Sitting of 26 March 1919

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

STANDING ORDERS.
Ordered, That Sir Archibald Williamson be discharged from the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Ordered, That Major M'Micking be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Vaughan-Davies.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    CIVIL SERVICE.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether he has arrived at a decision which he can communicate to the House regarding filling the vacancies in the Indian Civil Service which have accrued owing to the reduction in the number of places offered for competition during the War; and whether the contemplated Committee to report on the qualifications of candidates has been appointed?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): Rules have been made by the Secretary of State in Council with the advice and assistance of the Civil Service Commissioners under the Indian Civil Service (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1915, and have been laid before Parliament, for the appointment to the Indian Civil Service of British subjects who have during the War served with His Majesty's Naval, Military, or Air Forces. I shall be glad to send the hon. Member a copy of the Rules. The Rules provide that candidates who pass the qualifying examination as therein prescribed will appear before a Selection Board, who will make recommendations to the Secretary of State in Council. The Selection Board will be appointed by the Civil Service Commissioners. It has not yet been constituted.

    CABUL.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary for India whether he can make any further communication to the House regarding the position at Cabul?
    Mr. FISHER: I have nothing to add to the statement which I made yesterday in reply to a question by the hon. Member for the Elland Division.

    MAHOMEDANS (NEWSPAPER COMMENTS).
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether the Governor-General in Council possesses powers to restrain newspapers conducted by Christian missionaries from publishing matter offensive to Mahomedans; and, if so, why such powers are not exercised, so as to avoid the incidence upon private persons of the expense and trouble of legal proceedings?
    Mr. FISHER: Under the Indian Press Act the local Government has the same powers over the whole Press. It is, of course, for the local Government to decide in any particular case whether the powers should be exercised, and I am sure that the House will agree that newspaper articles which tend to offend racial or religious susceptibilities cannot be too highly deprecated.

    ROWLATT COMMISSION BILLS.
    Colonel YATEasked whether the Government of India, in view of the unreality of the opposition offered to the Rowlatt Commission Bills becoming law, have considered the advice tendered by the Hon. Mr. Mitter, in the Bengal Legislative Council, that the merchants and traders in the rural areas who have suffered should be consulted on the question?
    Mr. FISHER: The advice was not tendered to the Bengal Government, but to a member of the Legislative Council. The Government of India may be assumed to have informed themselves of the opinion of this section of the rural community.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any truth in the description of the opposition offered to these Bills as being unreal in view of the fact that the Indian members of the Legislative Council are unanimous in their opposition?
    Mr. FISHER: I think the Indian members of the Council may be sincere in their opposition.

    STEAMSHIP ACCOMMODATION.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India, considering that three out of the five mail steamers sailing from India in March and the beginning of April are cargo boats without any accommodation for passengers, and that the greater part of the accommodation on those two remaining steamers has already been commandeered by the Admiralty, what steps are being taken to provide accommodation for the very large number of people, especially women and children, who have been stranded in India during the War, before the commencement of the monsoon in June next?
    Mr. FISHER: the provision of sufficient accommodation for the very large number of persons now in India, especially the women, the children, and the sick, whose repatriation before the commencement of the monsoon is urgently necessary, has been for some months the subject of anxious consultation between the Secretary of State and the Ministry of Shipping. It is believed that the arrangements now made will provide for all urgent cases. Additional steamers have been allotted to the Bombay run by the Ministry of Shipping, and the largest of these, the steamship "Ormonde," will leave Bombay next month with about 1,000 passengers. The regular steamship lines are actively co-operating, and the smaller boats of the British India and P. and O. Companies have arranged to carry about an extra 250 passengers each. The R.I.M. Steamship "Dufferin" is being fitted up to carry some 500 passengers, and certain prize ships will be similarly employed. All available accommodation in ambulance transports running between India and Marseilles is also being used for the conveyance of ordinary passengers.
    Colonel YATE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these ships have been placed on this service, and whether any of the Royal Indian Marine ships have been used for this purpose?
    Mr. FISHER: As I said in the reply, one of the Royal Indian Marine ships is being fitted up to carry 500 passengers. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give notice of the other part of the question I will inquire.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    LONG-SERVICE DECORATION.
    Commander Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the recent Army Order 326, of 1918, with reference to the time for qualifying for the Territorial Force efficiency medal, it is the intention of the Admiralty to extend the same condition of qualification for the grant of the Royal Naval Reserve and Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve long-service medal and decoration?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Yes, Sir. The Admiralty have decided in principle to extend paragraph 1 of Army Order 326, of 1918, to the Naval Service, An announcement on the subject will be made shortly.

    MINE BARRAGE.
    Viscount CURZONasked whether it has as yet been found possible to sweep up any portion of the Northern mine barrage; and by what date it is expected to complete this work?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: This work will be commenced shortly. The nature of the work is such that fine weather is essential, and consequently no estimated date can be given as to its completion.
    Captain TERRELL: Is this work being carried out by His Majesty's Navy or by contractors?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I should say off-hand that it is part of the duty of our own mine-sweeping service. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put a question on the Paper.

    OFFICERS' HALF-PAY.
    Viscount CURZONasked if the Regulations governing the placing of officers of the Royal Navy on half-pay were suspended during the War; and, if so, whether this system can be continued permanently?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, so far as officers below the rank or relative rank of Flag officer are concerned. Officers of Flag rank and officers reverting to unemployment at their own request are still, however, placed on half-pay. The whole question of half-pay after the War is now under the consideration of a Committee.

    BATTLE OF JUTLAND (OFFICIAL REPORT).
    Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can indicate the names and rank of the officers who are inquiring into and compiling the official Report of the Battle of Jutland; will the evidence of witnesses be taken; and will the official Report follow the lines of the Trafalgar Inquiry, Report in respect to the publication of extracts from logs, signal logs, and diagrams?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Captain John E. T. Harper, M.V.O., R.N., has been attached to the War Staff for the purpose of collecting from official records the narrative of the Battle of Jutland. He has a number of officers under him, rendering assistance in the compilation.
    I am advised that no point has arisen yet on which oral evidence is required, and, as stated by the First Lord last Wednesday, the question of publication of the narrative will be considered when it is completed. If it is published, any extracts from logs and signal logs, and diagrams forming a necessary part of the narrative, will be published also.

    ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING.
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that disabled men who have under gone the first period of their training in electrical engineering under Scheme 2, Report M5/xvii. of the Ministry of Labour or a technical institute, are entered as unskilled labourers in His Majesty's Dockyard, Portsmouth, and at unskilled rates, whereas disabled men similarly trained and entered in private yards to complete their training at the scheduled rate of payment as set out in Report M 5/xvii., namely, 2s. 6d. a week above labourers' rate in the trade, and if the Admiralty will give immediate facilities in His Majesty's Dockyards for the training of disabled men under Schemes I. and II., M 5/xv. and M 5/xvii., according to the arrangements made by the Shipbuilding and Engineering Trade Advisory Committee which have been approved by His Majesty's Government?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have looked into this matter and find that the endeavour to train these men has been carried on independently of the Report of the Ministry of Labour to which my hon. Friend referred. The provision in that Report which provides for the payment of 2s. 6d.
    380
    a week above the labourers' rate will be at once applied and will be applied retrospectively. As these men progress they will, of course, be put upon the skilled labourers' scale.
    As regards the second part of my hon. Friend's question, it has been approved to adopt the schemes of training referred to in the question, but the instructions in the matter have not yet been issued.

    ACTING SICK-BERTH STEWARDS.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, seeing that acting sick-berth stewards do the same work and have the same responsibilities as active sick-berth stewards, he will say why they are not paid at the same rate?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The acting sick-berth steward belongs to the Sick-berth Reserve, and has, I am advised, neither the training nor knowledge possessed by the Active Service sick-berth steward. He is not therefore expected to perform the same work as the latter.
    Mr. WILSON: If the right hon. Gentleman is furnished with evidence that he is doing exactly the same work and has the same responsibility will he look into the matter?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly. I am advised that he is not expected to perform the same sort of work. If the hon. Member will give evidence to the contrary I will go into it.
    Mr. WILSONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that men who were members of the St. John's Ambulance Society or the Red Cross Society at the time they joined the Navy as sick-berth attendants were told that the uniforms of either of their societies would be all they required, but that after joining they were ordered to get naval uniform and badges; that they had to pay for these themselves; and whether it is proposed to reimburse these men for this expenditure?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The kit requirements of the Royal Naval Auxiliary Sick-berth Reserve attendants are fully set out in the Regulations for their service, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy, and I am advised that no orders have been issued in any way contravening those Regulations. If my hon. Friend has any specific cage in mind, I shall be happy

    381
    to have it inquired into and will communicate with him. In so far as the men referred to are required to purchase articles not already in their possession, they receive a gratuity of £6 on being called up, and also an annual upkeep allowance of £6.

    WAR SERVICE GRATUITY.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if the temporary naval officers who signed the agreement known as T. 124 will get the same war service gratuity as other temporary naval officers?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, Sir! War service gratuity will be paid to temporary R.N.R. and R.N.V.R. officers serving under T. 124 agreement at the same rates as those obtaining for temporary naval officers of similar rank.

    LETTERS TO ADMIRALTY.
    Major Sir B. FALLEasked why the letters written by engineer officers, Royal Navy, paymaster-captains, and other officers, through the proper channels, to the Admiralty remain unanswered?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Without knowing to what these letters refer, it is hardly possible to give an answer. If they relate, however, as probably some of them do, to the question of the rates of pay of officers retained beyond the age of compulsory retirement, who ask that they should be regarded as retired officers called up and given the bonus of 25 per cent. of their full pay which is given to retired officers, I have to say that this question is still under consideration. As soon as it is settled one way or the other replies will be forwarded. If the communications refer to other matters, I can only assume that the absence of reply is attributable to the same reason.

    FERRO-CONCRETE SHIPS.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the first ferro-concrete ship, built at a cost of £20,000 at Barnstaple under Admiralty orders, failed to be successfully launched, ultimately breaking her back and becoming a total wreck; whether the second of such boats, a 100-ton barge, has not yet been launched owing to the fact that no insurance company will cover the risk of the operation; and whether he will take steps to cancel the remaining contracts for vessels of this description?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel Leslie Wilson): I have been asked to reply. The first of the ferro-concrete barges building at Barnstaple broke her back in the process of being floated down the Channel after launching, and became a total loss.
    The second 1000-ton barge under construction there will be launched immediately the work of removing the wreck is completed, and this is practically accomplished.
    As I informed the hon. and gallant Member for South Battersea yesterday, it is not the present intention of the Government to build any more concrete vessels, as they are not required for Government use.

    RUSSIAN SAILORS, WALLSEND.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that some fifty Russian sailors are, and have been for some time past, living in a hotel at Wallsend at the expense of the Government, and receiving in addition weekly wages; and, if so, will he state the nature of the work upon which they are engaged?
    Colonel WILSON: I have been asked to reply. These men, who are part of the crew of a Russian ice-breaking steamer which was recently requisitioned for British naval service, are awaiting an opportunity of repatriation to Russia, as to which the Ministry of Shipping is necessarily guided by the advice of the local naval and military authorities. In the meantime, His Majesty's Government are under an obligation to maintain them.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: In the meantime is any supervision being exercised over their correspondence and movements?
    Colonel WILSON: I understand that there is, but I will inquire.
    Mr. T. WILSON: Is the Government paying their wages in addition to maintaining them?
    Colonel WILSON: I understand that only maintenance is being paid, but I will inquire.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that they are receiving £2 a week wages in addition to maintenance?

    WOMEN WORKERS (ADMIRALTY).
    Captain BOWYERasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is the fact that in demobilising women workers at the Admiralty widows and dependants of fallen sailors and soldiers have already been discharged; whether married women and single girls not thus bereaved are still retained; and whether steps will be taken to see that these widows and dependants are retained at their work until every married woman and single girl not thus dependent has been discharged?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: So far as I have able to ascertain, no women coming within the category mentioned in the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question have been discharged. If my hon. and gallant Friend will give me the evidence on which he bases it, I will have it investigated.
    As regards the latter part of the question, the Admiralty will certainly give, and have always given, priority to the claims of women workers who are widows or dependants of fallen sailors and soldiers.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    OFFICERS' GRATUITIES (ROYAL NAVY).
    Sir B. FALLEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that the maximum gratuity granted to a Royal Navy officer whose whole service has been at sea or abroad is £148 in the case of a captain and £93 in the case of a lieutenant, while the gratuity awarded to the same ranks, Royal Naval Reserve, for all service, irrespective of sea or abroad, is £488; if Royal Naval Reserve officers have during the War been in receipt of messing allowance which Royal Navy officers do not receive; and if he will see that a more equitable arrangement can be come to by raising the gratuity to the Royal Navy?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The figures are not correct, but I admit that there is a considerable disparity between the war service gratuity to the permanent naval officer on the one hand, and the temporary naval officer on the other. That, I think, is justified on the ground that the temporary naval officer left his ordinary employment in a time of national emergency, and should now be assisted in the
    384
    task of re-establishing himself. On the other hand, though the permanent naval officer is certainly worthy of every consideration for his war services, he will continue his life's calling with the prospect of a life pension at its close. I should add that the messing allowance to Royal Naval Reserve officers is payable on the ground that while serving in the Mercantile Marine they obtain free messing.

    VOLUNTARY AID DETACHMENTS.
    Lieutenant-Colonel RAWasked the Secretary of State for War if he will consider the question of a war gratuity to V.A.D.'s who have given over two years' service abroad?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The question of granting a war gratuity to Voluntary Aid Detachments who are in Army employment is under consideration.

    LONDON SEPARATION ALLOWANCE.
    Mr. BLAIRasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the reason for not dealing with the rule under which the wife of a soldier serving in India, and who was sent back to her home in London, is deprived of the London area allowance?
    Mr. FORSTER: The qualification for the London separation allowance is actual residence in London at the time of separation. If it were granted in the cases referred to in the question, it would be impracticable to refuse it in any case where the soldier's wife wished to move into London. That was not the intention of the extra allowance, and I am afraid I cannot alter the rule so as to include such cases.

    LABOUR MARKET.
    Lieutenant-Colonel Sir S. HOAREasked the Minister of Labour whether he will set up two joint Committees for spreading the orders of the great spending Departments and the local authorities, with the view of steadying the labour market and tiding over periods of bad employment?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir R. Horne): The proposals contained in the question falls within the terms of reference to the Provisional Joint Industrial Committee appointed at the recent Industrial Conference to advise the Government with regard to measures for preventing unemployment. I anticipate that the

    385
    Report of the Committee will be in my hands before long, and I feel that I should await their Report before expressing an opinion upon the proposal of my right hon. Friend. The Ministry of Labour itself already takes action for the purpose stated.

    WELFARE CLUBS (UNEMPLOYED WOMEN).
    Sir S. HOAREasked the Minister of Labour whether he has now organized any welfare clubs or associations for unemployed women on the lines recommended by the hon. Member for Chelsea?
    Sir R. HORNE: Clubs for unemployed women have occupied the attention of the welfare officers of the Ministry of Labour throughout the period of demobilisation, and in every one of the chief towns arrangements have been made for such clubs to be open all day and every evening for the use of women and girls receiving out-of-work donation. Information respecting openings for employment and for training have been given at these clubs, and arrangements are being made to increase the use of clubs for this purpose. Many of these clubs are close to the Employment Exchanges and have been the means of preventing queues and keeping the applicants for out-of-work donation occupied. In addition to this, schemes of recreation for adults, inaugurated by the Ministry of Munitions, Welfare Section, in conjunction with the Home Office Juvenile Organisation Committees, are being carried on for unemployed women.

    OUT-OF-WORK DONATION.
    Sir S. HOAREasked the Minister of Labour if he will state what are the latest figures for unemployed men, women, girls and boys, and the amount of the donation that is being paid them?
    Sir R. HORNE: The latest figures for unemployed men, women, girls and boys having out-of-work donation policies lodged are for the week ending 14th March, namely:—

    Men

    …

    …

    …

    444,277

    Women

    …

    …

    …

    486,945

    Boys

    …

    …

    …

    26,327

    Girls

    …

    …

    …

    31,070

    988,619

    During the week the amount of donation paid was approximately £1,200,000.
    Sir S. HOARE: Do those figures show an increase over the figures for the previous week?
    Sir R. HORNE: They do, but I should point out for the information of the House that there has been a decrease in the number of those who have asked for a continuance of the unemployment benefit, which they have already got for thirteen weeks.
    Mr. RENWICK: Is this out-of-work donation given to men, women, boys and girls other than those who were employed upon munitions work?
    Sir R. HORNE: Yes. The reason is, as the hon. Gentleman will readily understand, that practically the whole effort of the country was engaged on war work of some kind. All, therefore, whether munitions workers or not, if thrown out of employment as a result of the Armistice, should have the same treatment. One is just as much entitled as the other.
    Mr. RENWICK: Then all those who are out of employment from whatever cause are entitled to this donation?
    Sir R. HORNE: That is so.
    Mr. WATERSON: Have any steps been taken by the Ministry of Labour to prevent this unemployment, and is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to state to the House the nature of these steps?
    Sir R. HORNE: I think that that would require a somewhat lengthy statement. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will find other occasions for raising this question.
    Colonel YATE: On what date does this benefit come to an end?
    Sir R. HORNE: The date on which the original unemployment benefit would have come to an end would be the 21st of May, being six months after the 21st of November, but as the House already knows there has been an extension of the original period for another period of six months.
    Captain REDMOND: Will this unemployed benefit be revived at the next General Election?
    Sir R. HORNE: We must wait for that occasion.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Is special attention being paid to the case of domestic servants?
    Mr. SPEAKER: We must endeavour to go through the other questions.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Minister of Labour if he will rearrange the payment of the out-of-work donation so that only men and women who cannot get work may receive it?
    Sir R. HORNE: It is already a condition for the receipt of out-of-work donation that an applicant must be unemployed, capable of work and unable to obtain suitable employment. It is the practice of the Department to suspend donation and refer claims to Courts of Referees when it is brought to their notice that suitable employment has been refused.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very large number of employers in the country are asking for labour to-day?
    Sir R. HORNE: I am aware that there are cases in which the unemployment donation is abused. I should be grateful to every Member of the House who would bring before my notice cases in which that is being done.
    Mr. THOMAS: Is it not also true that employment is being offered to men and women at less than the current rate in the district, and often at less than the unemployment benefit, and that in these cases the unemployment donation is being refused?
    Sir R. HORNE: If employment is offered at less than the prescribed rate for employment in that district I do not think that it would be incumbent upon the Employment Exchange to refuse the unemployment donation.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any instances of employés who are receiving this donation for whom employment is not waiting at this moment?
    Sir R. HORNE: It is an almost impossible task for me to produce instances of persons who are receiving unemployment donation who are unworthy of it, but if the hon. Member would furnish me with cases in which the donation is given in which it ought not to be given, I shall be glad to have these instances looked into.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are not London dressmakers imploring young women to come to them, employers who are willing to pay them high wages, far above the ordinary ones?
    Sir R. HORNE: I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would give me instances of such cases.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Is there anything to prevent employers who cannot get workers appealing to Unemployment Exchanges?
    Sir R. HORNE: They do appeal, and we keep a constant record. So far as we can judge the figures from week to week, there is no large amount of employment available in this country for those who are out of work.
    Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour whether, in view of the statement by his Department that the number of workpeople in every occupation exceeds the demand, his attention has been called to the fact that in numerous cases firms have applied for girls, who refuse employment whilst receiving unemployed benefit; whether he is aware that a large number of men are similarly refusing offers of employment; and whether he will give an undertaking that unemployed benefit will be discontinued to persons who refuse employment at wages at a greater amount than the unemployed benefit now being paid?
    Sir R. HORNE: Reports have reached the Department that applicants for out-of-work donation have refused offers of employment. It is already a condition for the receipt of out-of-work donation that applicants shall not refuse offers of suitable employment, and in all cases in which it is reported to the Department that such employment has been refused, payment of donation is suspended and the claims are referred to Courts of Referees for decisions whether or not donation shall me paid. It is very desirable that employers should in all cases furnish the Department with particulars of such cases.
    Brigadier - General CROFT: May we take it as the fact that no unemployment benefit will be paid when wages are offered at a higher rate to the person unemployed?
    Sir R. HORNE: I should not like to commit myself to an answer in the form in which the question is put for this reason, that if a man is skilled in any particular industry his wages are higher than unemployment benefit, and I do not think it could be said that suitable employment was offered to him if it were employment at a wage which was not comparable to

    389
    that which he ought to earn in suitable employment. Therefore I cannot commit myself to an answer to the full extent the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question involves.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: How long is the State going to find money in these kind of cases where employment is generally offered?
    Colonel THORNE: Is the State prepared to put everybody in work?

    FERTILISER MANUFACTURERS (HOURS OF WORK).
    Mr. J. JONESasked the Minister pf Labour if he is aware that the Fertiliser Manufacturers' Association have refused to negotiate with the National Federation of General Workers on a programme of reduced hours and other conditions of labour, and if he will use his good offices to bring about a conference between the parties concerned, and so obviate a stoppage of work in this industry?
    Sir R. HORNE: The Ministry of Labour has been in communication with the Association and Federation in question with a view to securing a settlement between them. The hon. Member for South-East Leeds has recently discussed this matter with my Department. I am expecting a communication from him in due course, on receipt of which further action in the direction indicated by the hon. Member will be taken if necessary. I may state that the employés' representatives are at the moment considering whether it is possible for this purpose to settle the questions at issue through the machinery of the Interim Industrial Reconstruction Committee for this industry.
    Colonel THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the organisations involved are now taking a vote of the men as to whether they will or will not withhold their labour, and will he use his good offices to try to bring them together?
    Sir R. HORNE: What the hon. Gentleman says is a matter of which I am unaware. I understood that the matter was in the process of negotiation through the hon. Member for South-East Leeds (Mr. O'Grady), who was using his good offices, and was to give a report to me as soon as he was in a position to do so
    Mr. A. DAVIS: In the event of the employers refusing to negotiate with the workmen, what steps does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take?
    Sir R. HORNE: That is a problematical question, and depends on the circumstances which arise.

    SCHOOL CARETAKERS, LANCASHIRE.
    Colonel THORNEasked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to state the result of the correspondence with the Education Committee of the Lancashire County Council respecting the difference with their school caretakers regarding the conditions of labour; whether he is aware that the position in this case remains as it was over a month ago; and whether he can take any action to secure a settlement?
    Sir R. HORNE: An officer from this Department has interviewed the parties concerned, and the Director of Education of the Lancashire County Council has informed the National Federation of Caretakers that certain information with regard to caretakers was being collected for the information of the Education Committee, who would consider the application for increased wages. I will communicate with the hon. Member on this matter as soon as I have further information.

    SOLDIERS' GRAVES.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements have been made with the Belgian and French Governments for the preservation and upkeep of British soldiers' graves in both countries?
    Captain GUEST (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): The Imperial War Graves Commission is charged with this duty. All British war cemeteries in France, Belgium, and other countries will be maintained by this Commission, and for this purpose satisfactory agreements have been concluded with the Governments of the countries concerned.
    Mr. STANTONasked the Secretary of State for War if he will request the Director of Graves Department to take immediate steps to supply photographs of the graves of our gallant dead to their

    391
    anxious waiting relatives; will he state what is now being done in this matter; and will he make inquiries into this treatment of people who gave their sons to save this country?
    Mr. GILBERTasked if the Graves Registration Committee can supply photographs, when obtainable, of the graves of soldiers who are buried in France or Belgium; if such photographs are supplied free; and, if not, what is the charge for the same, and to whom should the relatives apply if they desire them?
    Captain GUEST: The Directorate of Graves Registration and Inquiries is supplying photographs of graves free of charge to relatives on request as quickly as circumstances permit. Photographs of registered identified graves have been supplied since June, 1915, funds for the purpose being generously supplied by the Joint War Committee of the British Red Cross Society and the Order of St. John of Jerusalem. Since that date 98,300 photographs have been sent out. All applications for photographs should be addressed to the Directorate of Graves Registration and Inquiries, Winchester House, St. James's Square, London, S.W.1. Relatives are informed when notification of death is sent that photographs will be supplied if such application is made.
    Mr. STANTON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the fact that I have for eighteen months endeavoured to get a photograph of my son's grave, and have not been able to get it yet? I have written repeatedly to the Director of Graves.
    Captain GUEST: Perhaps the hon. Member will send me a note.
    Mr. STANTON: I am getting a bit impatient about it.
    Mr. GILBERT: Can relatives obtain more than one photograph, and will they be given free or a charge made?
    Captain GUEST: I will ascertain.

