mere ignorance, the Production Department threw itself into the hands of certain interests, which, rightly or wrongly, believed that the development of a British oil industry would affect them adversely. Representatives of some of these interests co-operated with, or were actually employed by, the Controller of Production, and instead of carrying out the recommendations forwarded to them the officials attempted research work themselves and Commenced a course of criticism and obstruction which has lasted almost up to the present. Colliery owners and others who were anxious to produce oil by distillation and were willing to risk their own money for that end, were discouraged or even deliberately prevented from getting to work."
He goes on to say—
"This state of affairs caused great dissatisfaction in many quarters, while precious time was slipping away, and the dissatisfaction was not inarticulate. But something like a conspiracy of silence seems to have been deliberately engineered, possibly to save the reputation of certain incompetent officials, possibly in the interests of established industries that objected to the development of an oil industry not within their control"
He proceeds to speak of the very irrelevant answers given to Questions in another place on this subject. This obstruction has continued up to the present time. Latterly the excuse given was that intended legislation rendered it undesirable to grant any more licences that had already been granted under the Defence of the Realm Act Regulation. But although this has been done in the case of nearly every firm, a remarkable exception has been made in the case of Messrs. Pearson, to whom a very strange and almost excessive partiality has been shown. This firm styles itself "Agents to the Ministry of Munitions." It asserts that it has t n agreement which consists, so we are told, in Messrs. Pearson providing all the machinery and staff for the work of prospecting for petroleum in this country, the Government, of Course, bearing all this expense but Messrs. Pearson deriving no profit whatever.
The first question, I think, which must occur is, Why was this particular firm selected for this purpose? More than a

743
year ago there was another firm, the Darcy Company, which is a branch of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, which possessed all the machinery and staff and the capital to get to work at once on boring for petroleum. It possessed all that plant and machinery at a time when Messrs. Pearson had not a single scrap of machinery in this country—they had to bring it all from America. The efforts of the Darcy Company have been steadily obstructed, partly by uncertainty, which appears to have been deliberately engendered as to what legislation was going to be introduced, and at the present moment two licences for which they have applied have been held up in the Ministry of Munitions, and every effort which they have made to get to work and to obtain licences has been obstructed in every possible way. The treatment of this company has been very curious. They lately came to an arrangement with another company which owned certain lands for boring on the latter's property. They were suddenly informed that this agreement had been made and that they must give way to Messrs. Pearson, and this in spite of the fact that their proposal to drill was passed by the advisers of the Government on March 19 last. And the sole reason why they have not been producing petroleum for nearly a year past is that the Government deliberately delayed the granting of their priority for material. It is worthy of remark also that in taking this action Messrs. Pearson appear to have used information which they could only have obtained from Government sources. I should like to ask the Government whether it is true that the Darcy Company has recently been informed that no licences can be granted except on such terms as would not be likely to be satisfactory to any company or persons desiring to bore for oil.
I think you will agree that the only possible inference which the public can draw from all these circumstances is that the Government are applying Government funds and Government plant in order to create a monopoly for the benefit of a private firm, and that in order to carry out this policy they have deliberately delayed and discouraged the production of material which is urgently required for war purposes. And in order to establish this monopoly they have not hesitated to adopt a course which is designed to squeeze out other firms. It is also, I venture to think, a very remarkable coincidence that
744
the Bill is now only to become law at a period when Messrs. Pearson have been given time and opportunity to transfer sufficient machinery from America in order to get to work.
It may or may not be a good thing to grant a monopoly; that may or may not be the Government's policy, but at any rate it is directly contrary to the Government's engagement. An undertaking was given by Sir L. Worthington Evans on the Third Reading of this Bill in another place that no monopoly would be granted to any one firm. It is also contrary to the policy announced by Sir Arthur Churchman, who is Controller of the Mineral Oil Production Department of the Ministry of Munitions. He has stated that it was desirable that those wishing to bore for oil in the United Kingdom should first arrange with landowners and then apply to the Ministry of Munitions for licences, which licences would, subject to the Ministry being satisfied with the geological evidence, thereafter be issued to such persons.
To come back to Messrs. Pearson, it is, I think, not wholly irrelevant that Messrs. Pearson who are now willing to work for nothing, were not always willing to derive no benefit whatever from the work they undertook in boring for petroleum. Their ascent to these sublime heights of altruism was a somewhat gradual one. Some two years ago, when this firm was in negotiation with these landowners, they were willing to give a royalty of no less than 2s. per ton of petroleum produced, and it is sufficiently remarkable—I may say incidentally that this shows that they thought they could reap a very substantial benefit from this work—it is somewhat remarkable now that they should be willing to forgo all profit whatever.
This Bill might have been tolerated as a war measure, and the noble Lord has tried to represent to us that it is in fact a war measure; but the whole raison d'etre of this Bill is that it ensures the position of a prospector who wishes to bore for petroleum at the present time. Without legislation he was solely dependent upon the Defence of the Realm Act Regulation. It would not be worth his while to sink the capital and undertake the work because of the uncertainty as to future conditions. Therefore, if there is any object whatever in this Bill, it is to perpetuate the conditions under the Defence of the Realm Act Regulation. And the Minister who was