  ARMENIA.

    FOOD SHORTAGE.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can say to what extent shortness of
    392
    food exists in Armenia; and what steps the Government are taking, or are about to' take, for the revictualling of the country?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): There is undoubtedly a serious shortage of food in Armenia, largely due to the inability of the people to sow their grain and to the wanton destruction by the Turks of such crops as were grown.
    The whole question of revictualling the country is now in the hands of the Food Section of the Supreme Economic Council at Paris.
    Meanwhile, in such parts of Armenia as are in British occupation, widespread relief is being administered by the British military authorities on the spot, chiefly by the use of surplus army stocks.
    For such parts of Armenia as are not in British occupation provision is to be made by the American Relief Mission, under Dr. Barton, to which every possible facility is being given by the British naval and military authorities. Dr. Barton's Mission arrived at Constantinople some weeks ago, and has already begun its operations.

  CAUCASUS.

    BRITISH MISSION.
    Mr. GEORGE JONESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the members of the British Mission to the Caucasus, under Major Goldsmith, were put under arrest by the Bolshevist Government of Russia in October last at Vladikavkas, where they were kept in custody until November last, when they were removed in custody to Astrakhan, a distance of 150 miles, in springless carts and motor lorries, and kept there in custody until January last, when they were removed in custody to Moscow, since which date they have been kept in solitary confinement is the Butiska Prison in small, damp, and insanitary cells, and with insufficient food; whether he is aware that the reason for the said arrest and retention in custody is alleged by the Bolshevist Government of Russia to be that they require the members of the British. Mission as hostages; whether he is taking any steps to obtain the release of the men

    393
    concerned; and whether he can state when he expects such release may be obtained?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first portion of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative, with the exception that it is understood that the prisoners to whom reference is made are not kept in solitary confinement, and are being allowed a certain amount of exercise. They are now reported to be in receipt of extra food and comforts, which have been sent out by His Majesty's Government through representatives of the British, International, and Danish Red Cross Societies.
    I understand that the Russian Bolshevik Government have stated in a wireless communiqué that the treatment of the Caucasus Military Mission will depend on the treatment given to those Russian Bolshevik officials who are prisoners in our hands, but I am not aware of the statement to which reference is made in the second portion of the hon. Member's question.
    Negotiations are at present in progress for the exchange of all British civilian, naval, and military prisoners in the hands of the Russian Bolshevist Government, but I regret that it is not possible to state when this exchange will be effected.
    The leaders of the Bolshevist movement in Russia have been informed in a wireless telegram that they will be held personally responsible for the maltreatment of any British prisoners in their hands.
    Sir S. HOARE: Is the report true in the papers to-day that the British Government is sending a Mission to Bolshevist Russia?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

  NEAR AND MIDDLE EAST.

    SPECIAL SUB-COMMISSION.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Peace Conference have recently appointed a special sub-commission of five representatives to visit Syria and other countries in the Near and Middle East, with a view to reporting on the political situation in those countries to the Peace Conference; who are the five men selected; which Powers do they represent; and which countries are they to visit?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I understand that it has been decided at Paris that a special Sub-commission should be sent to the East for the purpose mentioned, but I have not heard whether any decision has been reached with regard to its composition, the number of its members, the Powers to be represented, or the countries to be visited.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the dispatch of this mission indicates any alteration in Government policy in reference to a Jewish State in Palestine?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think the hon. and gallant Member had better give notice of that question.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to the answer to this question from our representatives in Paris?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I shall be very happy to convey any representation my hon. and gallant Friend wishes.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the mission being sent to Syria from Paris will include in it number a representative of Arab opinion such as Colonel Lawrence?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have no information yet as to whether any decision has been reached in Paris with regard to the composition of the proposed mission.

    BRITISH EAST AFRICA (CIVIL SERVANTS).
    Brigadier - General Sir OWEN THOMASasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the great financial hardships suffered by the Civil servants in British East Africa, he will authorise immediate temporary measures to alleviate their position, pending the Report of the Commission he has directed to inquire into all the grievances laid before him in the petition of January, 1918?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieutenant-Colonel Amery): Temporary measures have already been taken by the grant of a war bonus, and it is expected that the Report of the Special Commissioner appointed to inquire into the subject will be received at

    395
    an early date. If he advises that the war bonus granted is inadequate, the matter will at once be further considered.
    Sir O. THOMASasked whether the average salary of six married first-class highly-trained railway officials of long experience in British East Africa is considerably less than the pay of high-grade engine drivers in England; whether such remuneration is commensurate with the training and experience requisite for railway administration; and whether he is aware that responsible married European officials in the Customs House at Mombasa receive salaries of from £150 to £180, and that the average salary paid to European Customs officials at Mombasa is lower than the average salary paid to Indians holding positions of less responsibility in the same department?
    Lieutenant-Colonel AMERY: The examples mentioned in the hon. and gallant Member's question are, I believe, taken from the petition of the members of the public service in British East Africa. The scale of salary for the railway appointments mentioned is £300, rising by £20 annually to £550, and the average of £270 quoted in the petition was obtained by assuming that the local value of the rupee is equivalent to the value of the shilling in this country. As regards the second example, the scale of salary for junior European Customs officials is £150, rising by £10 annually to £250. A comparison with the senior Indian officials of the Customs Department is misleading, as they are at the top of their scale. In addition, it must be remembered that the European Customs officials at Mombasa get free quarters or an allowance in lieu, and that non-European Customs officials are not entitled to this privilege. The hon. and gallant Member is aware that the whole question of Civil Service salaries in East Africa and the representations made by the members of the service are under the consideration of a local Commission of Inquiry.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Do these officials pay Income Tax on these salaries in East Africa?
    Sir O. THOMASasked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the general scale of remuneration of Civil servants in British East Africa was, before the War, quite
    396
    inadequate, and that since the War and its attendant increase in the cost of living the majority of these officials, especially if married, are, even with the exercise of rigid economy, unable to live on their pay; whether he is aware that many of these officials, having been married for some years, cannot afford to bring their wives out to East Africa; and whether any, and, if so, how many, East African officials have received the war bonus promised to them?
    Lieutenant-Colonel AMERY: I have already mentioned that the general question of the remuneration of the East African Civil Service is being considered by the local Civil Service Commission: Meanwhile the special war bonus approved in July last has, I believe, substantially mitigated the undoubted hardships created by war conditions. I am not aware that there has been any delay in issuing the war bonus approved in July last, and if the hon. and gallant Member's information shows that there are cases in which the bonus has not been issued I shall be glad if he will furnish me with particulars.
    Sir O. THOMAS: Are these bonuses withheld from men spending their leave in England?
    Lieutenant-Colonel AMERY: I would like notice of that question.

    DIRECTOR OF LANDS (ROADS DEPARTMENT).
    Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAINasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Roads Department under the Director of Lands has recently been re-organised with an increased staff under a brigadier-general as director; what are the functions of this Department; and what are the qualifications of the director for this post?
    Captain GUEST: When the office of Controller of Roads and Bridges was abolished its staff, together with the executive organisation of the Road Board, was merged in that of the Joint Roads Committee and the work co-ordinated with, that of the Road Stone Control Committee, but there has been no increase of staff.
    The functions of the branch comprise all questions affecting construction, maintenance, and repair of roads for war purposes, also investigation for settlement on behalf of all Government Departments of

    397
    claims by highway authorities for damage by extraordinary traffic. The administrative officer, who was previously deputy to the Controller of Roads and Bridges, is considered to be fully qualified for the duties of his post.
    Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: Will the hon. Member explain, if there has been no re-organisation, how it is that this officer has only been gazetted six months as brigadier-general, whereas his predecessor was lieutenant-colonel?
    Captain GUEST: I gather that this officer is considered to be a suitable one for the post and the duties which he has to perform.

  DEMOBILISATION.

    REMOUNT OFFICERS.
    Brigadier - General CROFTasked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the fact that many remount officers who were civilians prior to the War are incurring great business losses by not being demobilised; and whether remount work can be handed over to competent Regular officers from Cavalry regiments pending complete demobilisation?
    Captain GUEST: I am informed that all remount officers serving at home who have expressed a wish to return to their prewar civilian occupation have already been demobilised, and that the release of remount officers serving abroad is being carried out as quickly as possible, under the instructions of the Commanders-in-Chief in the respective theatres where they are employed. Cavalry, Artillery, and Yeomanry officers, as they become available, are being used to replace them.

    LEAVE PENDING DEMOBILISATION.
    Mr. STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for War whether a soldier on twenty-eight days' leave pending demobilisation is considered for all purposes still to be on active service?
    Captain GUEST: The answer is in the affirmative.

    TROOPS OUTSIDE EUROPE.
    Mr. WATERSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the general discontent on the question of demobilisation; whether men who
    398
    enlisted in 1916 are being retained in Mesopotamia and Salonika for a fourth summer; whether men over forty-one are not being released; and whether he will give an assurance that the demobilisation of all troops outside Europe shall be expedited and be given priority over all other movements of troops?
    Captain GUEST: Men who enlisted in 1916 are not eligible for demobilisation unless they fall within certain categories set out in Army Order 55 of 1919. Those who are eligible are being demobilised as rapidly as circumstances permit, and there is no reason to believe that this is not the case with men over forty-one.

    SOLDIERS ENLISTED IN 1914.
    Colonel MILDMAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether a number, approximating to seventy, of non-commissioned officers and men of the 1/5th Territorial Battalion of the Devon Regiment, quartered now in Germany, who originally volunteered for active service on any war front, who sailed with the battalion to India in October, 1914, and who have since fought in Palestine and France, thus being entitled to demobilisation forthwith under the latest Army Order in this connection, have been informed that they cannot be released under present circumstances; and whether he will have any such decision reconsidered in view of the fact that it is at variance with the policy of the most recent Army Order directing the release of men who joined His Majesty's Service before 1916, and that it inflicts hardship on those Territorials who have been serving abroad continuously since October, 1914, and who, in the majority of cases, have businesses at home which are suffering severely on account of their protracted absence?
    Captain GUEST: Men who are eligible for demobilisation are being demobilised as rapidly as the exigencies of the Service and transport facilities permit. Every effort is being made to replace as soon as possible any men who are eligible for demobilisation and whose services are temporarily required. I am not aware, nor have I any reason to believe, that the men referred to in the question are being treated any differently from other men who are eligible for demobilisation.
    Colonel MILDMAY: May I furnish the hon. and gallant Gentleman with names?
    Captain GUEST: If you please.

    EMPLOYMENT OF TROOPS (IRELAND).
    Mr. GWYNNEasked the Secretary of State for War whether certain troops in Ireland are being employed in building huts and block-houses; whether these buildings are shortly afterwards demolished by other troops; and, if this is the case, will he stop such waste of labour and material?
    Captain GUEST: I am not aware that there is any foundation for this suggestion, but a report on the matter has been called for.
    Mr. GWYNNE: If I send the hon. Gentleman particulars of a case, will he have it inquired into?
    Captain GUEST: Most certainly!

    WAR DECORATIONS.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state what recognition is to be given to the survivors of the garrison of Kut-el-Amara and to the relatives of those who died during the siege or the subsequent captivity?
    Captain GUEST: Such recommendations for these services as have already been brought forward by the Government of India have received the most sympathetic consideration of the Army Council, and military rewards conferred have been duly published in the "London Gazette." If any further recommendations are submitted by the Government of India they will be sympathetically considered. The survivors of the garrison of Kut will receive whatever war medals are awarded in recognition for services during the present War, and relatives of those who have died will also be entitled to the medals. They are also entitled to the "1914–15 Star," and the relatives of those who have died will also receive the Star. Further, the next-of-kin of those who have died in the War will receive the memorial plaque and scroll.
    Colonel YATE: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the dispatches regarding the Siege of Kut will be published?
    Captain GUEST: I think that is a different question.
    Mr. RENWICKasked the Secretary of State for War whether the war medals
    400
    will be issued at an early date or will the issue of them be deferred until after the signing of peace?
    Captain GUEST: As I informed my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New-castle-under-Lyme last week, it is not yet possible to state the date on which war medals will begin to be issued, but arrangements are being expedited as much as possible.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Has the 1914–1915 Star been issued yet?
    Captain GUEST: I believe not.

  PEACE CONFERENCE.

    FISCAL AUTONOMY (UNITED KINGDOM).
    Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Prime Minister whether he will give an undertaking that no steps will be taken to impair the fiscal autonomy of the United Kingdom or to commit the United Kingdom to any fiscal agreements at the Paris Conference?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): No agreement will be entered into which will interfere with the full control of the United Kingdom or His Majesty's Dominions over their own Customs duties.

    PEACE CELEBRATIONS.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Prime Minister if he will say whether the Government propose to allow city, borough, and county local authorities to spend any of their income derived from rates on peace celebrations; and, if so, to what extent such permission will be granted, so that the authorities may know to what amount they may organise local celebrations for the forthcoming peace holidays?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Major Astor): I have been asked to reply to this question. The Local Government Board are proposing to issue a general Order sanctioning reasonable expenditure in connection with the celebration of Peace in the case of local authorities whose accounts are subject to Government audit.

    MINISTRY OF WAYS AND COMMUNICATIONS BILL.
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the Prime Minister if he will state the nature of the

    401
    recommendations or representations or amendments made by the three associations which represent all the local authorities on the subject of the incorporation of the control of the roads in the Ministry of Ways and Communications Bill?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am making inquiries of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge and will let the hon. Member know the result as soon as possible.

  COURT-MARTIAL PROCEDURE.

    APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE.
    Major E. WOODasked the Prime Minister whether he can now announce the names of the persons who will form the Committee to inquire into court-martial procedure; whether the Committee includes any soldier who has had actual personal experience of front-line fighting; and, if not, whether he will consider the advisability of the addition of a member to the Committee who has had that experience?
    Captain GUEST: I will announce the composition of the Committee on Monday next, and will consider my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.
    Sir S. HOARE: Does that mean that a man of this kind will be a member of this Committee?
    Captain GUEST: I think I may say so.

    INDUSTRIAL UNREST.
    Mr. KENNEDY JONESasked the Prime Minister whether the Council investigating the causes of industrial unrest has agreed on a maximum number of hours per working week and the principle of a minimum wage; whether he can give any details in either case; when the Council expects to make an interim Report; and whether the Cabinet proposes to consider its recommendations with a view to prompt legislation?
    Sir R. HORNE: I have been asked to reply to this question. The Committee to which the hon. Member refers is a Committee set up by the Industrial Conference, held on 27th February, with directions to report back to that conference at a further meeting to be arranged not later than 5th April. I understand that the Committee met yesterday in order
    402
    to settle the terms of their Report, which they propose to present to a further meeting of the full conference on 4th April. It would be premature for me to make any statement as to the attitude of the Government towards the recommendations contained in this Report until it has been considered by the full conference.

    PARLIAMENTARY BILLS (MONEY RESOLUTIONS).
    Mr. MARRIOTTasked the Prime Minister whether the Government has considered, and whether, if so, he proposes to adopt, the following suggestions of the Select Committee on National Expenditure (Ninth Report, Session 1918), in respect of Money Resolutions for Bills: that the terms of the Money Resolutions should be placed on the Notice Paper of the House, and that in the case of Bills not originating in Committee this should be done before the Second Reading of the Bill; that, wherever possible, the Resolution should comprise a statement of the probable expenditure, whether capital or annual, or be accompanied by a White Paper furnishing such a statement or, in cases where the conditions do not allow such a forecast by a White Paper, containing a full explanation of the reasons why a forecast is not possible?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government propose to adopt these suggestions whenever possible; but I do not think that any fixed rule can conveniently be laid down, and there will be many cases where the existing practice must remain.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to follow this new rule in the case of the Housing Bill which is shortly coming before us?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not sure. I have not looked into it, but we are asking Departments responsible for Bills, wherever possible, to adopt this course.

    WORKMEN'S HOUSES (FREEHOLDS).
    Mr. STANTONasked the Prime Minister if he will introduce a Bill granting the freeholds of all workmen's houses and others up to a rental of £50 per annum in order to encourage workmen to build their own houses and to be a greater incentive to thrift and responsible citizen-ship?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government are not prepared to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

    MINES (OWNERSHIP).
    Mr. N. M'LEANasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Act 1592, c. 31 (temp. James VI. of Scotland), established the right of the Crown to ownership of mines of gold, copper, lead, tin, and other metals and minerals; that the Act is unrepealed; and when he proposes, in view of mining unrest, to put the Act into operation?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Clyde): I have been asked to answer this question. The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The effect of the Act, 1592, c. 31, which is still in part unrepealed, was to dissolve from the Crown of Scotland such mines as had anciently been annexed to it, by providing for the feuing of them to the owners of the lands in which they were contained for a royalty of 10 per cent. The remaining part of the question does not arise.
    Brigadier-General SURTEES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that in the year 1568, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, the question of ownership was debated, and it was then decided that all minerals, with the exception of gold and silver, belonged to the proprietor of the soil under which those minerals were situated?
    Mr. A. SHAW: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Elizabeth never reigned over Scotland?
    Brigadier-General SURTEES: I do not think it was ever said that she did.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman should give notice of those questions.

    ROYAL ENGINEERS (EMPLOYMENT AT CHEPSTOW).
    Major M'LEANasked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been drawn to the employment of Royal Engineers in building operations at Chepstow; and if these men receive allowances to bring their wages up to those earned by boys of fourteen and fifteen years of age who are reported to earn over £3 a week?
    Mr. FORSTER: My attention has not previously been called to the matter. I am having inquiries made, and will inform the hon. and gallant Member of the result.

    COMMANDEERED PREMISES (RE-CONDITIONING).
    Mr. PRETYMANasked the Secretary of State for War whether the owners of premises which have been in military occupation during the War, and which are now being surrendered, are being compelled to accept a lump sum payment in lieu of re-conditioning, and, if so, whether the War Office will itself carry out the work for those owners who have no facilities for getting it done themselves?
    Captain GUEST: Where the occupation is under an agreement, the Department follows the normal practice of offering a sum of money in satisfaction of its liabilities under the agreement. Where the occupation is under Defence of the Realm powers there is, of course, no legal liability to reinstate the premises, but, subject to the determination of the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission, the Department deals with the question of reinstatement in the same way as with agreement cases. The Department is not prepared to give a general undertaking to carry out the actual work of reinstatement.

    MILITARY WORKS (DISUSED).
    Mr. PRETYMANasked the Secretary of State for War whether in districts which have been occupied by troops during the War, and which are now being evacuated, there are still a large number of trenches and temporary works which have not been removed or filled in and are obstructing the cultivation of the land; and, if so, will he have the necessary work carried out as soon as possible, so that the land may be cultivated during the present year?
    Captain GUEST: The work of reinstating land used for trenches and temporary works, of which a certain number still remain, is proceeding as rapidly as possible with the means available. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 17th March to a question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Epping,

    405
    where the conditions under which the reinstatement may be put in hand by the owners themselves and the methods of determining compensation are set out fully. Since that reply was given, the arrangements for settlement under the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission have been completed and will be put into operation at a very early date.

    WAR OFFICE (WOMEN WORKERS).
    Captain BOWYERasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in demobilising women workers at the War Office, widows and dependants of fallen sailors and soldiers have already been discharged; whether married women and single girls not thus bereaved are still being retained; and whether steps will be taken to see that these widows and dependants are retained at their work until every married woman and single girl not thus dependent has been discharged?
    Captain GUEST: I am informed that no widows or dependants of fallen soldiers or sailors have been discharged from service at the War Office, unless for inefficiency, or on account of the cessation of the work on which they were employed. Married women and single girls have been dealt with on similar lines. The course suggested in the last part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is impracticable, if only on account of the regard which must be paid to the efficient performance of the work of the Office, and I regret that I cannot see my way to adopt it.

    ARMY HUTS.
    Mr. CAREWasked the Secretary of State for War if there is any probability of parishes being able to obtain disused Army huts for reading and recreation rooms, as a war memorial, at a moderate price?
    The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I have been asked to answer this question. The Disposal Board cannot dispose of Army huts until they have been declared surplus by the War Office. So far very few huts have been handed to the Board for disposal. When huts are available, they will be advertised, and local authorities who might be interested will be informed. No preferential treatment with regard to price can, however, be given to anyone.

    ARMOURED CAR BRIGADE.
    Mr. GEORGE JONESasked the Secretary of State for War what steps he is proposing to take, or has taken, to inquire into the circumstances attending the return of the armoured car brigade to Belton Park camp from Mesopotamia on 28th February last; and whether he will see that evidence is taken from the men themselves of the armoured car brigade as to their treatment?
    Captain GUEST: As I stated on Thursday last, I have given directions for a special inquiry to be made into this matter, but, as this is not yet complete, I am unable to make any further statement at present. Any evidence necessary to arrive at the facts of the case will be taken.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    FISH.
    Mr. PRETYMANasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to recent public statements that part of their catches of fish are being thrown overboard by deep-sea fishermen in order to maintain prices and avoid taxation; whether he has any information which enables him to confirm these statements; and, if not, whether he can now officially contradict them, as the fishing industry as a whole deeply resents such charges and believes them to be quite unfounded?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): Yes, Sir; my attention has been called to these statements, but I have no reason to believe that there is any foundation whatever for them.

    BEANS.
    Major M'LEANasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if the British Government is supplying 50,000 tons of beans to Germany; if these beans are of foreign origin or home grown; and if, at the request of the Government, British farmers grew a considerable quantity of peas, costing from £17 to £20 a quarter, which are unsaleable except as cattle food?
    Captain Sir B. STANIERasked the Food Controller whether he has sent or is sending 50,000 tons of beans to Germany; if so, whether these were grown

    407
    in the United Kingdom or abroad; and if he can consider the practicability of sending peas in place of the beans?
    The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. Roberts): I have been asked to reply to these questions. No contract has been made for the supply either of beans or peas to the German Government. I am, however, aware of the desirability of exporting peas, if possible, and Germany has been informed that supplies of this foodstuff are available. I am informed by the President of the Board of Agriculture that the answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

    BEEF AND MUTTON.
    Lieutenant - Colonel ROUNDELLasked the Food Controller whether he is aware that complaints have been made as to the condition of hard beef and mutton now being sent to the Settle and District Butchers' Association for consumption by the public; whether the requirements of meat in this particular district are being cut down to 40 per cent. of what is assessed by the local executive officer, and if he will take steps to remedy this state of affairs?
    Mr. ROBERTS: No complaints have been received by this Department concerning the condition of the imported meat supplied to the association in question. It is possible, however, that same complaint has been made owing to the fact that whereas Settle had until recently been receiving home-killed meat only, it was found necessary last week be supply the district with 60 per cent. of imported meat; but the assessment was not reduced and permits were issued for the full amount to which retailers were entitled. I may add that London is being supplied in the present week with 85 per cent. of imported and 15 per cent. of home-killed meat.
    Colonel THORNE: I thought it was a bit tough last week.

    AGRICULTURE (GOVERNMENT POLICY).
    Major M'LEANasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if his attention has been drawn to resolutions passed by various agricultural
    408
    bodies throughout the country expressing dissatisfaction with the delay of the Government to declare a policy of definite value to the agricultural interests; and when a statement may be expected?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, Sir; my attention has been drawn to some resolutions of the nature referred to. As regards the latter part of the question, I have already stated to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton that I hope to be in a position to make a definite statement shortly.

    THRESHING (LOSSES).
    Major EDWARD WOODasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the difficulties experienced and loss sustained by farmers owing to the partial breakdown of the arrangements officially made for threshing; and whether valid claims of this description will be entertained by the Defence of the Realm (Losses) Royal Commission?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Food Production Department organised threshing in an endeavour to help farmers. We are aware that difficulties have arisen in certain districts, and we have just issued a circular letter to Agricultural Executive Committees with suggestions for improved organisation. As regards the latter part of the question, compensation is payable only in case of loss incurred in consequence of the exercise of the powers of the Agricultural Executive Committees under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. No such powers were exercised in connection with the threshing arrangements.

    GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (OFFICE FURNITURE).
    Mr. BRIANTasked the First Commissioner of Works what is the amount of outstanding contracts for office furniture for Government Departments; if any portion of surplus stock is being sold; and if, considering the large requirements of doors and other necessary articles for the erection of houses, arrangements can be made with the contractors for an alteration in the terms of the contracts so that further expenditure may be incurred for the production of articles actually required rather than for those of which there is an increasing surplus?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): Contracts for furniture to the value of about £370,000 were outstanding on the 1st instant, but a considerable portion of this amount is in respect of goods which are still in demand for use in Government Departments. Surplus stock is being disposed of to local government authorities, education authorities, and to the public generally. Contracts for £55,000 worth of goods can now be cancelled if orders for articles of equivalent value could be placed with the contractors, and this matter has already been brought to the notice of the Local Government Board and the Ministry of Munitions.
    Mr. BRIANT: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the Government at the same time is purchasing and selling office furniture?
    Sir A. MOND: It is not all the same kind of furniture.

    SUB-POSTMASTERS.
    Lieutenant-Colonel Sir J. NORTON GRIFFITHSasked the Postmaster-General whether scale payment sub-postmasters are compelled to work twelve hours a day; whether they have received the same war bonus as the permanent postal staff; whether they are empowered to pay postal drafts, civil liabilities, pensions, and other such payments, necessitating the passing of large sums of money through their hands; and whether, in view of the responsible nature of their work and the length of their hours of duty, he will consider an increase in the scale of payment made to them?
    Mr. GWYNNEasked the Postmaster-Gentral (1) whether his attention has been called to the hardship which will arise owing to the recent order by which sub-post offices are to open earlier and close later, thus entailing longer hours of labour for the staff without any increase of pay; (2) whether, seeing that the clerks working in sub-post offices do not receive the war bonus which is being granted to the departmental clerks or any overtime he will take steps not to impose further work on them by extending their hours?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): The hours of public business at scale payment sub-post offices are at present 8 a.m. to 7 p.m., but sub-postmasters are not required to attend per-
    410
    sonally during these hours. The hours of business were curtailed during the War, and I have received numerous requests to restore the pre-war attendance. With a view to meeting the public demand, which is not unreasonable, I have given instructions for the offices to be opened an hour earlier, and for the midday interval to be discontinued. The closing hour has not been changed. Sub-postmasters receive approximately the same war bonus as the established Post Office staff. It is the case that large sums of money pass through many sub-post offices, but much of this is in connection with new classes-of business arising out of the War, for which special rates of payment have been granted to sub-postmasters. The present system of remunerating sub-postmasters is based on the recommendations of two Select Parliamentary Committees, and I am not at present prepared to consider the question of a general revision.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS (POST OFFICE SERVANTS).
    Mr. W. R. SMITHasked the Post master-General whether members of the established staff of the Post Office who appealed against military service on conscientious grounds have been reduced to the status of temporary employés with a corresponding reduction in wages; and whether, in view of the fact that these men have broken no law and their record as Post Office servants is beyond reproach, he will reconsider this matter?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: Civil servants exempted from military service on grounds of conscientious objection, and allowed to remain in their own Departments, were, by a decision of the Government, reduced to the status of temporary employés. I have no power to grant any special treatment in the matter to Post Office servants.

    POSTAL FACILITIES (CINDERFORD).
    Mr. WIGNALLasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the in convenience caused to the residents of Cinderford, Gloucestershire, by the in adequate postal facilities given to the district; if he is aware that letters posted after 6 p.m. on Saturday are not collected until 8 a.m. on Monday, thus causing

    411
    delay in the delivery of letters at their destination; and if he will take steps to improve the postal facilities in this area?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The question of improving the postal facilities at Cinder-ford, Gloucestershire, is under consideration in connection with the general survey of postal facilities curtailed as a result of war conditions. There was no collection of letters on Sundays in the Cinderford district before the War.

    CENSORSHIP.
    Mr. MANVILLEasked the Post master-General whether the time has arrived to cease the censorship of letters and cables between this country and the United States or, if not, how long the censorship is proposed to be continued?
    Captain GUEST: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 6th March to a question asked by the hon. Member for Montrose, to the effect that the Government is very desirous of abolishing the censorship as soon as it is possible to do so, but that it is obvious that, so long as the blockade exists, the censorship must be maintained. I regret that it is not possible at present to give a date when this censorship can be withdrawn.
    Mr. MANVILLEasked whether the censorship of letters and cables is still in existence on letters leaving this country for the United States, and if it also prevails in the United States of America on letters arriving from this country or leaving there for Great Britain?
    Captain GUEST: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

  RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.

    TRUCK SHORTAGE.
    Mr. JODRELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the serious shortage of railway trucks at Middleton Station, Great Eastern Railway, and Gayton Road Station, Midland and Great Northern Railway, and that the output of silica sand from the neighbouring quarries of Messrs. Boam and Company has been much curtailed thereby, compelling that firm to dismiss a number of their workmen; and what
    412
    steps he proposes to take to remedy this shortage of trucks as quickly as possible at those stations?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): The firm mentioned recently made a complaint in the matter, and the Board of Trade have been in communication with the railway companies concerned. The Great Eastern Railway Company have informed the Board that they are taking all steps possible to meet the situation, but the hon. Member will be aware that the shortage of trucks is unfortunately not confined to the particular case referred to in his question.

    EASTER HOLIDAYS.
    Sir ARTHUR FELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can arrange with the War Office that the movement of troops should be stopped or curtailed for a week at Easter so as to enable a number of special trains at moderate fares to be run to the seaside resorts, to let the working classes in the crowded cities obtain a small much needed change from the dull routine of their daily work during the past four years?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The point raised in the first part of my hon. Friend's question is, I think, one which the Board of Trade must leave to the decision of the War Office, whose attention is being called to the matter. As regards the latter part of the question, I have stated in previous replies that, while it would not be practicable to grant cheap fares at Easter, the railway companies will endeavour to meet the requirements of holiday-makers by increasing their ordinary train services.
    Sir A. FELL: Is it not the fact that last year the position was met to some extent by the War Office and the Board of Trade stopping the movement of troops for two or three days?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Well, Sir, the matter has been, very carefully considered.

    SCHOOL CHILDREN (NORTHUMBERLAND).
    Mr. CAIRNSasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that young children in the Bedlington district of Northumberland have to leave their homes at 7.20 a.m. to get a train at Bedlington station to get to a secondary school at Blyth, which applies also to

    413
    teachers in the elementary schools; and if he will consider the advisability of putting on the pre-war commercial autocar?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have asked the North-Eastern Railway Company for their observations on this matter, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman on receipt of their reply,

    WHISKY (PRICES).
    Mr. CAUTLEYasked the Food Controller what becomes of the difference between 9s., the present price, and 3s. 6d., the pre-war price, of a bottle of whisky; and whether he can arrange that some portion of this difference be in the future transferred to the consumer's pocket?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am advised that the difference in question is in many instances absorbed by the following items; interest to manufacturers payable from date of manufacture to date of sale; insurance and rent over the same period; increased price of bottles, corks, packing cases, etc.; increased charges for labour, establishment and distribution; margins of profit to manufacturers, blenders, bottlers, merchants and other traders; and increase in taxation. The question of the extent, if any, to which these items can be reduced is now under review; but I am afraid that it is very doubtful whether any decrease in the price of whisky will be possible for the present.
    Mr. REMER: Do the charges to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred amount to 6s. 6d. per bottle?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am unable to state that.
    Mr. CLYNES: Can my right hon. Friend state what is meant by the words in his reply "in many instances"? Are we to take it that the terms of the answer here a general application?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Well, the whole subject is under review, and I am unable to commit myself as to whether the words have a general application.

  HOUSIN G.

    BRIXWORTH RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL.
    Mr. WATERSONasked the President of the Local Government Board
    414
    whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution, passed in February at a public meeting, condemning the Brixworth Rural District Council for attempting to shelve the building of cottages, by calling upon large employers to build houses for their workmen in preference to the council building themselves; and will he take steps to enforce the council in question to adopt its own scheme and complete the work under its own authority?
    Major ASTOR: My attention has been drawn to the resolution to which the hon. Member refers. The local authority have previously notified their intention of preparing a housing scheme, and my right hon. Friend is asking the District Housing Commissioner to make inquiries into the matter.

    HOUSING AND TOWN PLANNING BILL.
    Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, for the convenience of Members interested in the Housing and Town Planning Bill, he will issue a White Paper containing a reprint of the Acts referred to in the Clauses of the Bill, namely, The Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, The Housing and Town Planning Act, 1909, and The Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, 1899, together with such Clauses of The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, The Public Health Act, 1875, The Public Health (London) Act, 1891, The Local Government Act, 1894, and The Public Works Loans Act, 1875, as are referred to in the Clauses of the new Bill; and a statement of the Government proposals regarding the financial assistance to be given to local authorities and public utility societies under Clauses 6 and 16 of the new Bill?
    Major ASTOR: I will gladly consider in what form effect can best be given to the suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the difficulty both for Members of Parliament and for local authorities is that they do not know where they are in the Bill as drafted?
    Major ASTOR: I hope the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend will assist them in ascertaining.

    POOR LAW OFFICERS.
    Mr. BRIANTasked the President of the Local Government Board if, considering the unrest existing among the officers of Poor Law unions, he will appoint a Committee to investigate the hours, rates of pay, etc., with a view to allaying the discontent and also to producing some greater uniformity in the conditions of service?
    Major ASTOR: My right hon. Friend does not at present think there would be any advantage in appointing a Committee such as the hon. Member suggests. The questions to which he refers are primarily matters for negotiation between guardians and their officers. I understand that the establishment of a conciliation council for the Poor Law service is now under consideration.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. WATERSONasked the President of the Local Government Board if he has received a petition from the residents of Harlestone, Northants, relative to the position of Mr. Joseph Dunkley; if he is prepared to do anything in the matter; and, if so, upon what basis?
    Major ASTOR: The petition referred to was received by the Local Government Board yesterday. The views of the petitioners will be carefully considered before a decision is given on the appeal of the Pension Officer against the award of an old age pension to Mr. Dunkley.
    Mr. WATERSON: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give me an idea when that decision will be arrived at, in view of the hardships involved?
    Major ASTOR: No time will be lost, as I say in my reply. The petition was only received yesterday.

    VENEREAL DISEASE.
    Mr. WATERSONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether standardised records are being kept of the results of the Government-aided treatment of venereal diseases by means of salvarsan substitutes; and whether it is proposed to publish the records?
    Major ASTOR: Records of cases of venereal disease dealt with at authorised centres or climes are kept, but it is as yet too early to say which, if any, of these records will be ultimately published.

    MINISTRY OF HEALTH BILL.
    Mr. BETTERTONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the Ministry of Health Bill, as amended in Committee, enables the powers and duties of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) to be transferred to the proposed Ministry of Health without further statutory authority?
    Major ASTOR: The Bill as amended in Committee enables any powers and duties-of Government Departments in England and Wales (apart from certain powers and duties elsewhere specified in the Bill as suitable for transfer) to be transferred to the Minister by Order in Council if they relate to matters affecting or incidental to the health of the people. No such Order will take effect until it has been adopted, with or without modifications, by Resolution of both Houses; and in any case the powers and duties of the Central Control Board would not appear to be appropriate for transfer under these provisions.

    STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
    Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Captain Albert Smith to act as Chairman of Standing Committee D (in respect of the Public Health (Medical Treatment of Children) (Ireland) Bill and the Local Government (Ireland) Bill), and Sir Samuel Roberts to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the War Charities (Scotland) Bill [Lords]).
    Report to lie upon the Table.

    PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP A).
    Sir HARRY SAMUEL reported from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills; That, owing to the withdrawal of opposition to certain Private Bills, the Committee had adjourned till Wednesday next, at half-past Eleven of the Clock.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

    STANDING ORDEES.
    Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:

    1. "That, in the case of the Rotherham Corporation, Petition for leave to deposit a Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to deposit their Petition for a Bill."

    2. "That, in the case of the City and South London Railway, Petition for leave to deposit a Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to deposit their Petition for a Bill."

    Resolutions agreed to.

    BILLS PRESENTED.
    PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (SOLDIERS) BILL,—"to repeal the Parliamentary Elections (Soldiers) Act, 1847," presented by Mr. CHURCHILL; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 40.]
    ACQUISITION OF LAND (ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION) BILL,—"to amend the Law as to the assessment of Compensation in respect of Land acquired compulsorily for public purposes and the costs in proceedings thereon," presented by Mr. FISHER; supported by Dr. Addison and Sir Arthur Boscawen; to be read a second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 41.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

    EASTER RECESS.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: May I ask the Leader of the House how he proposes to arrange the business for to-morrow?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War wishes to be in a position to have a Division, if it be thought desirable, without it being regarded as a Government Division. For that reason, immediately the Vote is put, someone on this bench will move the Adjournment, and that will enable the Division to be taken without it being regarded as an attack on the Government.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: Are we to understand that the Board of Trade Vote will follow?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes.
    Major O'NEILL: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us, approximately, the time when the House will rise for the Easter Recess, and how long it will be, so that hon. Members may be able to make their arrangements as quickly as possible?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I know the House would like to have that knowledge as soon as possible. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put the question to-morrow, I will try to answer it.

  NOTICES OF MOTION.
    DEMOBILISATION.
    To call attention, upon this day two weeks, to demobilisation on compassionate grounds, and to move a Resolution.—[Colonel Burn.]
    REDRESS OF ARMY GRIEVANCES.
    To call attention, upon this day two weeks, to the need for improved machinery for the redress of grievances in the Army, and to move a Resolution.—[Major Hurst.]
    PENSIONS, GRATUITIES, AND ALLOWANCES.
    To call attention, upon this day two weeks, to the present scale of pensions, gratuities, and allowances for men who are or who have been in His Majesty's Forces and their dependants, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. C. Edwards.]
NAVAL, MILITARY, AND AIR FORCE SERVICE BILL.
As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Power to Prolong Period of Naval, Military, or Air Force Service.)
(1) If the competent authority is of opinion that, as respects any men to whom this Section applies or any class of such men, they cannot consistently with the public interest be released from actual service at the time when in pursuance of the terms of their service they would be entitled to be discharged, any such man may be retained and his service may be prolonged for such further period, not extending beyond the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty, as the competent authority may order, but at the expiration of that period, or at any earlier date at which the competent authority considers that he can be released, he shall be discharged with all convenient speed, but in no case later than three months after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty
(2) The men to whom this Section applies are men (not being soldiers of the Regular Forces serving on a pre-war attestation) who at the termination of the present War are in actual service in the Naval, Military, or Air Forces of His Majesty, and whose term of actual service expires at the termination of the present War or before the said thirtieth day of April.
Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. A. Williams—
Mr. FRANCE: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I handed in an Amendment to limit the extension of this Bill to three months after the ratification of peace. I hoped that that would have been on the Order Paper this morning. I want to ask you if there is any chance of that Amendment being taken, and, if not, whether I shall be in order in going into the matter on the Amendment which you have just called?
Mr. SPEAKER: I am sorry the notice of the hon. Member does not appear upon the Paper. I saw it yesterday, but I am afraid that I do not know what became of it; I had so many other papers to deal with. I did hand some of these papers to the Clerks at the Table, but it would appear that the Amendment of the hon. Member has disappeared from amongst the others. If, however, on the Amendment that the "thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty," be omitted the House decides that these words shall stand part of the Bill, it will not be open for the hon. Member to move his Amendment, but he can give reasons why they should not stand part.
Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words
"thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred twenty,"
and to insert thereof the words
"thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and nineteen."
By this measure we are asked to continue some measure of compulsory service in peace time. That, according to all the traditions and principles of our country, is a very great sacrifice. It may be said that this country has always been against compulsion for military service and most strongly of all against compulsion for military service in foreign countries. However, the Government come and tell us that some extension of compulsory service is necessary. For my own part, on the Second Reading of this Bill I voted with the Government on that matter. I am quite aware that I did very differently from most of my hon. Friends on that matter, and that it was not a popular thing to do, so far as certain parts of the country are concerned. At the same time I do not regret it, because I was convinced, and I am convinced, that some measure of extension of compulsory military service in all the circumstances, of the present time is necessary in the interests of the country. Therefore, I would, if necessary, give that vote again when we are told, and I believe it to be true, that the alternative to some measure of extension was that at the date of the ratification of peace this country would have no Army, or such a very small one as would scarcely count, and would not meet our necessities.
On the other hand, it was suggested that the Army could be got together by voluntary means. I think it would be quite clear that if the ratification of peace takes place within a reasonable time, something as quickly as we hope, it is not possible to get together by voluntary means between now and the date of ratification a voluntary Army sufficient for the needs and the safety of the country. If that is so, then it follows we must meanwhile have some degree of compulsion, because, after all, the safety of the country, and of those who have been our Allies in this War, must be the first consideration. We have, therefore, to make some sacrifice of our feelings in this matter. The sacrifice is, I admit, a great one in itself, but I submit it is a very small one compared with the sacrifices which we have made in this War, and, after all, it is
450
a sacrifice made in the same cause, namely, to save the liberties of the world from military aggression.
On the other hand, I feel very strongly that though we must make some sacrifice we must not extend that sacrifice a single day further than is necessary. We are the guardians of the civil liberties of our people, and we should be false to our trust if we extended the compulsory military service one day further than is necessary for the safety of the country. The object of my Amendment is to ask the House to say that it is not necessary at present to give the Government compulsory powers beyond the end of this year—that is, the 31st of December, 1919. I expressly emphasise the words "at present," because, if it is found according to the circumstances that may develop hereafter that it is necessary to extend compulsory service, it is always competent for the Government to come and ask for an extension of the time. What we have to consider now is the period of time that will make us perfectly safe for the present. I think it is incumbent upon the Government, not only as a matter of principle, but in their own interests and the interests of all who love orderly government in this country, to give to the country full proof that they are determined to end compulsion as soon as possible and to raise the Army necessary by voluntary means as soon as possible.
It is quite certain that a large proportion of our people do not at present believe that the Government are earnestly and honestly determined upon that course. I do not say that I myself doubt their good faith in the matter, but I do feel very strongly that they have not up to the present time taken the steps they ought to have taken in order to achieve the great end of a voluntary Army sufficient for our needs. It may be said that the past is past and mistakes have been made, and that we have still to look to the future and see that the country is safe. My Amendment, if accepted, would leave nine months to get the voluntary Army together, and this might be achieved in nine months by offering proper terms to the men we desire to see enlisted. We have been told that even at the present time the Government are getting troops at the rate of 1,000 per day. We were told by the Minister of War that already he has between 100,000 and 130,000 Regular troops of the old standing Army. He told us on Monday that the new recruits which

451
had been enlisted on a purely voluntary basis for two, three or five years came at that time to something over 70,000 men. Those two together give us between 170,000 and 200,000 men, and we are adding to them at the rate of 1,000 per day. Even if compulsion came to an end at this moment we should have that Army, and every day we are told adds more than 1,000 men to it.
4.0 P.M.
I submit if we make ourselves safe for nine months or more ahead that is enough for the present, and we ought to ask the Government before the expiration of that time to come again to Parliament if it be found necessary to ask for further powers. The Minister for War told us the other day that one of his difficulties was that the men who are re-enlisting now require a holiday of two or three months, or one month before they take up military work again. I submit that the period of nine months gives an ample margin for those men to have a holiday and still to get the troops needed. The Minister for War said he could not send troops through the Red Sea in the hot weather in order to replace the men who would be liberated in India. I recognise that to the full, and that is why I have chosen the 31st December in my Amendment. That leaves the months of November and December in which the necessary troops can be sent to India through the Red Sea. Everybody knows in November and December it is perfectly possible to send white troops with safety through the Red Sea. Therefore I say again that I think from every point of view, if we extend the powers of compulsion to the end of this year, we shall be giving the Government all that is practically necessary and all that the safety of the country demands. In peace time, and even when we dealt with an Army raised on the old voluntary system, it was never the custom of this House to give the Government power for more than twelve months. That was in pre-war times, and surely, if we are fixing a period for compulsion, we ought to be more careful than we have been in fixing the period of an Army raised by purely voluntary means, so far as we can do it with safety to the country, as I believe we can. But if, after all, the Government find that when this year is coming near to an end they are unable to get the necessary troops they can come to this House, and this House will judge them, and will, I think,
452
judge them strictly, and will ask what steps they have taken, and if they have really been unable, or if it is that they have not exerted themselves sufficiently for that end. Whatever they may judge that the Government have done or not done, I am sure that the House will not leave the country without the necessary troops; but if they judge that the Government have not done what they ought to have done, then, I think, they will hold the Government very seriously to account. On that point I would like to quote the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for War, and I feel that I have a right to point to the fact that he does not do me the honour or show the House the consideration to attend while this very important matter is being considered. I think it is not a matter that the House is likely to forget. The right hon. Gentleman, speaking on Thursday on another matter, said it was not necessary to use any camouflage or to put before the House facts which would not be used in the intimacy of the Cabinet by the War Office. He said, "Let us not be afraid of the House of Commons or the country, but bluntly or plainly put the facts before them and trust to their good consideration of our difficulties. That is what I say with regard to coming again for powers if it is necessary." "I do not," he went on, "believe it will be necessary. I believe that in six or seven months' time you will find that the increase in the volunteers has been so good, and the decrease in our liabilities so satisfactory, that we shall be able to get through without it"—get through, he meant, without camouflage. I wish to get through without an extension of this compulsion which is so odious to the people of this country. The Government have before them still a double task. For four years we have waged war to maintain the liberties of the world, and now we have the task of safely garnering in the results of that War. I do ask the Government not to let their zeal in that work of garnering in the results make them forget the other side of the great work we have to do. We have also to preserve the domestic liberties of our people. After all, it was the domestic liberties of our people for which, more than anything, we made this great War and submitted to all the sacrifices that it entailed.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.
In the first place, I welcome it because it enables the Government to make clear

453
to the House what their actual intentions are. If the Bill goes on to the 30th of April next year, that means that they are enabled next Session further to extend this compulsory service. If, on the other hand, the Bill terminates on the date suggested by my hon. Friend, it means that the Government would not be able next Session to extend it, but would have this year to deal with it in a temporary measure. I am all for making it quite clear that this is not the forerunner of a series of annual Conscription Bills. We have the Army Act which comes on regularly every year, and which has become a part of the ordinary routine of Parliamentary life, and we do not want this Conscription measure to fall into, the same category. We do not want to have Conscription passed through this House at the tail-end of every Session under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. I welcome the Amendment also because, if it is passed, it will be passed as a definite protest against continued Imperialistic wars and expeditions abroad. If it is passed it will be impossible for the Government to undertake a large policy of war in the East; it will be impossible to commit the country, not only to fighting a revolution, but to conscripting Englishmen to fight that revolution. For these two reasons it is very urgent that we should register in a Division our determination that Conscription shall not remain a hardy annual, and that we shall not have the whole country committed to wild schemes of Imperialistic expansion or aggression against the Governments of Russia or Hungary, or whatever other country they choose. We did not enter this War to protect France or Italy from the revolutions in the Far East. What we did enter the War to destroy was Prussian Junkerism. That is done, and if we pass this Bill as it stands at present we enable the Government to have a free hand to carry on this War interminably against various countries in the East.
One other thing makes me anxious to pass this Amendment. To be efficient in war now is not so much a matter of men as of machines. It is infinitely more important to have your armoured cars, your aeroplanes, your tanks, and all the various mechanism of warfare perfect, and far less important than it was before this epoch-making struggle to have any regular cadres of divisions, brigades, and battalions of Infantry. The whole character of warfare has changed. It has become a
454
question, not of getting a number of men but of getting a number of machines. With this Bill, as amended, you would have the opportunity of getting all the machines you want for war, but you would not have the opportunity of getting all the men required to fill up these vast Infantry cadres that the War Office think that they require. I put it to the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Captain Guest) as something which really he ought to urge on the War Office. We do not require an Army of the old type which would provide a large amount of opportunities for the employment of officers and large staffs. What we do want is a technical staff capable not only of working the tanks, the aeroplanes, the motor cars, and the motor transports, but capable of producing these if need be. I submit that if this Amendment is carried the War Office would still be able to make all the preparations for the mechanism of war and that it will be a distinct hint to them that it is not so essential to lay emphasis on the human point or on the Infantry and Cavalry branch of the Army. I beg to second the Amendment.
Mr. FRANCE: I am sure the solitary occupant of the Treasury Bench (Captain Guest) will not regard it as any reflection on his courtesy or ability if I join the protest made from the opposite bench at the absence of the War Secretary upon an occasion of this kind. This is in very truth a matter of first-class importance to the life—
Captain GUEST (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I think, Sir, I am quite capable of taking a note of what the hon. Member has said.
Mr. FRANCE: My reference to my hon. Friend's courtesy and ability certainly would include the not very strenuous task of noting the observations that are made. It is a far bigger question than that I am referring to. I was saying, in the first place, that this is a measure of first-class importance to the lives, and in some cases to the whole future, of the men who are bring detained in the Army. It is also a question of respect to the House of Commons. The House of Commons of late, it is said, has not advanced in public estimation. One of the reasons, perhaps, is that it seems to be the fashion to hold more meetings upstairs, attended by more Members than meet here; but if Ministers themselves set the fashion of absenting themselves when measures of this kind are under discussion, I am afraid the House