745
in charge of this Bill in the other House distinctly stated that it would be necessary to introduce further legislation in order that the Defence of the Realm Act should be perpetuated. I think that, in view of these circumstances, in view of the extraordinary and very exceptional powers which are conferred upon the Ministry of Munitions and the way in which they have used them, we are entitled to ask for considerably more information that the noble Lord has vouchsafed to us. I should like to ask him, with regard to this agreement which has been entered into with Messrs. Pearsons, whether he is prepared to lay a copy of this agreement on the Table of the House.
Now, the noble Lord has said that all controversial questions are excluded from this Bill. In a sense that is true. They are so carefully excluded that, as a matter of fact, it has exactly the opposite effect of what he supposes, in that, so far from safeguarding the position of the landowner, it does exactly the reverse. The question of ownership and of compensation is completely omitted, and, as the noble Lord has told us, the only redress the landowner has is to come before the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission. Judging by the rulings which that Commission has given in the past they will allow compensation only on substantial loss, therefore the only compensation the landowner will get will be for the use and destruction of such land as may have been used for the purpose of boring for petroleum. I think it is almost certain that this Commission would not grant any compensation for loss of immunity, and, I believe, would not grant any claim which the landowner might put in as owner of the petroleum which is being produced.
I do not wish to enter into the vexed question of royalties, although I cannot admit the noble Lord's contention that in the Bill which I have had the honour to introduce any controversial question is raised. But with regard to this question of royalties, I should like to point out that "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander"; and at the present moment on certain Government land a prospector is boring for petroleum, and he not only has to pay a surface rent to the Government but a royalty to the Government as well. I think that if the Government as landowner is entitled to a royalty the private individual as landowner
746
is equally entitled to one; and if the noble Lord wishes all these contentious questions to be deferred until after the war, he might examine that particular agreement and see that this royalty which is now being granted to the Government is also deferred until the war is over. However great popular prejudice may be against the system of royalties, I think that the public are not likely to view with satisfaction an attempt by the Government to obtain something which does not belong to them without paying for it, in order that they may establish a monopoly for the benefit of a private firm. I am of opinion that the defects of this Government measure are so many and so glaring that this House would be failing in its duty if it allowed the Bill to pass in its present form; and it was with a view of meeting this situation that I have had the honour of introducing this second Bill. At the same time I do not suppose that it will be the wish of this House to reject or to obstruct any measure which can be represented as satisfying a national necessity in a time of emergency like the present. I shall therefore move that this No. 2 Bill be read a second time, and that both Bills be referred to a Select Committee.
I do not propose to enter into any details with regard to the No. 2 Bill, but I will refer to one or two points only. The first is the provision in Clause 2 which defines petroleum prospecting areas by an Advisory Committee appinted by the Director of the Geological Survey, who for this purpose takes the place of the Minister of Munitions. The second point is subsection (1) of Clause 3, in which the Ministry of Munitions would be compelled to grant a licence to search or bore for and to get petroleum. This ensures equitable treatment for all persons who wish to work petroleum, and avoids the grave objections in the Government Bill. My third point is with regard to Clauses 5 and 6. Clause 5 provides for payment for all petroleum obtained by a licensee to those persons who prove themselves legally entitled to it. The noble Lord says that this appears to give every opportunity to a landowner to drive as hard a bargain as he may please. I do not quite understand where he sees that. I do not see that this clause can in any way be given that interpretation. Nor do I see that it is in any way controversial. It is perfectly obvious that the question of the ownership of the petroleum must be

747
settled sooner or later. The effect of the Government Bill is to vest the petroleum in the Crown; it is an attempt to establish the right of the Crown to the petroleum, because under the Defence of the Realm Regulation no claim made by the landowner as owner of the petroleum would be allowed; and all that Clause 5 says is that the Crown shall prove its claim in the only proper tribunal—the Law Courts. I think that this clause fulfils the purpose of safeguarding the interests of the public and of all concerned in the production of petroleum, and would place that production on a firm and unequivocal foundation instead of on the slippery and insecure foundation which is provided in the Government Bill.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Can the Government say whether they will deal with the point of getting information with regard to the question I raised—I mean through the Research Department of the Geological Survey?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: The suggestion of the noble and learned Viscount, which of course carries great authority, will be very carefully examined. I happen to be the head of the Department to which it is proposed that the Geological Survey shall be transferred, but this question has not yet come to my notice. However, I can safely promise that it will be considered, and before we come to the Committee stage information will be given upon the matter.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, it may, perhaps, cause some little surprise to the House that the definite request made by the noble Duke for some further information from the Front Bench opposite, in view of the very explicit charges which he made against the conduct of this business by His Majesty's Government, was not immediately replied to by somebody from the Government Bench; but as nobody has risen I will say only one or two words on the general question.
In the first place, perhaps I may be allowed to express my sense of the addition which is made to the forces of your Lordships' House in the presence of the noble Duke above the gangway. He stated his case with much vigour and force, and I am quite certain that the close attention which was always paid in this House to the utterances of his noble father, whose presence here we all remember and whose speeches were so greatly regarded by us,
748
will be repeated in the case of the noble Duke. I am not in a position to express any opinion on the merits of the particular charge which the noble Duke has brought against the Ministry of Munitions. That charge consists in fact in a statement that an undue preference—if that is the phrase—has been given to the firm of Messrs. Pearson and Company in respect of the powers for boring for petroleum and presumably for getting petroleum if and when it is found. As to that, not knowing the circumstances, I can express no opinion. I do know that the firm of Messrs. Pearson and Company—which is, as we all know, represented in this House by Lord Cowdray—is one of the highest repute, not merely in this country but all over the world, and I should certainly be slow to believe any charge which was made against them as a firm, although I think I am right in saying that the noble Duke does not make any charge against the firm but rather against His Majesty's Government, and especially the Department of Munitions, for undue indulgence, if that be the word, given to the interests of the firm.
There was one point made by the noble Duke, however, upon which I should like to say a word. He complained that this Bill was introduced only at a period after Messrs. Pearson and Company had actually begun to initiate their first boring, instead of at an earlier date, before they were in a position to do anything. On that I think it is only fair to state that before the adjournment in the summer, as the noble Earl who leads the House will remember, some pressure was put upon him to proceed with the Bill in the last day or two of the session; and there is no harm in my saying now that it was at the special request of Lord Cowdray that I made that demand, if it was a demand, of the noble Earl opposite, to which he was unable to accede. Therefore it is not fair to conclude that the postponing of the Bill was in any way effected in the interests of the firm.
There is one other point in the noble Duke's speech upon which I wish to make what I think may be a correction. He quoted a statement made by a well-known engineer, Mr. Cunningham Craig, on the subject, again, of the undue preference given to certain parties for the possible production of oil. Unless I am greatly mistaken, that statement of Mr. Cunningham Craig had no reference whatever to

749
this matter of boring for petroleum oil. It had, I think, reference solely to the somewhat animated controversy which existed between the Petroleum Production Department and the Petroleum Research Department, in respect of which a Committee was appointed, over which I had the honour to preside, and which reported with reference to the distillation of Cannel coal and other kindred products for the purpose of obtaining fuel oil for the Navy and other purposes. I do not think that the paragraph which the noble Duke read had in fact the smallest bearing upon the matter with which we for the moment are concerned.
It is difficult, without hearing some further statement from the Government, to express any opinion on the course which your Lordships ought to take. In my opinion it cannot be disputed that the vexed question of royalties—which, as we know, in the case of liquid petroleum do stand and are bound to stand upon a somewhat different footing from the royalties paid for ironstone or other stone and coal, and possess, perhaps, a somewhat closer analogy to the difficult case of the ownership of salt under particular land—is somewhat prejudged in the Bill of the noble Duke, and I agree with the noble Lord opposite that for your Lordships to attempt now to express an opinion upon that exceedingly difficult point would be in the highest degree undesirable. It should not, I think, be held, as I think the noble Duke is disposed to hold, that the silence of your Lordships' House on this matter ought to be taken in a contrary sense to prejudge the matter in the other direction. That, I think, would be an unfair inference from any action your. Lordships may take in declining to consider that particular part, at all events, of the noble Duke's Bill.
I confess that as at present advised there does not appear to me to be much material for an examination by a Select Committee of the two Bills. If noble Lords opposite are able to enforce the view that their Bill is purely and simply a suspensory Bill and does not prejudice one way or the other future action or the tights of anybody—if, in fact, they are able to combat the argument of the noble Duke that what is called suspension is in reality the granting of a permanent monopoly to Messrs. Pearson—then I think the House would be wise to allow the Government Bill to be read a
750
second time without any question of its going to a Select Committee; but I confess that I await some further explanation on the part of the Government.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, the noble Marquess expressed surprise that no answer was made by one of my noble friends. I assure him that no discourtesy was meant to your Lordships. The fact was that there is another Bill on the same subject on the Paper which, if read, a second time, is to be followed by further debate on procedure; and I confess that I rather thought the noble Duke, or another of your Lordships, would be talking on the second Bill, and that therefore no immediate answer was necessary. I must, however, say that although I listened with the greatest attention to the interesting speech delivered by the noble Duke opposite, I confess I was rather surprised at the form and substance of his speech. It consisted in very grave charges against the Ministry of Munitions, and, I think, against the firm of Messrs. Pearson. Lord Crewe indicated that no charge was brought against that firm—
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I understood so.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I cannot help feeling that if the charges brought, against the try of Munitions are correct they could scarcely stand without collusion on the part of Messrs. Pearson, and so far as the agreement between the Ministry of Munitions and this firm is concerned it is freely at the disposal of your Lordships and of the public. If necessary it could he printed in our Papers, though I imagine the more convenient course would probably be to lay certain copies of the document on the Table. There is nothing in the agreement that could not be made public.
The charges brought against the Ministry of Munitions are serious too—that excessive partiality has been shown towards this firm of Messrs. Pearson; that the Government have deliberately introduced delays in order to injure Messrs. Darcy; that the Government have created a monopoly for a private firm; that they have deliberately delayed the production of war material; that the course has been designed to squeeze out other firms, and that they took it at a moment when Messrs. Pearson

751
were ready to act. I do not know anything about the case. All I know is that Messrs. Pearson have foregone financial advantages which they might have gained, and have voluntarily placed at the disposal of the Government, without any remuneration, the services of their highly-trained staff and of their plant, as well as the experience gained by the firm in many years of research. I cannot help feeling that it would have been more convenient, and more in consonance with our ordinary methods, if notice had been given to the Ministry of Munitions on these points, and no doubt then a considered reply could have been submitted.
If I may I should like just to refer to the later stage of our conversation to-day. The noble Duke has a variant Bill on the Table, and also, I think, a Motion to refer both Bills to a Select Committee. Of course, that means delay. This Bill was introduced into Parliament many months ago and it has been in your Lordships' hands for two or three months at least, while the new Bill of the Duke of Northumberland has been in our hands for forty-eight hours. The noble Duke has blamed the Government for being slow in the matter. I cannot help thinking that his Proposal is going to introduce a fresh series of delays, and if, as I think is generally conceded, the matter is one of some urgency, I would suggest that the Committee stage should be taken by your Lordships in Committee of the whole House rather than that the Bill should go to a Select Committee.
The Duke of Northumberland did not criticise the Government Bill for what it contains. He has introduced an amendment to which the noble and learned Viscount opposite referred. From what the Leader of the House has said, apparently that is a point to which sympathetic attention will be given. What the Duke of Northumberland criticised is what was omitted from the Government Bill. Any point raised in his alternative measure can perfectly well, under our Rules of Order, be introduced during the Committee stage of the Government Bill, should the House think such a course necessary. I do not, therefore, see the necessity of a second Bill, still less of referring both Bills to a Select Committee.
I would, in conclusion, refer to one further aspect of the matter. My noble friend Lord Elphinstone has made it
752
perfectly clear that the matter in the Duke of Northumberland's Bill, which is not referred to in the Government Bill, must at, a later stage be dealt with by legislation. The whole essence of the Government Bill is to exclude these highly technical and indeed very contentious points which the Duke of Northumberland has incorporated in his Bill. The fact of passing the Government Bill as it stands neither prejudges nor impairs any of the rights which the noble Duke is trying to safeguard. All these rights have got to be dealt with, defined, and safeguarded at some later stage; and in order to press forward with what I believe is conceded on all sides to be an urgent matter, I most respectfully impress upon your Lordships the desirability of giving a Second Reading to this Bill and of dealing with its Committee stage in Committee of the whole House rather than of sending it to a Select Committee, which must mean delay at a moment when time is the essence of success.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUGH: My Lords, I do not think your Lordships will look upon the answer of my noble friend Lord Crawford as very convincing. I think he himself said that he did not know very much about the matter. Still, we must remember as regards the Ministry of Munition—I think I am right in this—that the Government have found it necessary to appoint a Committee or a Commission to look into the matter. I do not know the particulars. I think there were certain officials of the Ministry who were shareholders of this particular company. However, it is, I think, most desirable, whether what the noble Duke has said is correct or not, that a more really definite answer should be made. It is correct, as I think my noble friend said, that Messrs. Pearson were in negotiations with a large number of landowners which did not come to any definite understanding, and since then the Government have come forward with the Bill.
When told of the great urgency of the Bill your Lordships should remember that a Bill was introduced in the House of Commons about a year ago and that it was dropped after an adverse division there. I think my noble friend Lord Elphinstone said something about another Bill being dropped; or was it the same one? Anyhow, the Bill was very hurriedly introduced in another place shortly before the