455
of Commons will not further advance in the public estimation. I support this Amendment to limit the time of service after the expiration of the Military Service Act, although I frankly confess I would have preferred the Amendment which I put on the Paper on the Committee stage, but which unfortunately was never reached owing to the fact that the previous Amendment ruled it out of order.
The point I lay most stress on, and it is included in both Amendments, is the limitation of time and the demonstration of purpose and intent which is indicated by that limitation. I do not share the view that it is right and proper to call this Bill in the ordinary sense of the word "Conscription" or an extension of the Military Service Act. It does not touch the rank and file of humanity of between certain ages. It does not renew the Military Service Act or call up any men who are demobilised, but it does extend the service of a limited few, and in that respect, while not calling it names, I do call attention to the fact that it is a hardship to a selected few. I am perfectly certain that the country, and the House as a reflection of the country, ought to do all it can to limit that hardship, provided that the public safety and the national security is not endangered. Far from joining in the general agitation against the Bill I firmly believe that a Bill of this kind with proper limitations may be the only way of securing the abolition of Conscription in the future in this country and other countries. I firmly believe that some measure to ensure that the Army does not become a chaotic crowd of persons with the right of demobilisation on the ratification of peace—I feel that this Bill may be absolutely necessary to prevent that state of affairs, but I do strongly urge that whilst securing those things the Government should not go beyond the limits of necessity, and unduly try the patience of those not only in the Army but their friends and relatives in the country, who have shown great patience and who are still determined to secure the object for which we went to war, and who are being tried very hardly by this demonstration of a continuance of time which in their opinion, and in the opinion of many others in this House, is far too long to secure the very things which the Government say they want to get.
May I say that, so far from thinking that this Bill in its limited form is un-
456
necessary, I firmly believe, if we had never had Conscription or compulsory military service, and if we had enlisted our Armies upon an entirely voluntary basis, that we should still to-day have to have a Bill something of this character to extend the service a short time after the ratification of peace so as not to throw away the fruits of victory. Therefore, to raise an agitation about it now is not to deal with the necessities of the matter. That, however, does not weaken my argument that this Bill, in its present form, does do two serious things. In the first place, it does raise, and it has raised, certain suspicions in the minds of people that the intentions of the Government in the introduction of this Bill are not absolutely-pure from the point of view of the immediate position, but that they have some ulterior motive with regard to Conscription in the future. Personally, I do not think that, but I would like the Government to make it quite clear to the House and the country that they are innocent in this respect. Another thing that the Bill undoubtedly does is to extend and exaggerate and increase the grievances which many men have with regard to the extension of their service. To continue the service of men until 30th April next year—some men who are in single businesses, some men who are still apprentices and at the very outset of their career—and to tell them that they have practically little hope of being released until 30th April, and to tell their friends the same, seems to me, from the point of view of the Government, and from the point of view of the contentment of the Army, unnecessary and unwise.
I am very glad to see the War Secretary here, because I was just going to refer to him, and I had great hesitation in doing so in his absence. The speeches of the right hon. Gentleman, not only his speech with regard to this Bill, but the speech which he made on the introduction of the Army Estimates, have also caused some suspicion in the minds of Members of this House, and, I think, of the people in the country. It was a most enjoyable speech to listen to, it was full of rich and resounding phrases; but one could not get away from the thought that the imagination of the right hon. Gentleman is easily fired by adventure, and occasionally bursts into flame when the breezes of military ardour are about. His picture of the future, and his picture of the extension of service even with regard to the next year, did certainly increase certain fears and

457
suspicions in the minds of some people, and I would very strongly urge the right hon. Gentleman seriously to consider whether it is worth while persisting in this extension to 30th April, and whether he could not secure all that he wants by another means, namely, by limiting the time either to the date suggested in the Amendment or to a period of three or four months, or whatever period is reasonable, after the ratification of peace. I like that idea myself, because it connects the end of service with the ratification of peace. But whichever method he takes, so long as he limits the time, I am certain that he will be acting wisely in the interests of this country and the Army itself. The public are not satisfied at the present time with regard to the process of demobilisation, and I do not think that they are satisfied with his speech the other day with reference to the needs for keeping men in the Army. Roughly speaking, he said that it was impossible to bring men from Russia because it was too cold, and that it was impossible to bring men from India because it was too hot. But by 30th December it will be warm enough in Russia and cold enough in India.
The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill)indicated dissent.
Mr. FRANCE: Are not my geographical and meteorological facts correct?
Mr. CHURCHILL: However correct, they only cover part of the problem with which we have to deal.
Mr. FRANCE: If the right hon. Gentleman will realise that there is in the minds of people in the country very grave and serious suspicion regarding anything that they think is an undue prolongation of service, and if he will look into it from the point of view of what is good for the country and the Army, I think he will see that the proper thing for him to do is to accept some such suggestion as this. It would do a great deal to remove suspicions and grievances, and if at the expiration of three or four months he could come down to the House and show clearly that to secure the fruits of victory which we all desire to get, and the securities and guarantees which we all are determined to have within reasonable limits already laid down—not some new securities and guarantees extending over some twenty-five years—we require an extension of time, then he could
458
with sound and reasonable argument suggest to the House that the time should be extended, and I am perfectly certain that the House and country would support him in that contention. He could then make out a sound case and carry the judgment of the House with him. But to suggest the date now is not only to fill certain minds with great suspicion, but to create a suggestion of grievance which is not a good thing for the country or the Army itself. I therefore sincerely, and with all the force that I can command, without any feeling of antagonism to the Bill as a whole, but with a desire to support it in order to enable the country to secure the end for which we have fought, ask him to accept this Amendment, which I believe would go a long way to meet the feeling of the House.
Sir E. CARSON: I do not think that any of the speakers who have already addressed the House have in the least exaggerated the importance of this Bill, and I am perfectly certain that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, least of all, would think that anyone was exaggerating its importance. I am perfectly sure that when he is absent it is only because of the many multifarious duties which one knows that Ministers have to carry out at the present time. I agree with the hon. Member who said that this is probably not a popular Bill, but I think that very fact ought to make us very cautious what we say about it. It is really on unpopular Bills, but what we believe to be necessary Bills, that we require a little courage. It is very easy when you get an unpopular Bill, for the purpose of trying to make yourself popular in the country or in the constituencies, to go with the crowd, but it is not always a wise thing for the country. In reality, in a case of this kind, where it is a question as to whether we are in a position to reap the fullest fruits of the victory that we have obtained, we ought, I think, to trust the Government, and, above all, the Minister who is accountable for getting us the whole of the fruits of our victory. We certainly ought either to trust him, or not have him in office at all. He has all the strings in his hand, he has all the knowledge and all the advice of his experts, and for us to disagree with him and to set ourselves up to be judges how far it is necessary to keep forces sufficiently complete for all the exigencies that may

459
arise, would be a very serious thing. Unpopularity nobody wants to incur. I have never heard it charged against the light hon. Gentleman that he tried to incur unpopularity. I have sometimes heard it said that he played too much to the gallery. If that is so, and if there is any foundation for it—I am not expressing my own view upon it—I do not imagine that now at this moment he wants to incur any unnecessary unpopularity. Therefore, I am perfectly certain that it is only with the deepest sense of responsibility that the Secretary of State for War is resisting an Amendment of this kind. He knows very well—and let us recognise it—that if he gives way now, and if hereafter disaster occurs, the very people who are crying out that this Bill is unpopular will say that it was his duty to have stood against the unpopularity, that he was the man who knew, and that he was the man who was responsible. I believe that some day there will be revelations in this House of the amount of blood and treasure that was lost Because before the War men gave way in the face of unpopularity. I could tell a few myself, and I suppose some day we shall be in a position to do so. The country has had a lesson not to give way to the cries of the moment, which very often are raised in ignorance, because everybody cannot know the whole of the facts. My hon. Friend who preceded me said that there ought to be a fixed date. There is a fixed date.
Mr. FRANCE: An early date.
Sir E. CARSON: A few months earlier. Really, if we are to choose which of these responsible authorities we are to follow as to the exact date, I certainly will follow the Secretary of State for War. May I point out that so far from the Bill indicating, as somebody suggested, that there is an ulterior motive to carry on Conscription or compulsory service beyond what is necessary, there is, if I have read it rightly, a Section in this Bill providing that, if possible, it shall be an earlier date than the 30th April? [HON. MEMBEBS: "No!"] Yes; certainly—
"his service may be prolonged for such further period, not extending beyond the 30th April, 1920, as the competent authority may order; but at the expiration of that period, or at any earlier date at which the competent authority considers that he can be released, he shall be discharged with all convenient speed."
If we cannot leave it to the competent authority, I do not know whom we are to
460
trust. I say that is an indication on the face of the Bill that no man will be detained one day longer than the exigencies of the Service require, and I think for any man under existing circumstances to oppose such an enactment as that would be to take upon himself a very serious responsibility.
Mr. HOGGE: The right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down has referred to the fact that the question of an earlier date is contemplated in this Bill. I would have been very glad if he had read on to the end of that paragraph, because he would then have found inserted in the paragraph the one and only Amendment that has been accepted on this Bill since the day that it was introduced into this House. I do not remember in my short seven years in this House any Bill in which only one Amendment has been accepted up to this point. The one Amendment that has been accepted here is one in which my right hon. Friend bound himself down to three months after the appointed time under this Bill.
Sir E. CARSON: That is the latest time; but it can be done much earlier.
Mr. HOGGE: Yes, but it will not be.
Sir E. CARSON: Why not?
Mr. HOGGE: The reason is obvious. The Military Service Bill extends the period to the ratification of peace, and certainly my right hon. Friend will never for one moment agree to abrogate this Act until peace is ratified. That leaves only a few months till the end of this year. I venture to suggest my right hon. Friend is only making a debating point when he hints to this House that there is the faintest possibility of the final demobilisation of these men when peace is ratified, and if that is so, it is perfectly obvious that the men who are conscripted under this Bill cannot get away even although we want them to until the 30th of April. The dispute in fact is not as to the date. Those who oppose this Bill really object to the way in which men are being conscripted. The argument in favour of the Amendment is surely the old argument to which my right hon. Friend has never addressed his mind, and to which I suggest we are entitled to an answer to-day. It is that the right hon. Gentleman has in his hands now a much larger power than he is taking by this Bill; he has now in operation the Military Service Acts, which can be

461
renewed at any moment that he cares to come down to this House and make out a case for it. He has that power in the palm of his hand; he has the power of distributing Conscription equally and fairly. But under this Bill he does not thus distribute it. So long as you have Conscription you must have it distributed fairly. This Amendment puts a date which gives the Government ample time to do this, and I suggest they can do it better in the way we suggest. I hope, therefore, my right hon. Friend will accept this Amendment.
Mr. STANTON: I rise because I want to support the Government in regard to this Bill. On the general principle I am opposed to Conscription, but I realise that we could not have successfully prosecuted this War and have secured victory unless we had had Conscription. I remember the day when in this very House certain hon. Members opposite suggested that we dare not go to the country upon Conscription. I remember, too, there was a general cheer when that statement was made. I remember further what the decision was, and we all know what the country thought of it and what the result has been. It is because we know how successful we were then that I now support the Government. I made promises and gave pledges at the election of which I am not ashamed. I made them believing the information given to me on the floor of this House, that if we continued Conscription it was still the general feeling of the Prime Minister and of the Government that it should be ended as soon as possible. I would now remind hon. Members that although we have secured victory, until we have succeeded in establishing peace and have knocked out Germany once and for all, so that she will be unable to rise again, we shall not be in a position to reap the full fruits of our victory. The men who are now anxious to prevent any further use of Conscription are those who in my opinion did not want to win the War. They were all for the pacifist side. They were the people who before the War professed to believe that we need not worry and that the day had come when we could lay down our arms. But we discovered only too late that if this country had been more prepared, if we had only realised our immense responsibilities to the greatest Empire the world has ever known, our boys would to-day have been at our fireside instead of lying buried on the Continent, and the thousands
462
of millions of pounds which have been spent would have been saved, for Germany would never have gone to war had she realised that England was equal to her responsibilities.
But for years we deluded ourselves, in spite of warnings from people who really knew what was likely to happen. We blinded ourselves, we did the ostrich business, we buried our heads in the sand, we believed that it was time to preach the international brotherhood of man. The Government is now asking power to ensure the price of victory, and to enable us to substantiate the terms of peace. To do that we must be as powerful as we were some months ago when the guns were booming. It is necessary we should be in the same position to-day to enforce justice and fair play. Already on the Continent they are closely watching what is going on in this country. They are looking to the threatened industrial strike here, and the Bolsheviks all over the Continent are anxiously waiting to see us lessen our power to grip the situation. Bolshevism is becoming more rampant. We have seen signs of it even in this country, and I, therefore, rise to support the Government. I hold that those whom we have placed in positions of great responsibility are the people who know best what is required. I believe in the principle, every man to his job. Our War Minister, with the able advice which he has at his command, must know what is necessary. We know that his powers are not limited to any great extent. We know he has proved himself capable of great things; we know he has a desire to serve his country, and it is not for us to hold him back. I do ask hon. Members who are supporting this Amendment, if they are in dead earnest, if they want to see an end to militarism, if they want an end put to Conscription? If they do want these things, let them play the game now. You do not stand any better chance with your man in the ring and with a hooligan outside if you only half thrash your opponent, because he will come up again. You want to make a clean and clear job of it; you want to put an end to the hooligan. Let us remember that our boys have died out there; let us remember how our people have suffered; let us ask ourselves—are we going to neglect our opportunities now? Let us play the game; let us be British. It is not for Labour to betray us into the hands of those who want to play the game of Bolshevism, which is up against all

463
responsible government, and which does not care a hang about the future fate of this country.
We have to look not to the mere winning of the War, but to the future success, prospects, and prosperity of this great Empire. Do not let us blindly sacrifice all that has been done by our boys—and it is not a little. Some of us feel we shall never be able to get out of this Empire all that it has cost us in the loved and dear ones who have gone, but we do not complain of that. We may even feel some glory in knowing that we have in some small way, by giving up our dearest, helped our country. There fire people who are supposed to be British who openly back up a policy of backsliding and treachery, and who would sacrifice the money we have spent and the blood we have shed in order to make less than half a job of our victory and to encourage the Bolsheviks on the Continent and in this country. I am up against this sort of thing. I have watched events. I have seen that the people who declare that God is in heaven and that peace rules on earth are the people who point to Russia as the place for the labourer, and as offering an example which the Labour movement in this country should follow. It is a shocking thing. Therefore I want to back the Government in making a clean job of this thing now, as they are out to do. I hope no one will support the Amendment in the form in which it has been put forward, because we are out to win the War; we are out to win peace, and that can only be done by playing the game. We have paid the price, great sacrifices have been made, let it not be said that they have been made in vain, but let us give the Government the chance they want to complete their task.
Mr. CHURCHILL: This Amendment has been resisted in two speeches, the first delivered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast (Sir E. Carson) and the second by my hon. Friend who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Stanton). It has been commended to the House by the hon. Member for the Morley Division (Mr. France), for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), and for the Consett Division of Durham (Mr. A. Williams), all of whom spoke, not as enemies of the measure now under discussion, but as friends who wish to modify and mitigate its scope. I have no wish to appear insensible to the counsels of those who are
464
sincerely anxious to aid us and those who have faced any temporary unpopularity which may attach to giving a vote for this necessary measure. But I do beg these hon. Gentlemen to cast their minds back over the history of the past. This is not a new experience for me. If I appear not to respond as readily as some would like to appeals to weaken our precautions and reduce our military measures, it is because I have had a similar experience in this sphere. For three years before the War my experience was to try each year to the best of my ability to get the supplies necessary to equip the Navy for a sudden blow. Always I have had to face criticism, enlightened, but still misguided criticism of the kind with which we have been confronted during the passage of this Bill. The struggles and convulsions in the party on which the then Government relied solely for its majority were very serious indeed, and many of those with whom I had the privilege to act were genuinely distressed and sincerely and earnestly concerned at the demands we found it necessary to make, and that condition continued till within a few weeks of the actual discovery of the peril. Yet what has happened during all this War is that people have gone about the country asking why we were not better prepared, and one hon. Member some time ago in another Debate addressed a passionate indictment to the House on the lack of preparation in the Navy. He pointed to this and that which had not, but ought to have been foreseen, and for which no preparation had been made. My right hon. Friends on the bench near me know what a continuous unbroken struggle we had to secure the necessary supplies, and that even then we fell short of many things that would have put us in a better state of readiness.
People say that experience bought is better than experience taught. Have we not bought our experience? Yet when we come with that experience, and the memory of these terrific events still in our minds, with the consequences of this conflict still before us, and actuating the whole movement of events in Europe, when we come with all that experience, we hear exactly the same kind of argument, exactly the same kind of appeals, we see exactly the same point of view honestly and earnestly put forward as used to Be put forward in the days before the War by people who little knew the tremendous events towards which they were rushing.

465
I assure the House that the state of the world at the present time will not permit us to dispense with a strong military force. It may well be that in a year's time the scene will be completely altered. I earnesty trust that that will be the case. Certainly, we are doing everything in our power to procure an abatement of the evil and to secure a general softening and easing of the European position. That is the sole object which is animating the British representatives at the Peace Conference. But when we look at the state of the world and we see what are to-day the conditions, not only in Europe but in Turkey and in Turkey in Asia, we should be absolutely mad to deprive ourselves of a solid, strong, compact, well disciplined military force. We should absolutely stultify ourselves in respect to everything we have learned and have said during the War if, for the sake of gratifying this or that wave of opinion, we divested ourselves of the security honestly considered necessary by the experts on whom we rely and by the Government which is responsible for judging and sifting the recommendations which the experts make. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) and others may say, "What is in the date? Suppose we take three months off, what difference does that make?" Where is the end of that argument? Why not take six months off?
Mr. A. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said. I explained exactly why I took the 31st December.
Mr. CHURCHILL: It would be hardly possible to take a more inconvenient date, as I explained to the Grand Committee. But the question really does not turn on three months one way or the other. It turns on a broad issue of principle, whether we are definitely at this juncture in our fortunes to say we are going to have a strong Army during the currency of this year until we see this business cleaned up properly. That is the pure issue—that is, to use the old Parliamentary expression, the carrying into effect of the national will. Of course you might argue, as the hon. Member did, whether it should be the 31st March or the 30th April, or some other date. I fixed this actual date, after hearing all the arguments, because it was the ordinary current date of the Army (Annual) Bill, and it is appropriate that Army matters should be considered in the first two or three months in the Session.
466
That does not commit me to keeping these men during the whole of that period. On the contrary, I hope to be continually releasing men and, as events gradually consolidate, to reduce the military forces we find it necessary to keep.
One important consideration should be borne in mind. We are very anxious to have steadiness in the Army, and to have the feeling of unrest removed. That feeling is removed when men know that they have to make up their minds for a definite period of service, that it is not merely a question of waiting about from week to week until the boats can take them home. Perhaps it is hard to speak like this, but when the men definitely know that for the best part of a year their services will be required, after the first disappointment is over they make up their minds, they settle down, they make their arrangements and plans accordingly, and then you get steady discipline, good comradeship, and good organisation. This is not a matter of surmise or assertion, it is an ascertained fact, because since we took this action, which was strong action—[An HON. MEMBER: "A wrong action!"]—that is surely begging the question—we disappointed large numbers of men—since we took this action the reports I have received from every commander in the Army indicate a great and continuous improvement in the discipline, temper, and contentment of the men. From every quarter I have received those reports. It is my business to keep myself acquainted with them, and I read them every fortnight when they are presented. There is no doubt whatever that the whole moral of the Army has been greatly improved by having a scheme which they can understand definitely, and fit themselves into and play their part in carrying it out. Nothing could be simpler than for us, if circumstances warrant it, to move in advance of the legislative powers we are taking. I can assure the House that there is nothing I should like better than to be able to make considerable relaxations, if they should become possible. But, once you have made a relaxation, it is almost impossible to go back. Once you have let go the men whom you have, once you have dispersed the military units so painfully and laboriously created, if circumstances afterwards take a tad turn, you find it a matter of immeasurable difficulty to re-create what you have be improvidently dispersed. No one can

467
tell what the future has in store for us. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh used a most extraordinary argument. He said, "Why do you not renew the Military Service Acts?
Mr. HOGGE: I did not say that.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I took down the words as the hon. Member uttered them, and I am in the recollection of the House. We are asking the House to make provision for an enormous modification of the Military Service Acts. We are asking the House to prolong for a very limited period, with power for earlier demobilisation, the services of, approximately, one-fourth of the men who at the Armistice were held to the profession of arms by the Military Service Acts. My hon. Friend who is opposing this measure, as he has opposed every other measure—I was going to say every other measure for compulsory service, but I think I might leave it at the more sweeping statement—asked "Why do you not renew the Military Service Acts?"
Mr. HOGGE: I did not say that.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I should like to know what he would have said if we had come down and taken provision to carry on the Military Service Acts for a further six or eight months beyond their present currency.
Mr. HOGGE: I did not say that.
Mr. CHURCHILL: The date is a matter which I venture to suggest to hon. Gentlemen really is not occupying the minds of any of their friends in the country who are concerned or distressed by the passing of this Bill. The idea that by altering the date from the 30th April to the 31st December you would remove a great mass of opposition; the idea that you would deprive those who are seeking to make capital out of this Bill of the fullest opportunity to make such capital; the idea that you would gain anything by making a change of that kind is purely illusory. Therefore, I trust that the House will adhere to the measure which they approved, having all the details before them, when it was presented for Second Reading and which has stood the examination it has received in Committee and has been continually supported on its important points by large majorities in the Committee. I trust they will adhere to the
468
measure as it stands, and as it has been recommended to us by the military authorities.
Lieut.-Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: I desire to support the Amendment, and would point out to the Government that there is a very serious misgiving in the minds of many of us because of the date which has been chosen for the termination of this Bill. The Army (Annual) Act terminates on the same day and we are genuinely afraid that that date was chosen because it would be more convenient to continue this Bill from year to year and so make it a measure of permanent Conscription. I support the Amendment because the 31st December is full long enough for the Government to have this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said that he gave in Committee weighty reasons why the 31st December could not possibly be agreed to, but he did not give us here the reasons he gave us in Committee. The reason he gave in Committee was that it would be Christmas time and that it would be quite Impossible to expect hon. Members of this House—who, by the way, get £400 a year—to come back from their Christmas holidays to consider such a measure. Really the Government are not treating the House with consideration in turning down all Amendments as they have done. They have used their majority in a ruthless manner. They gave us no concession in Committee except one solitary Amendment, which is of no value except that it secured a Report stage for this Bill. On one occasion the Government majority appeared to be deaf and dumb. They never said a word. They left it to three or four of us to do all the talking and then they voted us down. I am perfectly certain that when the poet wrote the lines—I know it is a dangerous thing to quote poetry in this House—he must have had the Government majority in his mind—
"The fountain, which in silent melody,
Feeds the dumb waters of eternity."
Mr. T. WILSON: There appears to be a fear in the minds of hon. Members that it is the intention of the Government to include this Bill in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. It would remove some opposition to the Bill if the right hon. Gentleman would make it clear that that is not the intention and would substitute for the 30th April the 31st March. This Amendment is not down in the name of the Labour party. We fully recognise

469
that it will be necessary to have an Army of Occupation. We are exceedingly sorry the Government have not been able to raise the Army by voluntary methods. We believe it might have been raised by voluntary methods. Personally, I do not see any great difference between the Bill expiring on the 31st December or on the 30th April, but the right hon. Gentleman would remove a bone of contention and some suspicion if he changed the date to the 31st March. That would take it out of the scope of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act.
5.0 P.M.
Mr. CHURCHILL: It might facilitate our discussion if I answered the hon. Gentleman's question. I gladly give the assurance, on behalf of the Government, that in no circumstances will this Bill be renewed as part of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act or as an ordinary question of renewal like the Army (Annual) Act. I have every hope that this is the last we shall see of it. If it were necessary to prolong in any sense compulsory service, obviously the entire business would have to be done over again from the very beginning.
Mr. DOYLE: I think this Debate is largely one of facts versus phrases. The facts, surely, at present are overwhelming and are known to all hon. Members. I feel that none of us can look to the next three, six, nine, or twelve months and see daylight through the facts surrounding us in this world. As against these facts we have the phrases Conscription, hardy annuals, and civil liberties. This is not a Conscription Bill in the ordinary sense of the word or in the sense in which any of us gave pledges during the election. It is a mitigation of the Conscription principle which has had to be brought into operation during the War. As regards it being the commencement of a series of hardy annuals, the proposition itself answers the statement. It would be impossible to continue year after year the enforced soldiering of this limited number of men. It might continue if it could be imagined to be possible to run it on for a year or two or three years, but it does not continue permanently, and it could not continue permanently the proposition of Conscription because the number of men involved in this Bill must in the ordinary course of events go out, and that itself answers the accusation that this is a matter involving
470
permanent Conscription. It is regrettable that the opposition to the Bill should be based not upon facts but upon suspicion in the minds of hon. Members that the Government has ulterior motives. Nothing in this Debate has happened to justify such a proposition as that against the Government or against those who are supporting it. Further, the Government, and hon. Members themselves, will be largely controlled in this question by the matter of expense, and there will be every encouragement for the Secretary of State to act upon his statement in the direction of reducing the Army and its equipment wherever possible so as to bring about that reduced expenditure which is so necessary for the good of the country. I resent very much the suggestion that anyone 'Supporting this Bill is in favour of continuing a permanent system of Conscription.
Colonel YATE: I wish to say a few words in support of what was said by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Churchill) as to 31st December being the most inconvenient date which could possibly be named. The hon. Member (Mr. Williams) said November and December would be amply sufficient to relieve the troops in India and other places. There are 70,000 troops to be brought back from India and another 70,000 to be sent there. Could that possibly be done in the two months of November and December? We require the whole of the cold weather to complete it. Therefore, this date of April is infinitely better and more suitable. What is proposed in the Amendment is absolutely impossible to carry out. We all regret that the Secretary of State has not been able to relieve more men who have been serving two or three years at the front than have been released. All who were present in Hyde Park the other day and saw those splendid battalions of eighteen-year-old boys realised how much more might have been done to relieve men who have been serving for several years. We saw those boys, well fed, happy, thoroughly well-trained boys who are made men for life by the training they have gone through—we saw them marching out of the park singing, "We are going to Germany," all as happy as possible. They are the men we want to relieve the men now at the front, who are tired and disgruntled. I am sorry the Secretary of State should have stopped the enlistment of boys of eighteen on 11th November last in the way he did. If he

471
had continued it—and I would ask him even now if be could not continue it—it would have been better for the manhood of the nation. In the Munitions Department more than a million men of military age have been sheltered all through the War. It would have been fair for the right hon. Gentleman to say, "You million of men who have been sheltered throughout the War, now you are no longer required, come out and do a little bit and let the others come home." If he had called them out they would have had four months' training by now and would have been ready to relieve the men at the front. We sent out men with ten weeks' training
during the War. If he had done that, the whole country would have said it was only fair, and I only regret that it was not done. We could have had nearly all the men released now and fresh men going out to gain fresh experience without any of the dissatisfaction that is now felt. However, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will call out the boys of eighteen and give training to as many of them as he possibly can.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
The House divided: Ayes, 282; Noes, 70.

Division No. 19.]

AYES.

[5.9 p.m.

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Colfox, Major W. P.

Hallas, E.

Ainsworth, Captain C.

Colvin, Brig.-Gen. R. B.

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Martin

Conway, Sir W. Martin

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

Ashley, Col. Wilfred W.

Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)

Hanson, Sir Charles

Astbury, Lt.-Com. F. W.

Cory, J. H. (Cardiff)

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

Bagley, Captain E. A.

Courthope, Major George Loyd

Henderson, Major V. L.

Baird, John Lawrence

Cozens-Hardy, Hon. W. H.

Hennessy, Major G.

Baldwin, Stanley

Craig, Capt. C. (Antrim)

Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.

Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

Croft, Brig.-Gen. Henry Page

Hood, Joseph

Banner, Sir J. S. Harmood-

Curzon, Commander Viscount

Hope, Harry (Stirling)

Barker, Major R.

Davidson, Major-General J. H.

Hope, John Deans (Berwick)

Barnett, Captain Richard W.

Davies, Sir D. S. (Denbigh)

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Barnston, Major Harry

Davies, T. (Cirencester)

Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)

Barrie, C. C.

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Horne, Sir Robert (Hillhead)

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Dean, Com. P. T.

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Denison-Pender, John C.

Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)

Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)

Dennis, J. W.

Hurd, P. A.

Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (G'nwich)

Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H.

Hurst, Major G. B.

Bennett, T. J.

Dixon, Captain H.

Inskip, T. W. H.

Betterton, H. B.

Dockrell, Sir M.

Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)

Bigland, Alfred

Donald, T.

Jameson, Major J. G.

Birchall, Major J. D.

Duggan, E. J.

Jephcott, A. R.

Bird, Alfred

Edwards, A. Clement (East Ham, S.)

Jesson, C.

Blades, Sir George R.

Edwards, J. H. (Glam., Neath)

Jodrell, N. P.

Blair, Major Reginald

Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)

Johnstone, J.

Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Isingtn., W.)

Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

Borwick, Major G. O.

Eyres-Monsell, Com.

Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

Falcon, Captain M.

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)

Bowyer, Capt. G. W. E.

Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

Jones, Wm. Kennedy (Hornsey)

Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

Farquharson, Major A. C.

Kerr-Smiley, Major P.

Brackenbury, Col. H. L.

Fell, Sir Arthur

Kidd, James

Bridgeman, William Clive

FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Knight, Capt. E. A.

Briggs, Harold

Forestier-Walker, L.

Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

Broad, Thomas Tucker

Foxcroft, Captain C.

Larmor, Sir J.

Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)

Fraser, Major Sir Keith

Law, A. J. (Rochdale)

Bruton, Sir J.

Gange, E. S.

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

Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.

Gardiner, J. (Perth)

Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)

Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.

Gardner, E. (Berks., Windsor)

Lindsay, William Arthur

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

Lloyd, George Butler

Burdon, Col. Rowland

Gilbert, James Daniel

Locker-Lampson G. (Wood Green)

Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John

Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)

Butcher, Sir J. G.

Glyn, Major R.

Lonsdale, James R.

Campbell, J. G. D.

Goff, Sir R. Park

Lorden, John William

Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

Grant, James Augustus

Lort-Williams, J.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Green, J. F. (Leicester)

Loseby, Captain C. E.

Cautley, Henry Strother

Greene, Lt.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)

Lowe, Sir F. W.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm., W.)

Greer, Harry

Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

Greig, Col. James William

Lyon, L.

Cheyne, Sir William Watson

Gretton, Col. John

M'Donald, Dr. B. F. P. (Wallasey)

Child, Brig.-Gen. Sir Hill

Griggs, Sir Peter

M'Donald, D. H. (Bothwell, Lanark)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Guest, Capt. Hon. F. E. (Dorset, E.)

Mackinder, Halford J.

Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

Guinness, Capt. Hon. R. (Southend)

M'Lean, Lt.-Col. C. W. W. (Brigg)

Clough, R.

Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W.E. (B. St. E.)

Macmaster, Donald

Coats, Sir Stuart

Hacking, Captain D. H.

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

Cockerill, Brig.-Gen. G. K.

Hailwood, A.

McNeill, Ronald (Canterbury)

Cohen, Major J. B. B.

Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich)

Macquisten, F. A.

Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)

Pownall, Lt.-Col. Assheton

Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Dmb.)

Marriott, John Arthur R.

Pratt, John William

Thomas-Stanford, Charles

Mason, Robert

Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.

Pulley, Charles Thornton

Tickler, Thomas George

Mitchell, William Lane-

Purchase, H. G.

Tryon, Major George Clement

Moles, Thomas

Raeburn, Sir William

Turton, Edmund Russborough

Molson, Major John Elsdale

Rankin, Capt. James S.

Walton, J. (York, Don Valley)

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

Raper, A. Baldwin

Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

Moore, Maj.-Gen. Sir Newton J.

Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

Morison, T. B. (Inverness)

Raw, Lt.-Col. Dr. N.

warren, Sir Alfred H.

Morris, Richard

Reid, D. D.

Watson, Captain John Bertrand

Morrison, H. (Salisbury)

Remer, J. B.

Weigall, Lt.-Col. W. E. G. A.

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Renwick, G.

Weston, Col. John W.

Mount, William Arthur

Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)

Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

Murchison, C. K.

Rodger, A. K.

White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

Murray, Lt.-Col. Hn. A. C. (Aberd'n.)

Rogers, Sir Hallewell

Whitla, Sir William

Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)

Roundell, Lt.-Col. R. F.

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Murray, John (Leeds, W.)

Rowlands, James

Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson

Nall, Major Joseph

Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)

Neal, Arthur

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)

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

Nelson, R. F. W. R.

Samuels, Rt. Hon. A.W. (Dublin Univ.)

Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)

Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud

Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)

Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

Nicholson, W. (Petersfleld)

Seddon, J. A.

Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Hold'ness)

Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Shaw, Capt. W. T. (Forfar)

Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, W.)

Morris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

Smithers, Alfred W.

Wilson, Col. M. (Richmond, Yorks.)

O'Neill, Capt. Hon. Robert W. H.

Sprot, Col. Sir Alexander

Wilson-Fox, Henry

Palmer, Major G. M.

Stanier, Capt. Sir Beville

Winterton, Major Earl

Palmer, Brig.-Gen. G. (Westbury)

Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)

Parker, James

Stanton, Charles Butt

Woods, Sir Robert

Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)

Steel, Major S. Strang

Yate, Col. Charles Edward

Pearce, Sir William

Stephenson, Col. H. K.

Yeo, Sir Alfred William

Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

Stevens, Marshall

Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)

Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)

Strauss, Edward Anthony

Younger, Sir George

Perring, William George

Sugden, Lieut. W. H.

Phllipps, Sir O. C. (Chester)

Sutherland, Sir William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

Pickering, Col. Emil w.

Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

Pinkham, Lieut.-Col. Charles

Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

Hartshorn, V.

Shaw, Tom (Preston)

Arnold, Sydney

Hayday, A.

Short, A. (Wednesbury)

Bell, James (Ormskirk)

Hayward, Major Evan

Sitch, C. H.

Benn, Capt. W. (Leith)

Hinds, John

Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)

Brace. Rt. Hon. William

Hogge, J. M.

Smith, W. (Wellingborougti)

Bramsdon, Sir T.

Holmes, J. S

Spencer, George A.

Breese, Major C. E.

Irving, Dan

Spoor, B. G

Briant, F.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Swan, J. E. C.

Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)

Jones, J. (Silvertown)

Sykes, Sir C. (Huddersfield)

Cairns, John

Lunn, William

Taylor, J. W. (Chester-le-Street)

Cape, Tom

Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)

Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)

Carter, W. (Mansfield)

M'Lean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Thorne, Col. W. (Plaistow)

Davies, Alfred (Ctitheroe)

Mallalieu, Frederick William

Tootill, Robert

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Onions, Alfred

Walsh, S. (Ince, Lancs.)

Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Waterson, A. E.

Devlin, Joseph

Rae, H. Norman

Wedgwood, Col. Josiah C.

Edwards. C. (Bedwellty)

Richards, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Wignall. James

Galbraith, Samuel

Richardson, R. (Houghton)

White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)

Glanville, Harold James

Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)

Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)

Graham, W. (Edinburgh)

Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

Young. Robert (Newton, Lanes.)

Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)

Royce, William Stapleton

Grundy, T. W.

Sexton, James

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. A. Williams and Mr. France.

Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)

Mr. ARNOLD: I beg to move, at the end of the Sub-section, to insert the words
"Provided that liability to service under this Sub-section does not include service in any part of the territory formerly included in the Russian Empire, except as regards men who are so serving at the date of the passing of this Act."
In view of what happened upon the Second Reading of the Bill, I think this Amendment ought to be accepted almost without discussion. The question of
474
troops in Russia naturally never came up on the Second Reading of the Bill, but the Secretary of State used these words:
"If it was decided, on the other hand, to intervene in Russia it is not with conscript troops that anyone would be so foolish as to act. I cannot conceive of anything that would be more unwise or imprudent than to use men, taken by compulsion, who were not volunteers, for intervention in a matter of this kind. Whichever way you look at it, whether we withdraw from Russia or intervene, Russia has nothing whatever to do with this Bill, and this Bill has nothing whatever to do with Russia."

475
There is another statement by a Minister in relation to this matter which I should like to quote. These are the words used by Lord Curzon in the House of Lords on the 11th February:
"They had only to look at the trouble which was being raised about demobilisation to realise the storm which would be raised in Parliament if it was proposed to enlist a conscript Army to march into the heart of Russia. It is too late in the day to contemplate a repetition of the Napoleonic experience in Russia. No one was prepared to do that"
Surely these very definite statements by Ministers make an unanswerable case for this Amendment. The concluding words of the Amendment are "except as regards men who are so serving at the date of the passing of this Act." These words have been put in because it may be argued that it would not be possible, owing to climatic and other reasons, for the troops at present in Russia to be brought home before the expiration of the Military Service Acts, and therefore unless they were brought under the provisions of this new Bill they would be entitled to be discharged while away in Russia. The responsibility for this state of things rests entirely with the Government. This Amendment really raises the whole question of our troops in Russia. I suppose I must not pursue that subject at any length, but I would like to say that we have never had any clear declaration as to the policy of the Government in this matter. We really do not know why these men were sent there and what they are doing. What we do know is that, I suppose, something like 40,000 men are there, subject to the most rigorous climatic conditions, and great hardship, and that the expedition is costing vast sums of money at a time when our finances are strained almost to breaking-point. However, the thing is done and the men are there. I do not see that the Secretary for War can have any excuse for refusing this Amendment, especially after the very definite declarations which I have read, and the insertion of the words in the Amendment "except as regards men who are so serving at the date of the passing of this Act." The Amendment will mean that no more conscripts are to be sent to Russia, and none ought to be so sent.
Conscription was originally started in Continental countries for the purpose of home defence. It was never intended under Conscription laws to send men abroad to distant parts. The right hon.
476
Gentleman said that they have permanent compulsion in Australia, but I would point out that in Australia they do not have a provision whereby they can send men abroad. That very question was put before the country on two occasions, and at two referenda it was decided by a large majority that men were not to be compelled to serve outside Australia. Conscription in this country was most rigorously enforced during the War, and men who were conscripted were compelled to serve in distant parts of the world, including Russia. The justification put forward was that the country was in danger, and that there was no other course which was open. The country is not in danger now, and we are not even at war with Russia. Therefore it would be wholly unjustifiable to send any more conscripts to Russia. I have said before, and I say again, that this whole Bill is a gross violation of election pledges. No Minister at the election suggested that a single soldier would be conscripted for service in Russia. Not a syllable of that sort was uttered. Since the Second Reading we have had some indication of the feeling of the country about it. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is very strong feeling against sending any more men to Russia. On the general question, we have had an expression of opinion in the West Leyton election, the most remarkable by-election result that has ever been declared. I am not without hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be in a somewhat chastened mood, and will be prepared to make a concession or two on this Bill, on which, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, we have fought hard and toiled long and practically got nothing. I am not really asking for a concession. I am only asking the right hon. Gentleman to give legislative effect to his own words on the Second Reading. I want him to accept the Amendment, and not merely to give a pledge that the Government has no intention of sending more men to Russia. Unfortunately, we have had Government pledges in the past when Military Service Acts have been under discussion, and I say, with regret, that these Government pledges are absolutely valueless, and if the right hon. Gentleman gives a pledge on this point it may be of no more value than other specific pledges given time after time in the old Parliament when the Military Service

477
Acts were being passed. We have learned from bitter experience that the only way to be sure of anything is to have it down in black and white in an Act of Parliament.
Mr. C. WHITE: I beg to second the Amendment. My hon. Friend said he hoped the Minister for War was in a somewhat chastened frame of mind. I should be very glad to see that. Some two or three weeks ago the right hon. Gentleman said it was not intended to send more men to Russia, and that the reason the men who were there could not come back was because they were frozen in. That is a very good reason why they cannot get back, and surely it is a good reason why we should not send any more men. We have the right hon. Gentleman's word, which, I hope, can be relied on more than the pledges that have been given inside and outside this House. Is it part of the duty of the British soldier to fight Bolshevism in this or any other country? If you are going to send the British soldier to fight Bolshevism, as it is called, you are going to raise some suspicion in the minds of the workers of this country that the soldiers will be used for fighting labour unrest. That is what is going to happen, and in the present state of labour unrest—happily now better than it has been for the last few weeks—I say that it is not part of the duty of this country to send out troops to Russia, but to allow Russia to determine her own salvation in this respect.
Captain GUEST: To give way on this point would be to make a concession at the expense of the Army. That is the case, quite apart from the statements which have been made by my right hon. Friend as to whether or not this Act has any connection with Russia? I do not dwell upon that more than to this extent. We are committed in Russia by the events of the last four years, and it is quite clear that we have to be in a position, if forced to do so, to extricate those forces which we have there now. I cannot believe that the mover or seconder of the Amendment would accept the responsibility of prohibiting the War Office from taking such limited steps as may be necessary to extricate those of our fellow-countrymen who have been, and are now, bearing the strain of operations in that country.
Mr. ARNOLD: Get them home before the expiration of the present Act.
Captain GUEST: The arguments on the last Amendment cover a great deal and cover that interjection. We are faced with facts, and from the practical point of view, with which we are forced to deal, this Amendment can only be accepted at the expense of the Army. The House will appreciate that if you have to send an expedition to extricate our forces—after the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman last night it is pretty well known where our troops are stationed in Russia—it is quite clear that the forces at the disposal of the War Office must all be under exactly the same discipline. If the Amendment were accepted we should be in this position. When the summer comes, when you may want to extricate forces from Murmansk or some places now icebound, you would have a certain number of volunteers available for such an undertaking, but they may not be sufficient. You would then find yourself unable to undertake such an expedition without drawing upon the men who are being retained under this Act, and you would find your units composed of two different classes of men, held under two different classes of rules. No military machine could possibly be efficient if that state of affairs were allowed to exist. The intention of the Government, I understand, is that no conscripted man shall be sent to undertake aggressive action in that country. But the possibility of extrication is not one which can be lightly put on one side, and therefore the Government, in the interests of the Army itself, are bound to resist this Amendment.
Mr. HOGGE: The concluding sentences of my hon. and gallant Friend suggest possibilities which the House has never yet faced. While we recognise the courtesy and ability with which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is playing his part in those Debates, I think that when it is a question of pledges from the Government those pledges ought to be put into the mouth of a responsible Minister. I do not say that in disparagement of my hon. and gallant Friend, but it does strike me as peculiar that, when the Secretary of State, who is head of the Department responsible for this Bill, is in the House, a pledge should be put into the mouth of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that no conscripts are to be sent to Russia for aggressive action. What is the meaning of aggressive action? My hon. and gallant Friend has said quite truly that we were committed by the events of the last four years to Russia. But after

479
all, Russia of her own volition has long ago gone out of the War, and by doing so has imposed very considerable sacrifices upon this country, and upon a great many of the men who enlisted either voluntarily or were conscripted. Russia to a large extent let the Allies down, and it seems a, poor answer to say that because of the events of the past four years we are committed to certain acts. Look at the situation. The Amendment asks my right hon. Friend to put in specific terms in this Bill what he has pledged his honour to from that bench. We are not asking a syllable more. My right hon. Friend is the most conspicuous, able, brilliant and versatile member of the Government, and we desire that with those qualities and holding the position which he does he should say definitely, "These are the intentions of the Government," and then we should have this in black and white in the Bill, and we should have it made quite clear to the men whom we are holding in the Army of Occupation on the Rhine to reap the fruits of victory that they shall not be used in Russia.
We have been told that we have three expeditions in Russia. That is old ground and I need not cover it again. We have expeditions, I believe, in the Murmansk Government, in Siberia and in the Caucasus. We are bound by all the ties of honour and by our promises to those who are there, and there is not a man in this House, including my hon. Friend who has moved this Amendment, who would not be prepared to give my right hon. Friend all the power he requires to safeguard the lives of those men. But that is not the real point. The real point is that those of us who are supporting this Amendment at present want it to be made quite clear, so far as we are concerned, and I hope so far as the Government are concerned, that the Government have no quarrel with the present Government in Russia, whatever that Government may be. It would be very much better if the Government or somebody connected with the Government would really inform the House about the Russian situation. We are addressing our minds to an Amendment as to the use of men in Russia, and I confess, and a great many Members of this House will agree with me in the confession, that the bulk of us do not really know what is happening in Russia, and while we ought
480
to speak for ourselves I do not think that it is incumbent on the Brtitish people to take care of the domestic future of Russia, and if the Russian people cannot work out their own salvation according to our ideas that is not our business. I am perfectly certain that the House of Commons will not desire that the blood of a single British soldier shall be shed in settling the wars in Russia. That is the whole problem. Cannot my right hon. Friend meet us on that? We have spent four and a half days in Committee on this Bill. We have spent one day already in this House, and I presume that we shall spend the bulk of the day up to a quarter-past eight. We have fought my right hon. Friend quite fairly on those questions, and he has not given us a single concession.
Captain S. WILSON: Hear, hear!
Mr. HOGGE: Some hon. Members cheer that. That means that this Government is capable of dealing adequately with every situation and requires nobody's help and does not require the help of my hon. and gallant Friend who cheers the fact that there were no concessions. That means that he and I might pair now for the rest of the Session. I would do it willingly if I did not remember the fact that the House would lose the immense ability of my hon. and gallant Friend. This question affects a great many people in this country. If there was one question which met us more than any other at the recent election it was this: "Was I willing to pledge myself as a Parliamentary candidate against British intervention in Russia?" I was asked that question more repeatedly than any other question, and so also was my right hon. Friend in Dundee.
Mr. CHURCHILLdissented.
Mr. HOGGE: Well, suppose he was not. There is a great volume of opinion in this country which desires to see it made clear that there is no intention of embroiling this country in the domestic affairs of Russia. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept this Amendment, cannot he devise his own words? All we want is to enshrine for all time some of his own words in an Act of Parliament. I do not know any other monument which would be more permanent, and he should not use words if he is not willing to put them in the Bill.
Colonel ASHLEY: I am greatly surprised that such an Amendment as this has been put on the Paper, because it must commend itself to the commonsense of the hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded it, and also to my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh, that this cannot be practical politics. The War Office could not possibly say to itself, "We will exclude one particular part of the world from the possible operations of the British Army." How can you have, say, a British Army of 100,000 men, earmarked for a certain district, with certain classes of men who may operate there and certain classes who may not. The House has only to apply its mind for one moment to the effect of this Amendment to see that it is not practicable. I quite understand the point of view of hon. Gentlemen opposite who object to further operations in Russia, although they might be necessary in certain conditions. Surely the remedy for hon. Gentlemen opposite, if the Government is doing something of which they disapprove, is to ask for a day for the discussion of that subject, and then their very select party can make a good show in the Division Lobby, and even though they are not able to carry their point by arguments, and although their numbers may not be sufficient to carry it in a Division, yet through the Press they can let their supporters have the knowledge of what they have done. That, I submit, is the proper way to treat this Amendment.
Mr. DEVLIN: I think that the little homily which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has given to Members on this side should be addressed to hon. Gentlemen on the other side, and particularly to the Minister for War, because the real secret of this Amendment is that my hon. Friend merely wants incorporated in this Bill a promise which was given by the Minister for War. I do not rise so much for the purpose of discussing this Amendment as to complain that on the rare occasions on which Ministers come into the House they ought at least to defend themselves when they are attacked for breaking their pledges. I do not know where this speech of the right hon. Gentleman was delivered, but I suppose it was one of his inspiring electoral declarations which won for the present Coalition the powerful majority which now stands behind them. At all events, when hon. Gentlemen on this side ask for the fulfilment of a governmental pledge they ought not to be treated with the contempt with which they have been
482
treated by the right hon. Gentleman. I cordially agree with the eulogy which was passed upon the right hon. Gentleman's intellectual and rhetorical qualities by my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge). If there is one man in this House who can skilfully defend himself it is the Minister for War, and yet when he is called upon to state where he stands in regard to this promise he invites the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury to carry out the difficult operation of justifying the right hon. Gentleman's conduct. I come from a country where we have had a great deal to do with broken pledges given by successive British Ministers. Of course, the customary treatment we receive is that not even an Under-Secretary is put up to justify the breaking of Government pledges. Even that compliment is not paid to us, and we rarely have the opportunity, such as has been accorded here, of having the Minister's words printed. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Did he make this speech or did he not? He neither dissents nor assents to that.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I made it in the House on the Second Reading.
Mr. DEVLIN: So the right hon. Gentleman has not forgotten about it, and the speech was delivered at a later date than I thought. I could, perhaps, find some justification for the breaking of a promise if it was made amidst the inflammatory passions of a General Election; but, instead of that, it was made in the cold atmosphere of the House of Commons, which is composed, as I said the other day, of Gentlemen who are in everlasting conflict between their consciences and their coupons, and in a House where the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have merely to make statements in order to have their 't's' crossed and their 'i's' dotted. I would have imagined the right hon. Gentleman would have recognised the justice of my hon. Friend's demand that this pledge should be incorporated in the Bill. But that is not the all-important thing, in my opinion. The silence of the right hon. Gentleman is an exceedingly suspicious circumstance. We do not know what these conscripts may be called on to do in the future. They may be used, as one hon. Gentleman stated, for the purpose of waging war upon Bolshevists in Russia. That would be quite right if the Russians waged war upon them, but the proper place for Russian domestic ques-