753
recess. I believe I am right in saying that it was rushed through all its stages in the course of one sitting, or very nearly so, and then it was brought to your lordships' House, and the noble Marquess stated that it was put off until after the recess.
I think your Lordships must have some farther assurance about certain charges that have been made. It may be said that Messrs. Pearson have no financial interest; and I really do not wish to say a word of any kind against them. But other people to think that they are not being fairly dealt with. I am informed, if, for instance, it is going to be the case that Messrs. Pearson and no other firm is to be allowed to test all the likely areas in this country, that it will practically be impossible for the Ministry of Munitions or any other Government Department to avoid giving them preference over all other firms after the war is over. And it is also possible, if they have all the information before them, to keep out other firms. I cannot see why these Bills should not be committed to Select Committee. My noble friend Lord Elphinstone said there was no great hurry far this Bill, that it practically meant nothing more than regularising matters after the war is over, and then further legislation can taken place. And we have so very little information before us that it seems to me right, and I hope your Lordships will see your way to that course, to give a Second Reading to these Bills and refer them to the Committee as proposed by my noble friend.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PETROLEUM PRODUCTION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
The DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I have no objection to giving a Second Reading to the Bill which is before us in the name, of the noble Duke, although I cannot, for reasons which have been stated by my noble friends, agree to his proposal to refer both Bills to a Select
754
Committee. I have, however, risen not so much to say this, as to comment on the view of the noble Duke who sits at his side, which seems to be shared by some other noble Lords, that the House ought to receive more definite information on this subject. I do not dissent from that view myself. But the noble Duke in his speech made a number of charges of which no notice whatever had been given to any one sitting on this Bench, to which my noble friend who so ably represents the Munitions Department is not in a position to reply, because he had no notice given to him, and with the details of which no other noble Lord on this Bench necessarily has any familiar acquaintance. I think the proper course would be, when we go into the Committee stage of the Government Bill to which your Lordships have just given a Second Reading, that my noble friend, having acquired the fuller knowledge on the subject to which I referred, should mane a statement to your Lordships' House with such reply as he is able to give, and I am sure it will be a thorough and a good one, to the charges we have heard this afternoon.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I beg to move that these two Bills be referred to a Select Committee.
On Question, Motion negatived.

PROTECTION OF IRISH MAIL STEAMERS.
LORD CRANMORE AND BROWNE LORD CRANMORE AND BROWNE had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government—

1. Whether any, and if so what, precautions have been or are being taken to protect the R.M. steamers plying between Holyhead and Kingstown.

2. Whether it is proposed to make provision for the widows and orphans of officers and members of the crew of the R.M. S.S. "Leinster" who perished on 10th October; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, several questions have been asked in the House of Commons on the subject of the sinking of the "Leinster," but the answers which were given appear to me to have been so

755
unsatisfactory that I have no hesitation in raising the matter again in your Lordships' House. It has been suggested to me that in doing so I am making an attack on the Navy. I think it is unnecessary to disclaim any such intention. No one has a greater admiration than I have for the wonderful work which has been done by the Navy during the four years of the war; no one appreciates more fully than I do the toil, through weary days and sleepless nights, to protect this country from danger, to convoy our soldiers and sailors and those of the Allies, as well as munitions, to foreign countries, and to provide us with those necessities without which it would have been impossible to have carried on the war. Therefore if any mistake has been made with regard to this particular question, I do not think the blame falls on the Admiralty alone; it must be shared equally by the War Office, the Board of Trade, and the Post Office.
But, after all, the question is not to appraise the measure of blame to any of these Departments, but rather to see what were the measures which were taken to provide for the safety of the ships plying between England and Ireland, and, if possible, to make arrangements for greater precautions in the future, so that it may be impossible that such a disaster should occur again. The facts are known to all your Lordships. The mail steamship "Leinster" left Kingstown for Holyhead about 9 o'clock on the morning of October 10, and when she was about twelve miles out from Kingstown she was torpedoed by a German submarine. The first submarine appears to have crippled but not very seriously to have injured her, for it was said by survivors that it was hoped she might be towed back to harbour. But five minutes afterwards another torpedo was launched, which exploded amidships, and in two minutes more the "Leinster" had gone to the bottom—that is, within seven minutes of the first torpedo being fired nothing was left of the "Leinster" but a few boats, some spars and wreckage, and about 600 to 700 human beings struggling for their lives in the angry waves. There they continued, some people think for an hour and ten minutes, others for two hours, before any help appeared. At the end of that time a destroyer came on the scene, and proceeded to rescue those of the passengers and crew who still survived.
The Admiralty have expressed their deep regret that such a misfortune should have occurred, and have stated that all reasonable precautions were taken to safeguard the passage of that ship and of the other Royal Mail boats between the two ports. Furthermore, they give four particular ways in which protection was granted. In the first place they state that "at the time of the accident the faster of the escort craft were patrolling the mail route, and, on the distress signal being given, one of the two destroyers in close proximity, whilst proceeding with all dispatch to the scene, had her fore-bridge wrecked when attempting to steam between nineteen and twenty knots." If a destroyer had been at Holyhead it would only have been thirty miles off the vessel. If the destroyer was anywhere nearer than Holyhead, it is curious that she should take so long to reach the scene of the disaster. The second reason given was that the "Leinster" travels faster than any destroyer which the Admiralty have. Dr. Macnamara stated that the "Leinster" was proceeding at the rate of twenty-three and a-hall knots. I am anxious to know whether the chart which gives particulars of the pace travelled by these boats confirms that statement. I am led to believe that she was not going much above twenty or twenty-one knots. He states that no destroyer could go more than nineteen or twenty knots and, as I have just read to your Lordships, that even at that pace in such a heavy sea the destroyer suffered serious damage. In the third place, he states that in the case of vessels proceeding at as fast a pace as the "Leinster" it is safer for them to trust to the speed which they travel rather than to travel at a slower pace in order that the destroyer may keep pace with them. Last of all, he pointed out that even in a convoy a vessel has not absolute safety, and he instanced the ship "Justitia" which was bring convoyed and which was sunk by submarines.
It is rather presumptuous of a layman to attempt to criticise statements which are made by the Admiralty, but I am going to venture to make some reply to the reasons which have been put forward. In the first place, with regard to the statement about the faster patrol vessels, may I say that the second officer of the "Ulster" states that during the whole passage from Holyhead that morning he did not pass a patrol of any kind. Secondly, with regard to the fact that the "Leinster" travels