483
tions to be settled is in Russia. The internal confusion and horrible condition of Russia is a matter to be adjusted by the Russian people. This country is committed to no Russian policy, not that I know of. An hon. Friend in his speech talked about our policy in Russia. Whose policy in Russia? This House has been committed to no policy. In my judgment things would be infinitely worse than better if you or any other nation interfere in the domestic affairs of that country. Those people will put their own house in order and fashion their own destinies and will from the crucible of their afflictions come out cleansed, but keep your hands off them if you want future peace. This silence is not only suspicious but dangerous, because we do not know what might be done with a conscript Army in case there are industrial disputes in this country.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): That is not relevant to the present Amendment.
Mr. DEVLIN: I will get back to Russia, and I will be at home there. [An HON. MEMBER: "Stay there!"] I do not know what the hon. Member means by saying, "Stay there," but as a representative from Ireland I would have as much respect given to me there as in this House. I support the Amendment, and trust before we are called on to divide that the right hon. Gentleman will explain why he made this declaration and why he is not prepared to put it in the Bill.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I can assure the House that the fact that I did not immediately rise implies no disrespect to the House nor any underrating of the supporters of the Amendment before us. On the contrary it was entirely due to my respect for hon. Gentlemen whom I anticipated or apprehended might take part in the Debate. That is why I ventured to ask my hon. and gallant Friend to begin and to give the formal answer of the Government, while I reserve to myself the right to reply which I otherwise should have exhausted. That gave me the opportunity of giving proper consideration to the arguments advanced from the Front Opposition Bench, and had I known that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast (Mr. Devlin) was about to make one of his always welcome though now unhappily rather rare interventions,
484
I should have been all the more justified in waiting in order to give an effective answer.
I accept fully and I adhere to the words I used in the Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill. As far as I can remember, I said that if there was no such place as Russia this Bill would be essential, and that if we decided to intervene in Russia it is not with a conscript army that I imagined that intervention would be possible. I adhere fully to what I said, that it is not the intention of the Government to use this Bill for the purpose of raising great armies of conscripts to send into the heart of Russia. I adhere absolutely to that, but I should altogether deprecate the House consenting to narrow the functions or duties of the British soldier. As my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Ashley) pointed out, it is an absurdity to say when an Army has been created that it is to have limitations imposed on its action. Still more would it be absurd to create armies in which some soldiers had no limitation and others were limited by particular geographical restrictions. That is an entirely absurd way of proceeding. If the House wished to prevent operations taking place in Russia they could do so at any time by bringing pressure to bear on the Government of the day, whatever it is. That is the Parliamentary remedy, but no one ever created an Army and placed legislative and statutory restriction upon the use of particular soldiers in that Army, and, as I said the other night, speaking on the Industrial Disputes Amendment, we do not contemplate using these forces which we have and which Parliament is conferring upon us during this year of anxiety either in the Russian or in the industrial sphere. But we cannot consent in any way to narrow by legislation the duties of the soldier, which must prevail as they have always been and used in all periods of our history. Therefore, I could not accept any narrowing Amendment.
6.0 P.M.
So far as policy towards Russia is concerned there is really no need to make heavy weather over this Debate. My hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) himself said that if it was a question of rescuing our men in Russia, or if they had to be extricated, he would not hesitate to send soldiers, volunteers or conscripts, if only the men could be got there in time to do the necessary work. That at one stroke removes really any possibility of sensible difference between

485
us. The Amendment is specific and says that no man except those who are there must be sent. That would absolutely prohibit us from going to the rescue of our soldiers in Archangel or on the Murman Coast no matter how grievously pressed they might be or if forces were necessary to enable them to come away. It is no use the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. There is the Amendment, and the fact is that he has been thrown over by his leaders. The hon. Gentleman gets up from the Back Benches and asks the House to pass an Amendment which would prohibit any soldier going to Russia who is not already there, and the hon. Member for East Edinburgh said he would not stand in the way of sending an expedition to extricate or rescue the troops which are at present in that country. Those matters should be adjusted beforehand, and I know difficulties of that kind not only occur in opposition, but sometimes there is a divergency even among members of a Government on this side of the House. So far as that point is concerned, what has got to be done to help our soldiers and to secure their safety will certainly be done under all the circumstances. As far as general policy towards Russia is concerned, I venture once more to say to the House that it really does not rest with the War Office. That will be a great relief to my hon. Friends opposite. It does not rest even with the British Cabinet. It really is a matter which the League of Nations or the league of victorious Powers must address their united opinion to, and must take concerted action or resolve upon concerted inaction in regard to. I can conceive of a League of Nations being formed which would have responsibilities towards a country such as Poland, for instance. I do not know what my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast thinks of Poland.
Mr. DEVLIN: No, but I could tell you what I think of Ireland.
Mr. CHURCHILL: Unhappily, that topic would be remote from the present subject of discussion.
Mr. DEVLIN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that when you are discussing Poland at the Peace Conference you might have some thought of Ireland?
Mr. CHURCHILL: I must say there is some analogy in my mind, because the unity and integrity of the Dominion of
486
Poland is a matter of grave importance to the League of Nations. If the League of Nations has undertaken, as has already to some extent been undertaken, to secure the unity and integrity of Poland, I cannot conceive that such a body would absolutely stand by and see the country overrun and reduced to ruin. As I say, if measures were taken to safeguard Poland or Esthonia, or Lithuania, they would not be undertaken, as I conceive, by the British Government. It would not be a matter for the British Government. It could only be undertaken by a League of Nations which was pursuing a definite policy for the general pacification and conciliation of Europe. So far as any general policy towards Russia may be concerned, it is not a matter really for the Government to deal with, except as part of the general action of the League of Nations. However, I adhere most fully to the statement that I made on the Second Reading of the Bill that the Government have no intention of, and do not contemplate, using large conscript armies in regard to Russia. I deprecate the prominence which this subject has attained during the course of this Debate, because it might easily have the effect of causing unnecessary anxiety and alarm in the country, where no such anxiety and alarm exist. If it were thought that we were thinking of embarking on another great war, I can quite conceive of the passage of this Bill being rendered more difficult and of its acceptance in the constituencies being less whole-hearted. I trust that the House will confine itself to a very simple method of dealing with this subject, and that such Army as it allows the Government to have shall be an Army free to go anywhere and to do anything, composed of soldiers all serving under one set of conditions, and all discharging to the full the constitutional duties of the British soldier. The House can make sure that that Army is not used for any purpose contrary to pledges which have been given to Parliament or contrary to what is the will of the people as a whole, or contrary to the will and wish of the House of Commons, by keeping, as it is entitled to keep, and as it is enabled to keep, a close surveillance and constant contact upon the Government of the day. I trust that after this discussion, and after I have, I think, cleared myself from any charge of disrespect to hon. Members, the House will without undue delay allow us to take a Division, because

487
there are several Amendments which are important on the Paper which we should like to discuss before the Report stage ends, as I trust it may be brought to an end, at a quarter past eight this evening.
Mr. HARTSHORN: I very much regret the attitude adopted by the right hon. Gentleman in relation to this Amendment. He says he regrets prominence being given to this subject, because it might create unnecessary unrest in the country. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman appreciates the intense feeling that exists in the country at the present time in relation to this particular question. If he does not, and if the Government do not understand, I want to say with all seriousness that they are in for a very serious disillusionment in the very near future. I do not understand, sitting in this House, knowing what I do about what is going on in the trade union world, why it is that the Government do not keep themselves better informed about the sentiments that are operating in the trade union movement in this country. We have heard talk about Bolshevism, and we have heard denunciations of it. I want to say that I am as whole-heartedly opposed to the spread of Bolshevism in this country as any man in the House, but I see a real danger of it taking root in this country and of its pretty rapid development, and I fear that the attitude adopted by the right hon. Gentleman at the present time in relation to the Amendments that are being discussed in this House is going to help very considerably in that development. With reference to the sending of soldiers to Russia, the right hon. Gentleman gave a very emphatic pronouncement that it was not intended to use this Bill for that purpose. When the Military Service Bills were before the House during the War we had equally emphatic declarations. Mr. Arthur Henderson gave assurances to the trade unionists of this country that it would be embodied in the Bills that Conscription was to apply only to the period of the War, and we had similar declarations from other Ministers. But we know now that that has not been carried into effect. We have had a statement from the Minister for War that this Bill is not to be used for this purpose, and when an attempt is made to embody that declaration in the Bill itself, we are told it can
488
not be done, and that the Government must have a free hand to send the Army wherever they think fit. We are just going through a very troublous period in the industrial world. I think we are getting through it. I think the probabilities are that the miners' trouble may be at an end, but what I fear now is that as soon as we get out of our hours and wages trouble we are going to be in for a political trouble. That is where we are getting to. I have in my hand a letter which was sent to me yesterday by my secretary from home and I notice one very significant paragraph in it. He says: "A South Wales conference is being called for Saturday in reference to the Conscription Bill." The Welsh miners are evidently going to organise opposition to this Bill. I do not know whether the House is aware of a resolution passed by a very important conference held in London to-day, which reads as follows:
"That this conference calls upon the Government to immediately withdraw all British troops from Russia and to take the necessary steps to induce the Allied Powers to do likewise. We further most emphatically protest against the attempt of the Government to fasten Conscription upon this country by means of the Bill now before Parliament described as the Naval, Military, and Air Force Service Bill, and calls upon the Government to immediately withdraw this Bill, or, alternatively, this conference proposes to take such steps, in conjunction with the organised Labour movement, both political and industrial, as will compel it to withdraw it."
That is language which I am sure this House does not care to hear, but it is what is being talked in our trade unions, and it is well that this House should understand what is going on. During the past month there has been intense anxiety on the part of every Member of this House and of every person in the country as to what is going to result from the industrial trouble. The Government ought, in the treatment of this Bill, to do everything in its power to remove from the minds of the organised working classes of this country that deep-rooted suspicion which they have that this is an attempt to continue compulsory military service in this country as a permanent part of our institutions. I have heard discussions in industrial conferences about our Armies and our Expedition to Russia, and the general impression among the workers is that we are simply using our armed forces for the purpose of destroying a democratic Government which is trying to find expression in another country. As to some of the doings of the Bolshevists, I do not think

489
anybody in this House is in a position to form a reliable judgment as to what is going on in Russia.
Colonel ASHLEY: We know quite enough.
Captain S. WILSON: John Ward's letter.
Mr. HARTSHORN: In so far as some of these thing are true, I stand for condemning them as whole-heartedly as anybody, but there is a strong feeling among the trade unionists of this country that the Russian people ought to work out their own emancipation, that they ought to solve their own difficulties, and that we went into this War, not for the sake of destroying any Government which the Russians may set up, but for a specific purpose. That purpose having been accomplished, our Armies, they say, ought to come home. It will be known to-morrow that when an attempt was made in this House to embody in this Bill an assurance that conscript troops are not to be sent to Russia we could not get that assurance, and I want to say in all seriousness that the Minister for War will do well to reconsider the attitude he has adopted. I say that in no threatening spirit, because I think I have evinced as keen a desire to see this old country come through its great ordeals during the last four or five years as most men. I am equally anxious to see it get through the very perilous period that lies in the immediate future, and it is because I realise the serious menace that is threatening us at the present time that I make a special appeal to the Government to pay some attention to the fact that if it goes abroad after this discussion that we cannot have an assurance that our troops are not to be used in Russia, it will add considerable force to the agitation that is growing up against this Bill as a whole.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman, in repeating and modifying his pledge, made it go a good deal further than the original pledge given in this House. We are now told that he has no intention of sending a large conscript army into the heart of Russia. We never supposed he had, but the pledge was a great deal narrower than that. More than that, we have had adumbrated to-night the possibility that it may be necessary for the British Array to protect Poland, Lithuania, Esthonia, Courland,
490
and, I suppose, Roumania. That also is a somewhat wider prospect of the activities of the British Conscript Army than we had put before us on the Second Reading of this Bill. Three and a half years ago I, with the hon. and gallant Member opposite—now Patronage Secretary—advocated the adoption of Conscription in this country against considerable opposition at that time. We urged that it was necessary that we should force people in this country—free men—to sacrifice their liberty and go into the Army to fight for something we believed to be essential. It is true that neither of us was here when the Bill went through Parliament. All the same, we are responsible for having forced these men into conscript service for their country. It is not fair to those who voted for the Bill any more than it is fair to the men who are conscripted that we should now have an entirely different mission put before these men. We would not have voted for the Bill then if we had imagined that the men were to be used after they had joined the Army to make attacks upon the Revolution in Russia. We have no sympathy whatever with the methods of the Bolsheviks. Their methods are those of sheer barbarity and terrorism.
At the same time, it is not our business to force men who were conscripted to fight Germany and save this country, now to protect Poland, Lithuania, Bessarabia, or any of those countries in the Far East of Europe. It is more than that. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech made great play with the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh admitted that it might be necessary to get our men back to Archangel from the Murman Coast. To my mind, the best way of getting our men back from the Murman Coast to Archangel is to pass this Amendment, because then it would be essential that they should come home within six months from now, while the Military Service Act is still in being. The best way to get them back is to get them back quickly, and, if this Amendment is carried, so far from having to leave our men to perish in Archangel and on the Murman Coast, it would be essential for the Government to draw them back to this country whilst they still could command the service of conscript troops to do it. Two hon. Members argued that it would be ridiculous to use British troops in two categories—some prepared to go anywhere and do anything, and others who were not to be sent to Russia. It is not in the least

491
impossible; it has been part of our practice ever since 1861. We have had a Volunteer Force and a Territorial Force in this country, as much soldiers as any others but only to serve in this country. It is true they volunteered for service abroad at the beginning of this War, but there were two categories clearly marked out. All that we say is, do not use men who were conscripted to fight for one particular purpose, to fight for a purpose which they disapprove and for which they did not sign on.
The lamentable thing is that we have now got into a state of mind where we want to have a permanent British Army capable of going anywhere and doing anything. If you want an Army of that sort, you must have a voluntary service army. You have no right to break a contract, and to say to men who joined up for one purpose, "That purpose is done with. We will now use you for the purpose of protecting Poland, Lithuania, or any of these other countries." There is more than this. We on these benches certainly protest against this Russian expedition on all grounds. We would immediately have all our soldiers withdrawn and leave Russia to stew in her own juice. We will protest the more if our men are being used, and the Americans are not being used. Further, if our men are being used in Russia, let us see they are used to support people of whom this Government, this country, and the House of Commons approve. I mentioned the other day the way in which warfare was carried on between the Czecho-Slovaks and Bolsheviks, and how 400 prisoners were taken at Irkutsk, and were shot down on the shores of Lake Baikal with machine guns, a cinematograph operator taking the picture. Are our troops to support people who carry on warfare in that manner? If our troops are used in that way, surely those people who did not join the Army voluntarily, but were conscripted, have a right to protest against being used for any sort of warfare of that kind. The other day this question of the manner in which so-called civilised warfare is being carried on in Russia was brought up in the French Chamber and M. Laffont gave this description. He said that the French soldiers taken prisoners by the Bolsheviks at Odessa were released, the Bolsheviks saying,
492
"You would shoot us if we were your prisoners because you were told we are bandits. We send you back to your armies. Compare and judge."
If you are going to pass this Bill to force men who are conscripts, and who joined voluntarily in the War against Germany, to fight in Russia against Russians, then for goodness sake let us see that warfare is carried on on decent civilised lines! M. Laffont went on:
"The Chief of the Staff of another general had told the people of Odessa that the present suffrage, which is universal, is to be radically changed. An Odessa newspaper regrets that the laws of Skoropadsky, Germany's henchman, are being substituted for the laws established by the Revolution."
Is England fighting at the present time to re-establish the monarchy, re-establish re-action, and put in the saddle again in Russia the old Czarist regime? If that is so, there is an even stronger case against using our people in Russia at the present time.
I deprecate the extension of compulsory service, which I supported during the War. I deprecate it entirely in this Bill, but there is no point in this Bill to which I object more than the idea that these men, who have gone through so much, and who would have laid down their lives in order to destroy Imperialism and militarism, should now be used, or should be capable of being used, against the Russians, whether they be bad men or good men, or should be capable of being used to restore a regime which might not be as bad as the Bolshevik regime, but, at any rate, was the curse of Europe and a disgrace to civilisation. Those are arguments in favour of putting in this Amendment. They may meet with very little response in this House, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, from the meetings I have held, that they meet with enormous response in this country. There is no more sure way of getting the people behind you in this country than by denouncing this Russian expedition that the Allies in Paris appear to be proposing. The very fact that it has spread to Hungary leads our Imperialists into further schemes for a perpetual state of war to beat back revolution. The overwhelming majority in this country want us to get out of this Russian mess as quickly as possible, and want us to be abolutely clear of any future struggle for forms of government in the East. Whether it be Poland or Roumania, let them look out for themselves, and not rely on British conscripts to protect the existing regime—very often

493
an existing regime of bad and grasping landlords, as in Roumania. That majority in this country looks to us to see that the British Army, the most powerful weapon in the world at the present time, will be used for what it has been used up to now
—the breaking down of tyranny—and not the re-establishment of tyranny in the East of Europe.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
The House divided: Ayes, 48; Noes, 281.

Division No. 20.]

AYES.

[6.28 p.m.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

Hartshorn, V.

Sitch, C. H.

Brace, Rt. Hon. William

Hayday, A.

Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)

Breese, Major C. E.

Hinds, John

Smith, W. (Wellingborough)

Briant, F.

Hirst, G. H.

Spencer, George A.

Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)

Holmes, J. S.

Spoor, B. G.

Cairns, John

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Swan, J. E. C.

Cape, Tom

Lunn, William

Taylor, J. W. (Chester-le-Street)

Carter, W. (Mansfield)

Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)

Thomas, Brig-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Univ.)

M'Lean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)

Morgan, Major D. Watts

Waterson, A. E.

Devlin, Joseph

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Wedgwood, Col. Josiah C.

Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)

Raffan, Peter Wilson

White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)

Galbraith, Samuel

Richardson, R. (Houghton)

Wignall, James

Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)

Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)

Graham, W. (Edinburgh)

Royce, William Stapleton

Grundy, T. W.

Shaw, Tom (Preston)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Hogge and Mr. Arnold.

Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

Short, A, (Wednesbury)

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W. E. (B. St. E.)

Ainsworth, Captain C.

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Hacking, Captain D. H.

Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Martin

Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

Hailwood, A.

Astbury, Lt.-Com. F. W.

Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)

Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich)

Atkey, A. R.

Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)

Hallas, E.

Bagley, Captain E. A.

Cory, J. H. (Cardiff)

Hambro, Angus- Valdemar

Baird, John Lawrence

Courthope, Major George Loyd

Hanson, Sir Charles

Baldwin, Stanley

Cozens-Hardy, Hon. W. H.

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

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Craig, Capt. C. (Antrim)

Hennessy, Major G.

Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

Curzon, Commander Viscount

Hewart, Right Hon. Sir Gordon

Barker, Major R.

Davidson, Major-General J. H.

Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.

Barnett, Captain Richard W.

Davies, Sir S. S. (Denbigh)

Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.

Barnston, Major Harry

Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe)

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Barrie, C. C.

Davies, T. (Cirencester)

Hope, Harry (Stirling)

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

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

Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Hope, John Deans (Berwick)

Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (G'nwich)

Denison-Pender, John C.

Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)

Bennett, T. J.

Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H.

Horne, Edgar (Guildford)

Birchall, Major J. D.

Dixon, Captain H.

Horne, Sir Robert (Hillhead)

Bird, Alfred

Dockrell, Sir M.

Hudson, R. M.

Blades, Sir George R.

Duncannon, Viscount

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Blair, Major Reginald

Du Pre, Colonel W. B.

Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)

Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islngtn., W.)

Hurd, P. A.

Borwick, Major G. O.

Eyres-Monsell, Com.

Hurst, Major G. B.

Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

Falcon, Captain M.

Inskip, T. W. H.

Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York-

Bowyer, Capt. G. W. E.

Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

Jameson, Major J. G.

Brackenbury, Col. H. L.

Farquharson, Major A. C.

Jephcott, A. R.

Briggs, Harold

Fell, Sir Arthur

Jesson, C.

Britton, G. B.

FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.

Jodrell, N. P.

Broad, Thomas Tucker

Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

Johnstone, J.

Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)

Forestier-Walker, L.

Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Brufon, Sir J.

Foxcrotz, Captain C.

Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.

France, Gerald Ashburner

Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

Burden, Col. Rowland

Fraser, Major Sir Keith

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)

Campbell, J. G. D.

Gange, E. S.

Jones, Wm. Kennedy (Hornsey)

Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

Gardiner, J. (Perth)

Kerr-Smiley, Major P.

Carr, W. T.

Gardner, E. (Berks., Windsor)

Kidd, James

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

Knights, Capt. H.

Cautley, Henry Strother

Gilbert, James Daniel

Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm., W.)

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John

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

Cheyne, Sir William Watson

Glanville, Harold James

Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)

Child, Brig.-Gen. Sir Hill

Glyn, Major R.

Lloyd, George Butler

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Goff, Sir R. Park

Locker-Lampson G. (Wood Green)

Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

Green, J. F. (Leicester)

Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)

Clough, R.

Greene, Lt.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)

Lonsdale, James R.

Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

Greer, Harry

Lorden, John William

Coats, Sir Stuart

Greig, Col. James William

Lort-Williams, J.

Cockerill, Brig.-Gen. G. K.

Gretton, Col. John

Loseby, Captain C. E.

Cohen, Major J. B. B.

Griggs, Sir Peter

Lowe, Sir F. W.

Colfox, Major W. P.

Guest, Capt. Hon. F. E. (Dorset, E.)

Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

Colvin, Brig.-Gen. R. B.

Guinness, Capt. Hon. R. (Southend)

Lyle-Samuel, A. (Eye, E. Suffolk)

M'Donald, D. H. (Bothwell, Lanark)

Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)

Sugden, Lieut. W. H.

M'Guffin, Samuel

Perring, William George

Sykes, Sir C. (Huddersfield)

Mackinder, Halford J.

Philipps, Sir O. C. (Chester)

Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

Macmaster, Donald

Pickering, Col. Emil W.

Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

Pilditch, Sir Philip

Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Denb.)

McNeill, Ronald (Canterbury)

Pownall, Lt.-Col. Assheton

Thomas-Stanford, Charles

Macquisten, F. A.

Pratt, John William

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

Maddocks, Henry

Preston, W. R.

Tickler, Thomas George

Mallalieu, Frederick William

Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

Tryon, Major George Clement

Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)

Purchase, H. G.

Turton, Edmund Russborough

Manville, Edward

Raeburn, Sir William

Walton, J. (York, Don Valley)

Marriott, John Arthur R.

Rankin, Capt. James S.

Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

Mason, Robert

Raper, A. Baldwin

Warren, Sir Alfred H.

Mitchell, William Lans-

Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

Watson, Captain John Bertrand

Moles, Thomas

Raw, Lt.-Col. Dr. N.

Weston, Col. John W.

Molson, Major John Elsdale

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

Moore, Maj.-Gen. Sir Newton J.

Reid, D. D.

Whitla, Sir William

Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. C. K.

Remer, J. B.

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Morison, T. B. (Inverness)

Renwick, G.

Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson

Morrison, H. (Salisbury)

Richardson, Alex, (Gravesend)

Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)

Mosley, Oswald

Rodger, A. K.

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

Mount, William Arthur

Rogers, Sir Hallewell

Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

Murchison, C. K.

Roundell, Lt.-Col. R. F.

Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud

Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)

Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)

Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Hold'ness)

Murray, John (Leeds, W.)

Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, W.)

Murray, William (Dumfries)

Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

Wilson, Col. Leslie (Reading)

Nelson, R. F. W. R.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)

Wilson, Col. M. (Richmond, Yorks.)

Newman, Major J. (Finchley, Mddx.)