757
faster than destroyers, I hardly think that it can be contended that we have no destroyers which go no faster than nineteen knots; in fact, when the Royal Mail ship "Ulster" crossed over she was escorted by an American destroyer which, in the words of a passenger on board the boat, "played round the mail ship," apparently going at the rate of nearly thirty-five knots. It may be quite true that these faster destroyers are used for the purpose of convoying troops from the United States, or for other naval purposes which are even more important than safeguarding passengers between Ireland and England, but I think it ought to be plainly stated that that is the case, and that they are not available for the purpose of escorting the Royal Mail ships. Nor should the public be left under the supposition that we have no destroyers which can go no faster than nineteen knots, and then with great difficulty.
The third explanation which is put forward is that it is safer for fast vessels like the "Leinster" to travel unescorted, trusting in their own speed, rather than to proceed at a slower pace supported by destroyers. I should like to put forward three reasons against this suggestion. In the first place, we must not forget that the first torpedo which was fired at the "Leinster" was not successful in sinking her. It only crippled her, and I very much doubt whether, if she had been escorted by a destroyer, she would have been fired at at all; certainly, if she had been fired at I think that it is almost certain (if she had been escorted) the second torpedo would not have been launched. On the contrary the U-boat, seeing a destroyer escorting the mail ship, would have hurried to get away in case she should be sunk herself, instead of manœuvring to get herself in position to launch after five minutes a second torpedo which succeeded in sending the "Leinster" to the bottom. In the second place it must not be forgotten, even if she had been successful in sinking the "Leinster," that there would have been a destroyer there ready to pick up the survivors, instead of leaving them to battle in an angry sea for one or two hours before they could be rescued. Thirdly, and I think this is the most important reason of all, the destroyer would have been able to be of use in sending S.O.S. signals in all directions. It is not generally known that it was not the "Leinster" which sent out the S.O.S. signal that reached
758
the rescuing boats. I believe that something must have taken place when the boat was torpedoed which interfered with her wireless signalling apparatus, because she was only able to send out a very faint call that was heard by her sister ship the "Ulster" which was only two or three-miles off. The "Ulster" repeated the signal to Kingstown and elsewhere, and it was thus that the S.O.S. signal was transmitted. I think that proof of this is to be found in the reply of Dr. Macnamara, when he states that the S.O.S. signal went out at 9.25 and was only received at Kingstown at 9.50—twenty-five minutes later.
I should like your Lordships to reflect how very narrowly we escaped a very much greater calamity, for only three minutes before the "Leinster" was torpedoed she was passed, within three-quarters of a mile, by the "Ulster." If the U-boat had come to the surface at that time and discharged a torpedo, in all probability both ships would have been sunk, and it is very probable that the S.O.S. signal would not have been sent out. It would then have been a case of what the Germans express a wish for—spurlos versenkt—and we should have to mourn fifteen-hundred victims instead of five hundred. The last instance which was given by Dr. Macnamara was the case of the "Justitia" having been sunk when under convoy. If my noble friend who is going to reply will tell me that since the "Justitia" was sunk the Admiralty have given up the system of convoy, finding it of no use, will allow that there is something in that argument; otherwise it seems to me that, it falls to the ground. We must remember that the "Justitia" was a ship of a very different class from the "Leinster," and was one of a kind which the German Government are much more anxious to sink. From what I have heard, it was: probably attacked by several submarines instead of by one. Of course, there must be cases where, when U-boats attack a convoy, one boat can be sunk, but the. U-boat commander must be prepared for the probability that he in turn will be sent to the bottom. Fortunately very few U-boat commanders are ready to lead such a forlorn hope.
I see that it was stated in another place that although the Royal Mail boats have been travelling this route for four years this is the first one to be sunk. That is.

759
quite true, but it is not the first one against which an attempt has been made. Many attempts have been made to sink these boats. I myself crossed on the "Leinster" two days before she was sunk, and I was told by one of the officials on board that an attempt had been made on the previous day to torpedo her. I do not know if that is the case, but perhaps my noble friend will be able to tell me whether my information is correct. At any rate it is commonly believed in Ireland, and there is no doubt that the directors of the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company themselves hold very strong views on the subject. I believe that my noble friend will confirm me when I say that within the last twenty-four hours the Admiralty have received a very strong communication from them urging the necessity for protection for these boats. I have not put any suggestion of the kind on the Paper, but I cannot help thinking that it would be most useful if a small Committee were appointed to go into this matter.
I see that Dr. Macnamara stated that the Admiralty would be very glad for this to be done, were it not that it would involve the time and attention of those wholly occupied in the work of protecting the mercantile marine. I have been informed that the right hon. Member is labouring under a hallucination with regard to this, and that the correspondence which has passed between the various Departments of State on the subject, and between them and the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company, and the evidence that that company could produce would enable the whole matter to be investigated without calling upon any naval officers and men engaged on patrol duty. It has been suggested that three members of your Lordships' House—Earl Loreburn, Lord Atkinson, and Lord Beresford—night well be placed on this Committee, and it would then fall upon them to recommend to the Admiralty what steps should be taken to ensure the safety of these vessels. I do not say that the Admiralty will be able to carry out their recommendations; they have many other important duties connected with the war to carry out; but, at any rate, if they do not do so, it would be public property that they were not able to protect the lives of those who are crossing between England and Ireland. Including those who travel by the North Wall boats, I think there are no less than 5,000 people who travel daily between
760
Kingstown and Holyhead, and if it is impossible adequately to protect their lives surely at least women and children ought not to be allowed to travel by that route except with a special permit. The route between Larne and Stranraer is much easier to protect, because the sea voyage is much shorter.
There is only one other point to which I wish to refer, and that is the question whether it is proposed to make provision for the widows and orphans of the crew of the "Leinster" who perished. Many of us who very often go backwards and forwards to Ireland feel that this is really an individual question. We know nearly everybody on board those boats, from the gallant captain who so ably commanded the ship for many years—all through this war fully recognising the great danger which was incurred both by himself and the passengers—down to the steward and stewardesses, the luggage porters, and others whose Courtesy and attention we all so greatly appreciated. They have lost their lives in the service of the country as truly as if they had fallen on the battlefield. May they rest in peace. But it is the duty of the country, in these circumstances, to see that those who were dependent upon them do not suffer want as well as the bitter grief which they are called upon to bear.
To put myself in order and to enable me to reply if I wish to do so, I shall move that the correspondence which has passed be laid on the Table. I need hardly say that I shall not press for this if, as I anticipate, the Government find difficulty in acceding to the suggestion.
Moved, That the correspondence which has passed between the various Departments of Stale and between them and the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company on the subject of the safety of the Royal Mail ships between Holyhead and Kingstown be laid on the Table.—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
LORD SHANDON: My Lords, I shall be very slow to intrude on your Lordships any observations of mine, but being one of those who have to cross and re-cross the Channel, and one who is fairly well acquainted, in consequence, with the difficulties and dangers that have beset the navigation of cross-Channel steamers since the war began, I should wish to say a very few words, and especially with regard to the second Question which the noble