Seager, Sir William

Wilson-Fox, Henry

Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)

Shaw, Capt. W. T. (Forfar)

Winfrey, Sir Richard

Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)

Shortt, Rt. Hon. E.

Winterton. Major Earl

Nield, Sir Herbert

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)

Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

Sprot, Col. Sir Alexander

Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge and Hyde)

O'Neill, Capt. Hon. Robert W. H.

Stanier, Capt. Sir Baville

Woods, Sir Robert

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Yate, Col. Charles Edward

Palmer, Major G. M.

Stanton, Charles Butt

Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)

Palmer, Brig.-Gen. G. (Westbury)

Steel, Major S. Strang

Younger, Sir George

Parker, James

Stephenson, Col. H. K.

Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)

Stoker Robert Burdon

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

Pearce, Sir William

Strauss, Edward Anthony

Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

Sturrock, J. Leng-

Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "attestation" ["serving on a pre-war attestation"], to insert the words
"or sailors or soldiers who have served abroad without home leave for two years."
Mr. SPOOR: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I inquire whether you have overlooked my Amendment earlier on the Paper?
Mr. SPEAKER: Under the powers recently given to me, I can select what I consider the most important Amendments, and I think that that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman upon whom I have called comes next.
Colonel P. WILLIAMS: I am imbued with no party motives in moving this Amendment. The House will remember that on the Army Estimates this year we raised the question of the large number of men who were in distant theatres of war, and who had not been home—some of them—for four and a-half years, and many of them for over two years. These men were sent to these theatres of war, if I may put it so, by accident. Had they been sent to France they would have got the regular
496
leave that they might visit their homes in England. Approximately, they would have a month's leave per year. If a man had been away for three years, it follows that he is now entitled, by all reasons of justice, to his accumulation of three months' leave. These men in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Salonika, and India feel most deeply the fact that they have been kept away from their homes, their wives, and their children for all this time. I know that the right hon. Gentleman opposite, by his recent Army Order, has taken out of our grievance, if I may call it so, the men who joined up in 1914–15, and therefore we have got rid of a good many men who had served for four years. We have got rid of all that class. But he has got to get them home. I believe that even the right hon. Gentleman himself does not believe that he can get these men home before the Armistice. He said on the Estimates that there was available for the transport of these men shipping sufficient to bring back nine out of ten. I pointed out to him how I thought he might increase his shipping facilities by taking those boats sent by the Government to bring German prisoners

497
home from Shanghai. I am in a position to give the names of the boats which are bringing those German prisoners back from Shanghai. On the 22nd of March the "Novara," the "Nore," and the "Atreus" sailed for Rotterdam, and they carried approximately 1,800 German prisoners who had been interned in China. There is a further boat, the "Antilochus," which will carry 1,000 German repatriated prisoners, which is due to leave about the 1st April. In face of these facts, we really cannot accept the statement that there is no shipping available to bring these men home. Arrangements have been made to repatriate Germans in this country, and our shipping is being used for that purpose. British shipping is also being used to convey American troops to the other side of the Atlantic, and the Americans have not been away from home half as long as our men, and the Government will have to put up some other excuse for not bringing these men home besides lack of transport. We have had that excuse put forward for eighteen months, and I think it is just about worn out. Under these circumstances, I do not wonder that a man from India writes to me as follows:
"Our wives and children ought not to be left unprotected at home a day longer than can be helped. For a period of years they have had to fight a hard battle against the insults of numerous people, and as for the excuse of scarcity of shipping somehow the soldiers will not swallow that explanation."
I do not wonder at it. Admitted that you have got rid of the grievance of men who joined up in 1914 and 1915, you still have the case which I gave to the Secretary of State for War in Committee of a man who joined up on the 4th of January, 1916. He was sent abroad on the 6th February, 1916. He went to German East Africa, and he was there to the end of 1917. He was passed on to Egypt, and he has been all through the Palestine campaign, and at the present time he is on the Damascus road driving a three-ton lorry. He has been away three years and three months, and a few days, and if he is to be kept without leave until the ratification of peace he will have been away four hot seasons. I asked the right hon. Gentleman a simple question to which he did not give me an answer. I want to know if the right hon. Gentleman is going to conscript that man further or is he not? His relatives will not tolerate any evasion of that question. There are heaps of such cases, and we must have a plain answer from the Government. We got from the right hon.
498
Gentleman in Committee a statement as to its policy with regard to the men in Mesopotamia and Egypt, and these tropical climates, and he said:
"That they would be brought home as soon as possible, and placed on garrison duty or home service duty in this country."
I want to know if that is really still the policy? Do not the Government recognise that these men cannot be treated as if they were ordinary soldiers who had been serving in Belgium or France, or some European climate? I think the Government ought not to send these men into billets in this country until they have become acclimatised. They should not bring them straight from a tropical climate—
Mr. SPEAKER: That is hardly relevant to this Amendment, and it is more a matter of administration.
Colonel WILLIAMS: I will try and keep myself in order, and my only excuse is I am not accustomed to debating in this House. I will come back to the question of these men who have been away for over two years. I have had an effort made in my Constituency to see how many men there were who had been away for a long period without leave. When I spoke in the House the other day on this subject there were a hundred and twenty cases that had been brougt to my notice, and they are still coming in. Not only am I getting them from my own Constituency, but I am receiving them from every part of the country, and I am confident that there is a very widespread irritation on this point throughout the country. I do beg of the Government to try and meet this point if they can. My Amendment may not be accepted by the Government, and I would suggest if they cannot accept it they should say, "Very well, we will give these men leave at home and a satisfactory one between now and the ratification of peace," and if they can do so they should bring them home straight away to their homes and not billet them in this country.
Mr. SPOOR: I beg to second this Amendment.
I wish to associate myself with certain remarks which were made by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) earlier this evening with regard to the attitude which the Government has taken up in their treatment of the Amendments which have been proposed from this side of the House. I would like to point out to

499
those representing the War Office that all these Amendments have really been brought forward with the best intentions. They have been of a constructive character and they have sought to express improvements and modifications which many people not only in this House but in the country strongly believe in. One does feel a certain amount of resentment when we see Amendment after Amendment steam-rollered out of existence in this way. I would like to make a special appeal to hon. Members who support the Government to consider this particular Amendment that has just been submitted fairly from every point of view, and vote according to their judgment, and not merely because of any sense of party loyalty.
Only this morning I was conducting a small party of Indian soldiers through this House. It was their first visit to England, and they were enormously interested in what they saw, and they asked a number of intelligent questions. I pointed out that the Government sat on that side and the Opposition on this side, and one of the Indians then said, "I suppose the Government has a very big majority or they would not be the Government." I said, "Yes, they have a very big majority." Then he said, "Why do you not go over to the other side?" That Indian soldier expressed an attitude that has been maintained with a fair amount of consistency in the process of the discussions that have gone on regarding this Bill.
The Amendment which has been submitted is one that asks for preferential treatment to men who have been living under very abnormal conditions, even in comparison with the other men in the Army. We know that those men who have not had leave for two years, or over a longer period, are men who have served in Salonika, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and in India, and apart from the hazardous conditions which those men have had to live under, there has also been the bad climatic conditions, the severity of which cannot be exaggerated. I am quite convinced that if there are in this House at the present time any medical men who have been out in the East they will agree with the object of this Amendment. We know quite well that even in regard to men who are graded as fit, and who are now passed as being quite equal to taking any form of military duty, a great
500
majority of them have passed through the hospitals at some period during the last four years. I do not know the exact percentage of the men who have passed through the hospitals suffering from tropical diseases, but it is very high indeed; and there are vast numbers of men who, although they have been able to keep out of the hospitals, have had their health permanently injured as the result of having been left so long under the severe climatic conditions.
We are simply asking the War Office to give special consideration to the case of these men, and to remember their long separation from home. As I said the other night, only those who have been out in the Near East understand the real ghastliness of the conditions. They have been living in remote places right away from Salonika or in some inaccessible parts of Palestine or Egypt cut off from all contact with home, with an irregular pest, and receiving no newspapers. I submit, when we say that these men should be excluded from the provisions of this Bill, we are only making a perfectly reasonable request. I would most strongly urge all who are in this House at the present moment, regardless of any sense of loyalty to the Government, to look at this question from a humane point of view, and remember the special claim that men have upon their consideration who have served in our distant theatres of the War, and who have, in addition to the ordinary hazards of war, lived under conditions of the most trying character.
7.0 P.M.
Captain GUEST: This Amendment must be placed in the category of Amendments which are impossible. It would be quite impossible to give effect to it because one of the immediate results would be the release of all the men who are now in the garrisons. That could not be carried out.
Mr. SPOOR: Could they not be replaced by other men?
Captain GUEST: It would be impossible in the conditions of the season to transfer men through the Red Sea, and it would be impossible because the release would have to take place which would be under conditions which would be detrimental to the troops. It would be impossible also to release the Eastern garrisons and those in Palestine, Mesopotamia, India, and other garrisons between now and the time fixed. Therefore, I think we must ask hon. Members not to be led away by

501
compassionate considerations. I have the greatest sympathy with those who have to serve in India and in other tropical countries I spent ten years in the Army myself, and nobody can have more sympathy than I have with those men in the conditions in which they have to serve. But exigencies of war are sometimes very hard. If you relieved these men you would have to alter the whole Schedule attached to the Bill on which it is based, and we might have to make such a change that the age would be raised to forty. We might also have to on 1st January, 1916. From 1st January by six or eight months. The Amendment would destroy the provisions of the Bill, and I do not think it would carry out the objects of the Mover and Seconder.
Another reason why it would be undesirable is that you would have a difficulty in applying the two years mentioned in the Amendment. There might only be a difference of a few months or a few weeks on each side of this border-line, but you would find a great number of people with hard cases who would ask for the same terms as those received who came within the two years' limit. It would be much better to leave it to the War Office, which has the responsibility of dealing with these matters. When hard cases are multiplied there is a great difficulty in dealing with them. Two cases have been mentioned by hon. Members, one with regard to shipping, which I shall, of course, report. But I am quite certain that no grievance of that kind can be made against the War Office or the Admiralty. The special case to which another hon. Member referred is admittedly a hard case, and my right hon. Friend has intimated his intention of looking into it. I would ask the House, in the interests of the Bill and the Army and of discipline, to vote against the Amendment.
Sir E. CARSON: Can the hon. Gentleman give us a pledge that these men will be replaced, and will have leave given to them as soon as possible?
Captain GUEST: Most certainly. That pledge was given in Committee.
Colonel P. WILLIAMS: Will they have accumulated leave, so that if they have been away three years they will get three months' leave?
Captain GUEST: I understand that the statement in Committee was that these men would be brought home as soon as possible, and that there was no intention
502
that they should be liable for further service abroad. They would be used at home in better and more genial conditions.
Lieutenant-Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITE: It is obvious that the Government cannot accept this Amendment. No doubt it commands a certain amount of sympathy. I rise to ask a question with, respect to India. We have had many questions as to the men who are being released from India and we have been told that it was only possible to release 20,000 men and those who were suffering from the effects of the climate. I have information from India that a very large number of young healthy men were being sent home last February as indispensable or pivotal men, and that this may have the effect of stopping the release of other men who have been out there for a considerable time. I think the War Office might have sent out a telegram stopping the release of these so-called pivotal younger men so that the longer service men could get away, and I hope even now that the War Office will stop the release of those indispensables. The information I have is that these men find that they are being taunted by the younger men. My informant is a National Reserve man, aged 42, who has been out since 1914, and he says these young men are openly taunting them and saying what fools they were to go out in the early days so that they cannot be sent home now as indispensables.
Major MOLSON: Is it really a fact the vessels are being used to carry back interned Germans from China with wives and families? Could not these vessels be used to enable us to bring back our men from India?
Mr. HOGGE: We have reason to complain that we are getting no concessions from the Government on this Bill. We have put down Amendments which like this Amendment are quite reasonable and with which Members of the House have expressed their sympathy, but after certain questions have been put and answers have been given Members seem to be content. The hon. Member for the Duncairn Division of Belfast (Sir Edward Carson) in the last Parliament took a great interest in the question of leave for officers and men, and their pensions, and he just asked a question as to whether or not the Government could pledge themselves that these men would have their leave. That was answered in the affirmative. But I

503
may remind the right hon. Gentleman that the same pledge has been given repeatedly and the men have not got their have yet. I remember—I think it was in one of the Secret Sessions in this House—the then Secretary for War made a speech pointing out the ease with which he could come out of the Army for various purposes. I have never been able to understand—perhaps some of the military Members of the House will make us understand—how it is that the officers of a particular unit or battalion do not know how many men have had leave and when they last got leave. After all, a battalion is a small number, and I think that the officers should be able to divide it up and do that.
An HON. MEMBER: Can the hon. Gentleman give the name of any battalion where the officer does not know how many of his men have had leave?
Mr. HOGGE: That was not my point. My point was that these men complain that they cannot get their leave. I did not want to give the impression that it was the fault of the officers. But when the officers do take such great care of their men under their charge there ought then to be no difficulty in these men getting their leave. And yet every Member of this House knows that there are many oases analogous to those which have been mentioned in the Debate on this Amendment. If we could get some sort of a census taken among the men so that we would know who had got leave, there might be an improvement. We might then know how long it was since a man had got his leave, whether it were six months or whatever it was and they could then be given leave and if there were arrears due they would get arrears of leave on the usual terms. That could easily be done if you have capable administration. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite sees a difficulty in that, but if he wanted to see every Government Bill secured in this House against the small number of Members on this side, he could divide his forces into small battalions and allow two-thirds of them to go away, leaving the remainder to see that we did not carry out Amendments. If that is possible in the House of Commons, why cannot it be done in the Army? There would be no difficulty about it. When there is a complaint about ships for bringing men back for leave we are told it is being inquired into.
Captain GUEST: I have promised to inquire into it in the Debate on this Amendment on the Paper.
Mr. HOGGE: Surely when the matter was raised in Committee and came down here, inquiries might have been made into it in the meantime so that they might be able to remove the anxiety from the minds of these men! We have got that kind of answer, and I am sorry that we should have to go to a Division. We have now got to the Report stage, and we have not got a single concession although we have put forward reasonable Amendments.
Mr. R. McNEILL: I support the resistance of the Government to these Amendments, and if they had accepted such Amendments as this on Report I think it would have given a great deal of dissatisfaction to the majority of this House. One hon. Member spoke as if anyone voting for the Government voted in terror of the Government Whips. Speaking for myself, I have not given any vote on this Bill in consequence of the Government Whips being put on, and I should have felt very great dissatisfaction with the Government if they had taken any other course. I do not feel quite the same with regard to this Amendment. I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Colonel P. Williams) with a great deal of sympathy, and, looking at the Amendment, we must have sympathy with it, because of our own experience and the cases which have come under our own notice. I entirely join with my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Carson) in asking the Government for a very definite pledge that they will do their utmost to give leave to the men who are covered by this Amendment. My hon. Friend the Whip of the Liberal party (Mr. Hogge) is not satisfied with a pledge of that sort. He wants to go into the Division Lobby. I am placed in this position, and I am quite sure that many other hon. Members will agree with me: I sympathise with the desire to have these men brought back to this country for the leave to which they are well entitled, but we have heard from my hon. and gallant Friend representing the Government that if they were to do that in the way demanded by this Amendment it would mean practically the breaking up of all the garrisons in the East and the destruction of the whole of the mobile British Forces in the Near and the Far East. Can Members take upon themselves the responsibility of going into the Lobby in support of their

505
sympathies when it would bring about such a state of affairs? I for one cannot.
At the same time I am so anxious that the Government should do more than they have done hitherto in the way of giving leave to these men that if it were possible I would very much like to get something more from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War than we have yet obtained on this subject. I do not know to what extent the transport difficulty still stands in the way. I rather gather from what the Patronage Secretary has said that that is not the chief difficulty. There is plenty of transport available now. If the Government are in earnest they can use German ships and our own ships, and if that is the only question they ought to find the ships. These men are in a different position from that of all the other men who have been fighting in the War. To begin with, they have had bad luck in going to those distant theatres of war at all. They have not had the best part of the fighting or the best part of the credit. They have been more or less in the background, though in many cases they have had quite as onerous fighting as the men on the Western Front. They have had all the horrors of the climate, and they have been all this time away from home. There is a further difficulty. A very large number of the Indian troops are in the same position. Of course, they may not have suffered so much as the white troops from the climate, but large numbers of them have been three or four years away from home. That raises a very serious problem. The Government, as a whole, is just as responsible for the Indian native troops who fight for us in the Indian Army as they are for our own men. I do hope very much that my hon. Friend opposite will not press this Amendment to a Division in face of what we have heard from the Government. At the same time I do appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War to give us a little more pronounced and definite assurance that the Government realise the importance of giving leave to men who have been in the Eastern theatres two and more years.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I fully recognise the force of what has fallen from my hon. Friend, and I can assure him and the House that the military authorities have no other wish than to bring home the men who have been out the longest and to give leave to those who have not had leave for so long, because of their absence in distant
506
theatres. We will make every possible effort to secure both results. As a matter of fact, we are now bringing home for demobilisation the men who are not included in the scope of this Bill, and who are not in the retained classes, and that alone is throwing a great strain not only on our resources of transport but on the strength of our units maintained in those theatres. These emergencies which we have to face are very real ones, and I am not in all respects a free agent in the matter. First of all, we have some troops in Bulgaria. I cannot move those troops except in consultation with our Allies who have got troops in other parts. I hope that our troops may be released, but we must proceed in accordance with the decisions which are reached by the Conference in Paris. No one Ally can come home and leave the others to bear the resulting burden. There are also troops in Caucasus. I explained why they were sent there. They were sent there to turn out the Turks and the Germans, and they remain there for the purpose of keeping order in that country until the Allied Conference definitely arrives at a settlement of affairs in that region, which I hope will not be very long. We have no intention of remaining there as soon as a settlement is reached, and we shall then get a great relief. We do not wish to remain in Caucasus; we are simply there discharging an international duty pending a great decision, and we do not want to ruin the prospects of a settlement for the sake of a few weeks patience. The same is true of Palestine and Mesopotamia, though there we have more direct interests. There we have to keep certain definite forces. As for Egypt, can I possibly exaggerate the situation? There were 10,000 men gathered together at Alexandria the other day for the purpose of being sent home, men not included in the scope of this Bill, but men who were due for demobilisation. We had to appeal to those men to stand by and assist the forces of law and order because of the grave situation prevailing over the whole of Egypt. We had to issue orders to move troops in considerable numbers from various quarters into Egypt. Those troop movements are now proceeding and they are putting a very considerable and unforeseen strain upon us.
So far from having too many men, we have gone to the utmost limits which prudence allows, and the military authorities are far from feeling that we

507
are heavily over-insured in this respect. If we must have these units in these different theatres which I have mentioned and specified until something is decided, we must keep them up to a certain standard of strength. It is no use having a brigade or a division at a certain place if you allow your battalions to fall 200 or 250 men below strength. You only go along a dangerous road when you allow your units to fall below strength. The demobilisation of men alone is wearing our units down below their proper war establishment, and I could not consent to the release of men beyond those who are released under the provisions of this Act until I am able to replace them. We are not delaying an hour in the work of replacing these men. We are organising drafts of men who are included in the scope of this Bill, who have had their turn of leave at home, and who have not been exposed to service in these distant regions. These drafts are going out—several thousands are going out almost immediately—not only for the purpose of relieving men for demobilisation, but also for the purpose of relieving men who have been there so long without the comfort and satisfaction of having had leave at home. The military authorities consider, having regard, as we hope, to the short period for which this special compulsory legislation will be required, that the men from these distant stations should not be sent out again at the end of their leave, but should be kept on duty here and their places taken by men who have not had such a long spell of foreign service. I can assure the House that we will do everything in our power to mitigate the hardships which this struggle has imposed upon these men. I will leave no stone unturned to secure their return at the earliest possible moment and their replacement by men who have not been so long absent or by men who have volunteered for Regular service in the Army. I have now got 70,000 volunteers—many of them have to be trained, and others are entitled to their furlough—and in a comparatively
short space of time we shall have good solid units analogous to those of the Regular Army before the War, with which we can mitigate the hardships of these men in distant stations. I would respectfully ask the House to facilitate the progress of this Bill. I have done my best to give a full and frank explanation, and I would be glad if the House would now dispose of this Amendment.
Mr. HURD: Would it be possible to give these men on demobilisation deferred leave, so that they may not suffer in consequence of having had to serve in these distant theatres?
Mr. CHURCHILL: I should be quite ready, if a man owing to special circumstances has not had any leave, to consider whether there could not be some special treatment, but I must not be taken to be making any promise about it.
Mr. HOGGE: Hear, hear!
Mr. CHURCHILL: Why should my hon. Friend jeer? He would be the first to jeer if I incurred any unnecessary expense.
Mr. HURD: I raised this specific point a fortnight ago, and the right hon. Gentleman said then that he would consider it.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I will consider it immediately after this Debate.
Colonel P. WILLIAMS: Could the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that when he is able to bring these men home they will be allowed to go to their homes, and will not be again called up unless absolutely necessary?
Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think that would be fair. It would cause great discontent. It would be wrong not to keep on duty at home after he has had his leave at home a man who did not join before the 1st January, 1916, and who is twenty-five or twenty-six years of age, because otherwise some older man would have to be kept.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
The House divided: Ayes, 64; Noes, 249.

Division No. 21.]

AYES.

[7.30 p.m.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)

Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

Arnold, Sydney

Cairns, John

Graham, W. (Edinburgh)

Bell, James (Ormskirk)

Cape, Tom

Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)

Benn, Capt. W. (Leith)

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Univ.)

Grundy, T. W.

Bentinck, Lt.-Col. Lord H. Cavendish-

Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)

Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

Hartshorn, V.

Brace, Rt. Hon. William

Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)

Hayday, A.

Breese, Major C. E.

Galbraith, Samuel

Hayward, Major Evan

Briant, F.

Glanville, Harold James

Hinds, John

Hirst, G. H.

Richardson, R. (Houghton)

Thorne, Col. W. (Plaistow)

Hogge, J. M.

Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)

Walsh, S. (Ince, Lancs.)

Johnstone, J.

Royce, William Stapleton

Waterson, A. E.

Jones, J. (Silvertown)

Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)

White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Shaw, Tom (Preston)

Wignall, James

Lunn, William

Short, A. (Wednesbury)

Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)

Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)

Sitch, C. H.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

N'Lean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)

Young, Lt.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)

Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

Smith, W. (Wellingborough)

Young, Robert (Newton, Lancs.)

O'Grady, James

Swan, J. E. C.

Onions, Alfred

Taylor, J. W. (Chester-le-Street)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. P. Williams and Mr. Spoor.

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Thomas, Brig-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)

Raffan, peter Wilson

Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)

Richards, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Davies, T. (Cirencester)

Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)

Ainsworth, Capt C.

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)

Lonsdale, James R.

Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Martin

Denison-Pender, John C.

Lorden, John William

Astor, Major Hon. Waldorf

Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H.

Lort-Williams, J.

Atkey, A. R.

Dixon, captain H.

Loseby, Captain C. E.

Austin, Sir H.

Dockrell, Sir M.

Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

Bagley, Captain E. A.

Duncannon, Viscount

Lyle-Samuel, A. (Eye, E. Suffolk)

Baird, John Lawrence

Du Pre, Colonel W. B.

M'Donald, D. H. (Bothwell, Lanark)

Baldwin, Stanley

Edwards, A. Clement (East Ham, S.)

M'Guffin, Samuel

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islngtn., W.)

Mackinder, Halford J.

Banner, Sir J. S. Harmood-

Eyres-Monsell, Com.

Macmaster, Donald

Barker, Major R.

Farquharson, Major A. C.

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

Barnett, Captain Richard W.

Fell, Sir Arthur

McNeill, Ronald (Canterbury)

Barnston, Major Harry

FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.

Macquisten, F. A.

Barrie, C. C.

Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Forestier-Walker, L.

Marriott, John Arthur R.

Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

Foxcroft, Captain C.

Mason, Robert

Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)

Fraser, Major Sir Keith

Middlebrook, Sir William

Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (G'nwich)

Gardiner, J. (Perth)

Mitchell, William Lane-

Bigland, Alfred

Gardner, E. (Berks., Windsor)

Molson, Major John Elsdale

Birchall, Major J. D.

Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

Moore, Maj.-Gen. Sir Newton J.

Bird, Alfred

Gilbert, James Daniel

Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. C. T.

Blades, Sir George R.

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John

Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

Blair, Major Reginald

Glyn, Major R.

Morison, T. B. (Inverness)

Borwick, Major G. O.