761
Lord has put on the Paper. As he has said, all of us who have crossed from time to time knew personally the officers of the "Leinster" who have now in the discharge of their duty ceased to be with us. We have all had personal and practical experience of the manner in which they discharged their duty, in circumstances which, I can testify, brought home to them a feeling almost of certainty that their lives would ultimately be claimed. I can say it of the captain who was in command of that ship. To my knowledge he believed that not only did he run a risk every time he crossed in control of his ship but he firmly believed that in the end the inevitable fate would overtake him which did overtake him. But notwithstanding that this feeling was shared by all the officers and by the humblest members of the crew, they went bravely day after day, night after night, doing their duty under circumstances which entitle them to the very careful consideration of the Government. The fighting men have to meet danger; it is their duty; but at any rate they sometimes have the chance of retaliating on a brutal enemy who may attack them. But those who in civilian service have to risk their lives as these men did—because it is clear that this was a particularly dangerous route—are certainly deserving of the consideration of the Government.
With regard to the general question, it is not very much use finding fault with those who control these matters once the mischief is done. But there is a very strong feeling in Ireland, that while the views which have been put forward in defence of the decision to afford no protection were undoubtedly quite honestly arrived at, they perhaps were somewhat erroneous. The layman, of course, cannot understand the difficulty, but this particular occurrence has claimed victims from the highest and the lowest. It is a subject of comment and intense feeling among all classes in Ireland, and they think that on reconsideration something might at least be done in the future.
In particular there is one matter which I think might undoubtedly be the subject of attention. It is a matter of common knowledge that the boat was attacked only some two or three days before. In a general sense it was known that there was danger. It does not require a war vessel to ascertain whether or not a sub-
762
marine was probably in that particular locality. It may seem curious that put it in that way, but any one who knows the Channel will, I think, understand. The ship was torpedoed close to a sandbank. It was a matter of comment that that would be the natural point of attack by a submarine upon any mail-boat crossing; from Kingstown, and so unfortunately it has proved. Although you cannot ascertain the presence of a submarine with certainty, even a steam trawler in that locality at that time might possibly have been able to give some intimation ashore, and if the intimation had been given by wireless—there is a low power-station at Kingstown—intending passengers could have been warned. At the beginning of time war the practice was adopted of warning intending passengers that submarines were in the Channel, and then they went at their own risk. I speak subject to correction, but my impression is that no warning of this kind was given on this particular occasion, although submarines had undoubtedly been in the Channel some days before. It is really only to avoid anything of this kind occurring again that I have intervened, and if in the future that precaution is taken, something would perhaps be gained.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: My Lords, the first Question put by the noble Lord relates to the Admiralty, and, in the unavoidable absence of the noble Earl who has in the past responded so well and so eloquently for that Department, I have been asked to reply. In the first place, may I express to your Lordships the very deep sympathy of His Majesty's Government and of the Board of Admiralty in particular with the sufferers in this disaster, and with their relatives? I think there is hardly a member of your Lordships' House who in all probability had not friends on that ship, and we feel very deeply the loss we have sustained.
The noble Lord who raised this matter referred to the replies that had been given in the other House. As already stated, the "Leinster" was not on this occasion provided with an escort, nor has the Admiralty any escort forces capable of conducting a vessel, whose speed by Lloyds is twenty-three and-a-half knots, in the weather and high seas prevailing that day. I would point out to my noble friend that it is not merely a question of what speed our destroyers are normally

763
capable of attaining, but of what speed they can attain in rough weather. The noble Lord also alluded to the fact that at the time of the attack the faster escort craft were patrolling the mail route. On the distress signal being given those craft came to the assistance of the "Leinster," and one of the destroyers had her forebridge wrecked while trying to steam between nineteen and twenty knots.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: May I ask the noble Lord what the distress signal was?
LORD SOMERLEYTON: I have no information on that question, but I presume that it was the one usually sent in such circumstances. I am sorry that I have nothing further to state. I was prepared to reply only to the Questions on the Paper, but I will endeavour to go as far as I can into the other points raised by my noble friend in his speech. The fact that this destroyer had her forebridge wrecked while going between nineteen and twenty knots was quoted in the other House, as far as I understand, only to prove that this destroyer in particular, or for that matter, some other ships in His Majesty's Forces, was not capable of going at its full speed in a heavy sea such as was running on that occasion. The general view of the Admiralty is that in the case of such fast vessels as the "Leinster" the usual submarine precautions render them far safer proceeding independently of a patrolled route at a high speed, than would be the case when escorted by ships whose speed, except in calm waters, must inevitably reduce the speed of the ships escorted. This policy is carried out not only in the Irish Channel but in all waters surrounding the United Kingdom.
My noble friend alluded to the case of the "Justitia," which was quoted as showing that escort has not always ensured immunity. He mentioned several facts with regard to the "Justitia," but the only point on which I wish to lay stress in that regard is to show that if submarines attack in number—sas they may at any time—they certainly have a very great chance of getting through any escort which is provided for a ship. I should like to add that a large number of experienced naval officers are devoting their time and energies to the prevent ion of these disasters. I would assure your Lordships that all possible precautions have been and are being taken to protect these vessels against submarine
764
attack, but it is not in the public interest to state the nature of these precautions.
Notwithstanding this deplorable calamity which we so deeply regret, I would remind your Lordships that the Irish Sea, and this service in particular, have been at least as immune as any of the services in the waters around the United Kingdom. The noble and learned lord, Lord Shandon, raised a point with regard to a certain sandbank, and stated that a previous attack having taken place near that sandbank therefore in his view another attack in the same neighbourhood might have been expected. He further said that no warning had been given to passengers. I regret that I have no information on those two points. The reply to the Questions asked by Lord Oranmore have been entrusted to me only as regards the Admiralty, but the noble Lord referred to the fact that these subjects of precaution affect not only the Admiralty but the Board of Trade and other Departments. I would like to assure both noble Lords that the points they have raised to-day will receive the fullest consideration of the Admiralty.
A suggestion was made that no women and children should be conveyed on these boats, and also that the Larne-Stranraer route should be followed. On these two points I would say that the public convenience has to be considered to a great extent, and the Admiralty have been concerned only in doing their best to protect the steamers on the routes that have been used. With regard to the Inquiry which the noble Lord suggested, as I understand the position it would be very undesirable in the public interest to have any further Inquiry; but I can assure him that all the points raised to-day shall have the most careful consideration of His Majesty's Government.
With regard to the second Question asked by Lord Oranmore, I am glad to be able to answer that entirely in the affirmative. The widows and children and other dependants of the officers and members of the crew of the "Leinster" who lost their lives when the vessel was torpedoed will, as a matter of course, be granted pensions and allowances in accordance with the War Risks Compensation Scheme for the Mercantile Marine. A description of the scheme is given in the print which I shall be glad to forward to my noble friend, and I will endeavour to supplement it by any further information he may desire.
The EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, the noble Lord stated that there was no escort on this occasion because the weather was so rough, but my experience is that even in fine weather there is no escort. I cross over pretty often, and the only times I have seen an escort were in one case a dirigible balloon, and in the other case, in fine weather and on a dark night, a destroyer was dodging in front of the mail boat. In Ireland we complain that there has never been sufficient escort for these boats in rough or in fine weather. That is the point to which I should like to draw attention.
My noble friend asked another question—namely, whether the correspondence that has taken place between the Government, or the Admiralty, and the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company could possibly be laid on the Table. That question has not been answered. I do not know whether the noble Lord can answer it. Then he said that the Irish Channel was as immune us any other part of the sea. I do not know whether he noticed in the paper the other day that there was immense grief amongst the population of Holyhead in consequence of the loss of five vessels which had been sunk in the Irish Channel. That is a rather serious loss, in addition to many others we have heard of. I am very glad indeed to hear that compensation, or rather war risks compensation, is going to be given to the relatives of the men drowned. That is the most satisfactory part of the answer, but I really hope the public—because not only Irishmen but a great many Englishmen cross over on serious business between England and Ireland—will be re-assured as far as possible that proper escorts will be granted.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, the experience of the noble Earl and mine are rather different. Only twice on the pretty numerous occasions on which I have crossed between England and Ireland has the vessel had and escort, and one of those occasions was the only occasion on which the shi was fired at by a torpedo, and was missed by only a very few yards. Therefore I think the immunity given by an escort may not be as great as my noble friend imagines. I am sure that noble in this House would not desire that with the enormous demands made upon the Admiralty for the protection of the incoming American troops, and of other ships of a most important mercantile character, an undue number of destroyers
766
Should be detached for the protection of the mail, which has enjoyed the most extraordinary immunity during the four years of the war.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I do not, of course, desire to disagree with what my noble friend has just said. We all recognise that the Admiralty has claims made upon it all over the world which must be satisfied, and we must trust to their discretion in setting off one against the other. At the same time the answers given to-night, like those given last week in another place, do not, I think, realise the very great depth of feeling that exists in Ireland over this matter. We, of course, entirely accept, and would have expected nothing else from my noble friend, what he has said as to the sympathy which the Admiralty feel for the victims of this outrage.
It is very repellent, I am sure, to all of us to criticise the Navy in any way, because we realise the enormous task which is set them and we admire the way in which they carry it out. At the same time there is an impression—and no answer which has yet been given will remove that impression—that over this business someone has blundered, and we feel that we want a strong assurance that that blunder will not be repeated. There can only be one place in which the blunder has occured. It has not occurred through the officials of the company. Ever since January, 1915, the company have been appealing to and urging upon the Admiralty that while they have been responsible themselves for the running of the mail boats—it is not like the mail boats in the English Channel, where they are run under the orders of Naval officers themselves—their strongest opinion has been that they have not been sufficiently protected. Their view has not been accepted by the Admiralty, and therefore the responsibility is upon the Admiralty for what has occurred. As my noble friends have said, the anxiety of the company has been founded not merely upon nervousness or fear but upon experience. My noble friend spoke of an occasion when a torpedo was fired at the mail boat. I have been informed of four occasions when a torpedo was fired at the mail boat and missed it. Surely that was enough to warn somebody responsible that, whatever the steps were that were being taken, they were likely to prove insufficient some day; and some further steps could have been taken. My noble friend

767
(Viscount Midleton) has had the unfortunate experience that while his ship was being escorted he was fired at. I am not going to join with him, or anybody else, in a controversy on a subject of naval tactics, but I should have thought that any layman might be allowed to argue that when a submarine knows that somebody is about ready to hit back very hard, it will be very much more careful in selecting its target. And, my Lords, we know that the escort system is in existence elsewhere. If it is correct elsewhere, why not in the Irish Channel?
We hear a great deal of the speed of the boats, but I have one or two friends at Folkestone and Boulogne who would be very angry indeed if it were suggested that their boats were slower than the Kingstown and Holyhead boats. Yet ever since the torpedoing of the "Sussex" in March, 1916—I think since that date I have crossed the Channel from Folkestone to Boulogne as many times as any one of your Lordships—I know of no case where the boat has not been escorted by destroyers. My comment upon the argument that the Holyhead boats are too fast to allow an escort in rough weather is that if it is too rough for an escort to go with them they ought not to be allowed to go at all. I was very glad to hear the noble Lord say towards the end of his remarks, and we know it will be so, that the authorities will keep this matter very keenly in their minds. I am sure they will. But I cannot sit down without saying that unless the protection given in the future is different from the protection which has been given in the past, public opinion in Dublin, which is very strong in this matter, will not be satisfied that they are being treated as fairly—and that is not an unfair word to use—in the matter as they deserve.
LORD SYDENHAM: May I ask the noble Lord, before he replies, whether the mail boats have been escorted by aircraft, and whether these boats always take the same course in proceeding across the Irish Channel. There is one other point, and it is this. I do not think sufficient attention has been drawn to the firing of that second torpedo. The first torpedo, as I understand, practically destroyed the ship and ensured its being sunk. The second torpedo practically prevented the saving of life on a very large scale. The act of firing a torpedo at all at a mail steamer was a vile proceeding, but the
768
Germans showed that they could sink to a greater depth of infamy by firing a second torpedo, which probably prevented the saving of a very large number of lives. If the commander of that submarine comes into our hands I think he should be tried for murder, because it was not a naval necessity but an act of deliberate murder. I hope his name will be discovered and placed on the list of those to whom we hope to have something to say when the war is over. It would not be vengeance but pure justice.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: I will reply to the noble Lord who has just sat down, and who raised three points. The first was as to protection by aircraft. The second was with regard to whether the ships keep the same course. On those two points I would say, as I said before, that I have only gone into this question during the last two days, as I had no knowledge that I was going to reply till then. I will go into that matter and ascertain the facts. In regard to the question of the second torpedo, I will also put forward that view, in which I personally venture to concur. With regard to what fell from my noble friend opposite (Lord Donoughmore) I know of my own knowledge that the Admiralty realise very deeply their responsibility in this matter. I would like to make that perfectly clear to the noble Earl. The view put forward in your Lordships' House this evening shall be laid before them, and they will receive, I know, their continued attention and the utmost care.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CHANGES IN TRADE NAMES.
THE EARL OF MAYO THE EARL OF MAYO had the following Questions on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government—

1. If a German named Wichmann has anything to do with George Mann and Company, Leeds Tool Co, Henry-street, Gray's Inn-road, W.C. This company makes shells.

2. If a firm now trading as the Metal and General Agency, 5, Whittington-avenue, E.C., were not formerly Weager and Funck, and if James H. Weager is not trading under the name of the Metal and General Agency, this firm being of German orgin.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, with regard to my first Question I am told that this firm is controlled by this German, and it is believed that he took up work at Leeds in order to avoid internment. Besides that, the Ministry of Munitions are perfectly aware of this action of this German. I do not quite see the object of the Government or the Ministry of Munitions employing Germans at-all, whether they have been naturalised or not. Is there any advantage in employing them? That is a question I should like to ask His Majesty's Government, because if there is any advantage in employing them let us be told so at once, and what is the advantage. I have brought up this subject before, and a great many people are very sick to hear that the Germans are employed in any way whatsoever, whether they are naturalised or unnaturalised.
With regard to the second Question this man Weager was formerly, I am told, Weager and Funck, and he is trading now as the Metal and General Agency, 5, Whittington-avenue, E.C. This is a firm which imports are into this country, and it would, of course, have full knowledge, or rather notice, of sailings sent to it. Besides this, the firm is of German origin. Again I ask, what is the object of allowing this firm to import are into this country, and to have knowledge of sailings? They have to have notice of their sailings and they can acquire knowledge which they can pass on to their German friends. I wish the Government would tell one exactly why these men are employed at all, why they are allowed to trade in any way. There are just as good Englishmen as Germans, and a great deal better, and we would much rather see them trading. I hope the Government will give some satisfactory answer to that, because the last answer was very unsatisfactory.
I wish now to allude to another matter about which there has been a mistake. I mentioned it on July 8. I have two letters from the Home Office with regard to a man Balled Dr. Wiensenground, Managing Director of the Power Plant Company at West Drayton. I believe he is still at work there. I stated that he had been in communication with Vogel's pump engineers, in Vienna, and that he had obtained blue prints from them It reads in Hansard as if he had sent blue prints to Vienna. I did not say anything of the sort, and if there is any mistake of that kind I beg to
770
withdraw it, because in consequence of that I have had letters practically accusing me of not being quite straightforward about the matter. He had the blue prints from Vienna through a German in America, and therefore I said that if he could do that with Vienna he could communicate with Germans. I beg to put the Questions which appear in my name on the Paper.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: My Lords, with regard to the last point raised by the noble Earl, I understand that the withdrawal he has just made will be noted. With regard to the Questions he has asked, I will endeavour to answer them both to the best of my ability. George Karl Heindrich Wichmann, who is a naturalised British subject of German origin, was naturalised in February, 1913, and he is connected both with George Mann and Company, Ltd., and the Leeds Tool and Manufacturing Company, Ltd. In George Mann and Company, Ltd., he holds 19,749 ordinary shares and 11,287 preference shares out of an issued capital of 30,000 ordinary shares and 36,550 preference shares. There are nine directors of the company, of whom Wichmann is one, the other eight being British-born subjects. As Wichmann is a British subject, although of German origin, the Board of Trade have no jurisdiction to deal with his interest in this company. I trust I made that Clear to the noble Earl. As he is a British subject, although of German origin, the Board of Trade have no jurisdiction to deal with his interest in the company. Of course, the powers of the Board of Trade, as the noble Earl knows, ate not supreme, but are limited by law, and the Board are not able to interfere in this case, Wichmann himself being a British subject. In the case of the Leeds Tool and Manufacturing Company, Ltd., Wichmann holds 1,000 shares out of an issued capital of 3,002 shares. He is a director of the company, his co-director being a British-born subject.
With regard to the second Question of the noble Earl, the business of the Metal and General Agency of 5, Whittington-avenue, E.C., was inspected by Order of the Ward of Trade in January last. The inspectors reported that the proprietors of the business were formerly J. G. H. Weager, a British subject, British-born, whose people have been British for generations, and J. F. Funck, a German subject; that the partnership was dissolved as from December 31, 1916; and that Funck remained in

771
the employ of the firm as chief clerk. Even if the partnership had not been dissolved the case would not have come within the provisions of the Trading with the Enemy Acts which enable the Board of Trade to order a business to be wound up or discontinued if it is carried on wholly or mainly for the benefit of or under the control of enemy subjects, inasmuch as the interest of Mr. Funck as partner in the business did not exceed the interest of Mr. Weager, the British partner. I trust that it is clear to the noble Earl. The powers of the Board of Trade are limited in this respect, and they have no further power to act. If any action is taken at all in a case of this sort, it could only be taken, as I understand it, through the Home Office. The Board of Trade jurisdiction ends and begins in the way I have already stated to the noble Earl. I trust that the noble Earl will understand that if my answer is not satisfactory to him, it is at any rate the fullest that it is in my power to give him.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, the case which the noble Earl has brought forward is only one of a great many. I could name four or five of the same kind, in which the naturalized German does pretty much what he likes. And I think, the answer of the noble Lord really amounts to this—that we have not got, even now, nearly enough power to deal with these German firms, really German, though some of them are converted, under a sort of camouflage for the time being, into British firms. But we have not got nearly enough power to deal wit h them and to stop their proceedings in this country.
THE EARL OF MAYO: If the Government have decided to allow these men to go on earning money in this company—Wichmann is a Director of this Company, and Funck is camouflaged as a clerk to the company—if the Government insists on their acting in this way and doing that, what can we do? We can do nothing at all. I think it is Chief Justice Sankey's Committee which is the one that deals with interning aliens. I think the noble Lord said that the Board of Trade could not have anything to do with the matter. But is there no other body that could have
772
anything to do with the matter? Are these men to be allowed to go on making money in this country, as Germans, and doing the practical business of the company?
LORD SOMERLEYTON: I trusted I was clear in my information, but I will repeat it, if I may. Where a company is in question, it is the Board of Trade who look after that; where it is Individuals, it is a question for the Home Office. In this instance these people are trading under the law of the land, and, this being so, the Board of Trade is not in a position to interfere in the matter. I will not state whether I sympathise with my noble friends, or not. I have stated the facts baldly, and I am sorry I can do no more.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of October 16.]

LONDONDERRY AND LOUGH SWILLY RAILWAY BILL.
LANCASTER CORPORATION BILL.
LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS BILL.
SHEFFIELD CORPORATION (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.),

E. Lucan,

L. Saye and Sele,

L. Kintore (E. Kintore) (Chairman).

L. Treowen,

L. Queenborough;

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday, the 29th instant, at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners, praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired as also Counsel for the Bills.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes before seven o'clock.