Green, J. F. (Leicester)

Morrison, H. (Salisbury)

Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

Greig, Col. James William

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Brackenbury, Col. H. L.

Gretton, Col. John

Mosley, Oswald

Bridgeman, William Clive

Griggs, Sir Peter

Murchison, C. K.

Briggs, Harold

Guest, Capt. Hon. F. E. (Dorset, E.)

Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)

Brittain, Sir Harry E.

Guest, Major O. (Leices., Loughb'ro'.)

Murray, John (Leeds, W.)

Britton, G. B.

Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W. E. (B. St. E)

Murray, William (Dumfries)

Broad, Thomas Tucker

Hacking, Captain D. H.

Neal, Arthur

Bruton, Sir J.

Hallwood, A.

Nelson, R. F. W. R.

Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.

Hallas, E.

Newman, Major J. (Finchley, Mddx.)

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Hambre, Angus Valdemar

Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)

Burdon, Col. Rowland

Hanson, Sir Charles

O'Neill, Capt. Hon. Robert W. H.

Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)

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

Parker, James

Burn, T. H. (Belfast)

Henderson, Major V. L.

Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

Campbell, J. G. D.

Hennessy, Major G.

Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)

Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

Hewart, Right Hon. Sir Gordon

Perring, William George

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.

Pickering, Col. Emil W.

Carr, W. T.

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Pilditch, Sir Philip

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Hope, Harry (Stirling)

Pownall, Lt.-Col. Assheton

Cautley, Henry Strother

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

Pratt, John William

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Preston, W. R.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm., W.)

Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)

Purchase, H. G.

Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

Horne, Sir Robert (Hillhead)

Raeburn, Sir William

Child, Brig.-Gen. Sir Hill

Hudson, R. M.

Rankin, Capt. James S.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Raper, A. Baldwin

Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)

Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

Clyde, James Avon

Hurst, Major G. B.

Raw, Lt.-Col. Dr. N.

Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

Inskip, T. W. H.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Coats, Sir Stuart

Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)

Reid, D. D.

Cockerill, Brig.-Gen. G. K.

Jameson, Major J. G.

Remer, J. B.

Cohen, Major J. B. B.

Jephcott, A. R.

Renwick, G.

Colfox, Major W. P.

Jodrell, N. P.

Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Johnson, L. S.

Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)

Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

Rodger, A. K.

Courthope, Major George Loyd

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)

Roundell, Lt.-Col. R. F.

Cowan, Sir W. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

Jones, Wm. Kennedy (Hornsey)

Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

Cozens-Hardy, Hon. W. H.

Kerr-Smiley, Major P.

Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)

Craig, Capt. C. (Antrim)

Kidd, James

Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

Curzon, Commander Viscount

Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

Larmor, Sir J.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)

Davies, Sir D. S. (Denbigh)

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

Seager, Sir William

Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe)

Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)

Shaw, Capt. W. T. (Forfar)

510

511

Shortt, Rt. Hon. E.

Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Denb.)

Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

Simm, Col. M. T.

Thomas-Stanford, Charles

Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)

Sprot, Col. Sir Alexander

Townley, Maximillian G.

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

Stanier, Capt. Sir Beville

Tryon, Major George Clement

Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud

Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Vickers, D.

Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

Stanton, Charles Butt

Waddington, R.

Wilson, Col. Leslie (Reading)

Steel, Major S. Strang

Ward, Col. L. (Kingsten-upon-Hull)

Winterton, Major Earl

Stephenson, Col. H. K.

Wardle, George J.

Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge and Hyde)

Stevens, Marshall

Warren, Sir Alfred H.

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Stoker Robert Burdon

Watson, Captain John Bertrand

Yate, Col. Charles Edward

Sturrock, J. Leng-

Weigall, Lt.-Col. W. E. G. A.

Yeo, Sir Alfred William

Sugden, Lieut. W. H.

Wsston, Col. John W.

Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)

Sutherland, Sir William

Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

Sykes, Sir C. (Huddersfield)

Whitla, Sir William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson

Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)

Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "attestation," to insert the words
"or soldiers who are repatriated prisoners of war."
This Amendment deals with the question of repatriated prisoners of war, and, as we have little time left in which to discuss this before a quarter past eight, I do not propose to make any lengthy remarks. But I want once again, because we attempted it in vain in Committee, to put the point to my right hon. Friend, and to ask him to at least make this concession. Briefly, the repatriated prisoner of war is now subject to Conscription, as enacted by this Bill when it becomes an Act.
Mr. CHURCHILL: If he is within the retained Clauses.
Mr. HOGGE: As a matter of fact, we have made a very great deal of the miseries and tortures which our prisoners of war were subjected to by the Germans. I took the trouble to get from the Vote Office some White Papers, issued in 1918, giving details of the treatment of these men. The purpose of these White Papers was to prove to the civilised world the enormity of the treatment by the Germans of our prisoners of war. I will only read one paragraph from one of these White Papers. Here is a letter on page 9 of Command-Paper 8988, which is a Report on the treatment by the enemy of British prisoners of war behind the firing lines in France and Belgium, in which it says:
"In May of this year a large party of British came into the camp who had returned from behind the German lines. They were ravenous through being starved and half savages. … The state in which they returned was the worst sight I have seen in my life. Their clothes were ragged, they were half-shaven, verminous, suffering from skin diseases, and were half savage with hunger and bad treatment—"
and so on. That can be multiplied as everybody knows who has read through
512
these White Papers. I would also like to read one extract from a letter written by a repatriated prisoner of war who is still serving, which emphasises another point which rankles in the minds of these men. This man is at the present moment one of a group of men who are guarding German prisoners still in this country. He says that all of them
"failed to put in papers for demobilisation before 1st February, as we understood that all prisoners of war would be demobilised whilst on their two months' leave."
My right hon. Friend will agree that it was quite easy to understand that, because of the public announcements made throughout the Press at that time. I do not know who was responsible for them, but the fact remains that the announcements were made. This man goes on to say that he was given two months' leave, and adds:
"Judge to our anger and dismay when on reporting at our depot we were sent down here to guard our Boche enemies. Most of the prisoners here do not work, are well fed, clothed in raiment as good as our own, whilst we, who suffered every torture that they could devise, guard them night and day."
This man has no father. He is only twenty-eight years of age. His brother was killed in 1916. He himself was wounded twice, and captured when wounded, and before being captured spent three days in "No Man's Land." Everybody knows what that means. He had been only eight months in France. He was in hospital in Germany until August, 1917. He was then sent to work on a railway commando in the Harz Mountains. He was then sent to the salt mines in Hanover. He has now been repatriated and has had two months' repatriation leave. He is now conscripted by this Bill till the 30th April, 1920. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. It is either true or it is not that the Germans treated our prisoners of war in the way suggested in these Reports. If it is true, it makes us peculiarly heartless to take

513
these men and put them back into the Army now. It is going to go hard with my right hon. Friend if he has to defend a position in which the Germans will be able to say, in view of what is depicted in these White Papers, "How much truth can there be in them? Look at the Secretary of State for War in Great Britain, he is putting these men back into the Army." The numbers are not large. Admittedly these men have suffered. This is the only Amendment of substance left which we desire to move. We have got nothing after having toiled through Committee and Report. We have done worse than the fishermen who toiled all night. Cannot my right hon. Friend make some concession on what is a topic of great human interest both to the men concerned and to their relatives who, during the War, have never known how far they could depend upon seeing these men again in view of the serious nature of the treatment of these men in Germany? I hope my right hon. Friend can make this concession.
Mr. C. WHITE: I beg to second the Amendment.
I have not read the White Paper mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), but I have seen many hundreds of prisoners who have come back—men of twenty-five who look like men of fifty. The right hon. Gentleman has argued that these men should not have preferential treatment as compared with the men who risked their lives in the trenches. There may be something to be said for that view, but does not the right hon. Gentleman see that, on the one hand, you had a man risking his life in the trenches but having an opportunity to defend himself and to fight for himself, while, on the other hand, you had a man confined in these horrible prison camps suffering all the horrors of ten thousand hells without a chance of defending himself in any way whatever when attacked, and being starved in the manner described. Those of us who have seen these men come home and their wives, too, scarcely knew them. We shall be doing worse than we have done if we send these men back again—I do not care where we send them. They ought to be released to go back to their home from which they have been separated for so long. I have seen a man this week who has spent two and a half years in Germany as a prisoner. I did not know him when I saw him first, although he was one of my friends for years before he went out. He was
514
captured in 1916 and only came home in the early part of this year. The right hon. Gentleman has given us no concession up to now, and I ask him to give us this. Not for the sake of giving a concession but in the interests of humanity, I would appeal to him with all the earnestness of a man who has seen perhaps more than most men the homes of these people and the men who have come back, that he should at least grant us this small concession and not send these men back into the Army, which has such horrible and terrible memories for them.
Mr. CHURCHILL: This is really a thoroughly unsound proposition. It is very easy for my hon. Friends to take their hard cases and to use the sentiment which is excited in everyone's breast by the recital of these horrible circumstances. It is quite easy for the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment to dwell upon the emaciated, broken, and shattered condition of the released prisoners of war. But it is not our intention to, take into the Army, or to retain in the Army, any man whose health is affected and who is not physically fit for general service. It is not our intention to treat any of these men who are really affected by the hard conditions of their captivity for retention under the Military Service Acts. We mean to be guided in the matter by medical opinion.
Mr. WHITE: Which is often wrong!
Mr. CHURCHILL: Which is often right. At any rate it is the opinion which must necessarily guide us as to whether a man is or is not so injured by his captivity that he is not fit to continue in the Service. The medical examination of these prisoners of war should be most careful and most searching, because we must prevent by every means in our power the retention of men who, not merely physically but mentally and morally are gravely affected by what they have been through. We will see that it is a most strict, careful and solicitous medical examination. But when I have said that and I come to the general ground of principle, I do not believe that the two hon. Members who have spoken would carry the opinion of the Army, by which I mean the soldiers, the men of the rank and file, with them for one moment in the suggestion that men who have not been taken prisoners of war should be penalised in favour of those who have been taken prisoners of war. As I have said before, the bravery

515
of our Army has been such that we have been able to feel great confidence in regard to all prisoners of war, and we have had the assurance that they have not laid down their arms and surrendered themselves to the enemy while any chance remained of their usefully waging the struggle against them. We know that some of the very bravest men in the Army have been taken prisoners. We know that the circumstances of this War, with its attacks on very broad fronts, often have led to parties being cut off for whom there was absolutely no hope but certain death unless they surrendered. I am, therefore, not making any reflection on the men who have become prisoners of war. But to say that they should have a special privilege over men who have had their arms in their hands until the end, until the enemy was finally beaten, all his resources exhausted and his armies worn down, would be to commit the House to a proposition which would be repudiated by any person acquainted with the spirit of armies and with military men, and indeed by any person who devotes the use of a reasonable intellect to a philosophical examination of the subject. I am sure that my hon. Friends will see that we ought to proceed in this case on the footing of exact equality. Let us first of all have the most careful medical examination, and make sure that none of these cases of hardship, where men are so broken by their captivity, should be included in the scope of those retained, but having satisfied ourselves that a man is not prejudicially affected by his confinement, we ought in no way to penalise the fighting soldier who has not been taken prisoner, or to elect prisoners of war into a class specially privileged above all other classes in the Army.
Major MORRISON-BELL: Those who have had the misfortune, like myself, to be taken prisoner of war, are grateful to those hon. Members who have brought forward this Amendment for the spirit of sympathy in which they have done so. The praise they have given these men they thoroughly deserve. Most of them—indeed, all of them, I believe—have been made prisoners in circumstances over which they had absolutely no control. They were cut off and surrounded, but many of them fought to the very last moment. While I thank both the hon. Members for this Amendment, I believe I should be voicing the opinion of those who
516
have been prisoners of war if I say that now they are once more released they would welcome the opportunity of doing something again for their country. I do not pretend to be able to speak for the whole number of prisoners of war, but I am certain that I am on strong ground when I say that to most of them one of the worst parts of their captivity was the sense of uselessness and the futility of their lives while everybody they knew—their friends, brothers, and relations—were working towards winning the War. They had that sense of utter uselessness and yet of wanting to help. Although everybody will be grateful for the sympathy expressed in this Amendment, I believe I am right in saying that it is contrary to the feelings of the men themselves for whose benefit it is intended.
8.0 P.M.
Mr. A. HOPKINSON: As I am practically the only Member of this House affected by this Bill, having been demobilised only four weeks ago, I should like to state what I think is the opinion of the soldiers in the Army, both on this Amendment and upon the whole Bill, if that is not out of order. So far as the Amendment is concerned, capture as a prisoner of war is in the best of cases a very grave misfortune. In the worst of cases it is the worst fault a soldier could commit. I am sorry to have to say it, but I think many hon. Members by this time have found that there have been cases, far too numerous, where instead of being a misfortune to the man who is captured it is a great fault committed by him. It seems to me the best we can do in the case of men who have been prisoners of war is to treat them extremely tenderly and to give them the benefit of the doubt wherever possible, but not to erect them into a sort of heroes, men who are to be treated quite differently from those others who perhaps had the opportunity of being taken prisoners of war and were not taken. On the whole, I have been surprised at the extraordinary way in which hon. Members have got up, particularly on this side of the House, and talked as if they knew the mind of the private soldier. The mind of the Army is a thing which I have had more experience of on every side, from the top almost to the bottom of the Army—I have been on the General Staff in the War Office as well as served in the ranks—and it is a matter of extraordinary amusement and surprise to

517
people like myself to hear the arguments which have been put forward, as though the Members in question were speaking on behalf of the private soldier in the Army. It would appear to a stranger from another world, who came and listened to the Debate, that there was no soldier in the whole of the British Army who ever wanted to fight. It would appear that the one and only object of a soldier in our Army was to get out of it as quickly as possible, to shirk his duty at every possible moment, and to be a nuisance to his commanding officer and his country. I beg to differ from those hon. Members. If it is found necessary, if this Act is put into force, in respect of men in my own position in the Reserve, I shall be very pleased indeed to throw up my rights as a Member of the House, resign my seat, and be called up along with the others. I do that because I value the spirit of the
Army that has been shown in this War, and it seems to be the absolute duty of everyone of us in this position to be ready to do so. This is a question of showing, as far as possible, what the spirit of the best part of the Army is, and I hope those hon. Members who have not seen the underside of the Army quite so closely as I have will bear this in mind in considering these matters. I think those who volunteered at the beginning of the War do not want to be hard on prisoners or on conscripts. In fact, in my opinion, we treated them far too well when we got them into the Army. But do not let us erect into heroes the men who did not stick it out to the end and the men who did not come into the Army at the beginning.
Question put, "That the words 'or soldiers who are repatriated prisoners of war' be there inserted in the Bill."
The House divided: Ayes, 57; Noes, 234.

Division No. 22.]

AYES.

[8.5 p.m.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

Hartshorn, V.

Shaw, Tom (Preston)

Arnold, Sydney

Hayward, Major Evan

Short, A. (Wednesbury)

Bell, James (Ormskirk)

Hinds, John

Sitch, C. H.

Benn, Capt. W. (Leith)

Hirst, G. H.

Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Johnstone, J.

Smith, W. (Wellingborough)

Brace, Rt. Hon. William

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Spoor, B. G.

Breese, Major C. E.

Jones, J. (Silvertown)

Swan, J. E. C.

Briant, F.

Lunn, William

Taylor, J. W. (Chester-le-Street)

Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)

Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)

Thomas, Brig-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)

Cairns, John

M'Lean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)

Cape, Tom

Mallalieu, Frederick William

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)

O'Grady, James

Thorne, Col. W. (Plaistow)

Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

Onions, Alfred

Waterson, A. E.

Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)

Galbraith, Samuel

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Wignall, James

Glanville, Harold James

Richards, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)

Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

Richardson, R. (Houghton)

Young, Robert (Newton, Lancs.)

Graham, W. (Edinburgh)

Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

Grundy, T. W.

Roundell, Lt.-Col. R. F.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Hogge and Mr. Griffiths.

Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

Royce, William Stapleton

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Britton, G. B.

Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)

Ainsworth, Capt C.

Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)

Coote, W. (Tyrone, S.)

Archdale, Edward M.

Bruton, Sir J.

Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)

Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Martin

Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.

Courthope, Major George Loyd

Astbury, Lt.-Com. F. W.

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Univ.)

Austin, Sir H.

Burdon, Col. Rowland

Craig, Capt. C. (Antrim)

Bagley, Captain E. A.

Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Baird, John Lawrence

Burn, T. H. (Belfast)

Curzon, Commander Viscount

Baldwin, Stanley

Campbell, J. G. D.

Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

Davies, Sir D. S. (Denbigh)

Banner, Sir J. S. Harmood-

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe)

Barker, Major R.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Davies, T. (Cirencester)

Barnett, Captain Richard W.

Cautley, Henry Strother

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)

Barnston, Major Harry

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H.

Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

Chadwick, R. Burton

Dixon, Captain H.

Bellairs, Com. Carlyon W.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm., W.)

Dockrell, Sir M.

Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)

Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

Edwards, A. Clement (East Ham, S.)

Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (G'nwich)

Child, Brig.-Gen. Sir Hill

Edwards, J. H. (Glam., Neath)

Bentinck, Lt.-Col. Lard H. Cavendish-

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Eyres-Monsell, Com.

Bigland, Alfred

Clough, R.

Farquharson, Major A. C.

Birchall, Major J. D.

Coats, Sir Stuart

Fell, Sir Arthur

Blades, Sir George R.

Cockerill, Brig.-Gen. G. K.

Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

Blair, Major Reginald

Cohen, Major J. B. B.

Forestier-Walker, L.

Berwick, Major G. O.

Colfox, Major W. P.

Fraser, Major Sir Keith

Brackenbury, Col. H. L.

Colvin, Brig.-Gen. R. B.

Gange, E. S.

Briggs, Harold

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Gardner, E. (Berks., Windsor)

Gardiner, J. (Perth)

Lort-Williams, J.

Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)

Loseby, Captain C. E.

Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)

Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

Seager, Sir William

Glyn, Major R.

M'Donald, D. H. (Bothwell, Lanark)

Seddon, J. A.

Goff, Sir R. Park

M'Guffin, Samuel

Seely, Maj.-Gen. Right Hon. John

Green, J. F. (Leicester)

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

Shaw, Capt. W. T. (Forfar)

Greer, Harry

McNeill, Ronald (Canterbury)

Shortt, Rt. Hon. E.

Greig, Col. James William

Macquisten, F. A.

Simm, Col. M. T.

Gretton, Col. John

Maddocks, Henry

Sprot, Col. Sir Alexander

Griggs, Sir Peter

Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)

Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Guest, Capt. Hon. F. E. (Dorset, E.)

Marriott, John Arthur R.

Stanton, Charles Butt

Guest, Major O. (Leices., Loughb're'.)

Mason, Robert

Stephenson, Col. H. K.

Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W. E. (B. St. E.)

Mitchell, William Lane-

Stevens, Marshall

Hacking, Captain D. H.

Moles, Thomas

Stoker Robert Burdon

Hallwood, A.

Molson, Major John Elsdale

Strauss, Edward Anthony

Hallas, E.

Moore, Maj.-Gen. Sir Newton J.

Sugden, Lieut. W. H.

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. C. T.

Sutherland, Sir William

Hanson, Sir Charles

Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord E. (Chichester)

Henderson, Major V. L.

Morison, T. B. (Inverness)

Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

Hennessy, Major G.

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)

Hewart, Right Hon. Sir Gordon

Mosley, Oswald

Terrell, Capt. R. (Henley, Oxford)

Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.

Murchison, C. K.

Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Denb.)

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Murray, Lt.-Col. Hn. A. C. (Aberd'n.)

Thomas-Stanford, Charles

Hope, Harry (Stirling)

Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Murray, John (Leeds, W.)

Townley, Maximillian G.

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

Murray, William (Dumfries)

Tryon, Major George Clement

Hope, John Deans (Berwick)

Nail, Major Joseph

Vickers, D.

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Neal, Arthur

Waddington, R.

Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)

Nelson, R. F. W. R.

Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

Horne, Edgar (Guildford)

Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)

Wardie, George J.

Horne, Sir Robert (Hillhead)

Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)

Warren, Sir Alfred H.

Hudson, R. M.

Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

Watson, Captain John Bertrand

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Parker, James

Weston, Col. John W.

Hurd, P. A.

Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

Hurst, Major G. B.

Perring, William George

White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

Pickering, Col. Emil W.

Whitla, Sir William

Jameson, Major J. G.

Pilditch, Sir Philip

Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson

Jephcott, A. R.

Pownall, Lt.-Col. Assheton

Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

Jesson, C.

Pratt, John William

Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)

Jodrell, N. P.

Preston, W. R.

Williams, Lt-Com. C. (Tavistock)

Johnson, L. S.

Purchase, H. G.

Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)

Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Raeburn, Sir William

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

Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

Rankin, Capt. James S.

Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud

Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)

Raw, Lt.-Col. Dr. N.

Wilson, Col. Leslie (Reading)

Jones, Wm. Kennedy (Hernsey)

Remer, J. B.

Wilson, Col. M. (Richmond, Yorks.)

Kidd, James

Renwick, G.

Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge and Hyde)

Knights, Capt. H.

Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)

Yeo, Sir Alfred William

Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

Young, Lt.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)

Larmor, Sir J.

Robinson, T. (Stretford, Lancs.)

Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)

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

Rodger, A. K.

Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)

Rogers, Sir Hallewell

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Dudley Ward and Captain Gilmour.

Lloyd, George Butler

Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)

Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)

Lorden, John William

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER: The remaining Amendments are consequential or of subsidiary importance already discussed in Committee.
Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.

AGRICULTURAL RECONSTRUCTION.

  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (ORGANISATION).
  Mr. HARRY HOPE: I beg to move
  "That, as a necessary and immediate preliminary to agricultural reconstruction, it is essential to reorganise the Board of Agriculture, and to accord the Department the status, staff, and accommodation of a first-grade Ministry."
  The Motion which I have the privilege to move has been drawn up and approved by
  520
  the Agricultural Committee of this House. It is framed in no way hostile to the Board of Agriculture, much less to the Noble Lord who is President of the Board, or to the Parliamentary Secretary (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen). The Motion has been framed so that we might do something to strengthen the hands of the Department and to make it a more real live body, able to carry on good work for the development of the agricultural industry. We know that in the past the development of agriculture in this country has been shamefully neglected. We know that agriculture has always been made subservient to industrial development. At the present time a new era is opening before us. The War has opened our eyes to the fact that a maximum production of food on our own home soil is necessary. Not only is it

  521
  necessary that we should have the maximum production of food from our own home land, but also that we should have these lands made use of so that they may best serve the social development of the country. We know that in the past men have been discouraged and have left the country and the land. We think that now by a wiser policy being adopted, and the Prime Minister having indicated to us that in his opinion agriculture now must begin to receive more attention, there is a wider prospect opening before agriculture in this country, and we turn our eyes to the Board of Agriculture. We do not, of course, expect the Board of Agriculture to do everything for us. The development and success of agriculture in this country must always depend, as it has depended in the past, mainly upon, the energy of the farmers and on the individual character.
  We consider that it is a wise policy that the present Board of Agriculture should be raised in status to one of the main Departments of the State, and that the Minister of Agriculture should be a Secretary of State with the same status and in the same position as any other important Minister. We want to see the Board of Agriculture enlarged and equipped with a staff which can carry out far more work in the future than has been done in the past. That, of course, would entail more money being spent, but when we see the possibilities which lie before a progressive policy in agricultural developments, I do not think this House would grudge wise expenditure of money for this purpose. As a Scottish Member naturally I would like to have spoken more about the Scottish Board of Agriculture than the English Board, but I understand that by the framing of this Motion I am not allowed to say very much about the Scottish Board. Perhaps I may be in order in saying, that if we are going to have, as I hope we shall have, a better and an enlarged Agricultural Department in England, that we in Scotland will have some share in the good things that are coming. We want to see the Department of Agriculture brought into close touch with the farmers of the country. We quite recognise that it is impossible for the best work to be done by the Department in future unless it is brought into direct and close touch with practical agricultural opinion. We consider that the Department should be able to carry on technical instruction in all branches of the industry, which should have a very vital effect in improving agri-
  522
  culture all over the country. Whether it be, first of all, by what we may call technical instruction, whether by the establishment of farm institutions, agricultural colleges, experimental farms or of research work in many directions, we see that there is a wide field for good work.
  We know that as regards research into diseases affecting animals in this country we have been in a very backward condition in the past. We know, for instance, what little knowledge we have of diseases such as swine fever or abortion in cattle, all of which do an enormous amount of injury to the production of food. We also know that as regards plant life we are very ignorant concerning many of the diseases that ravage our crops. For instance, we have seen "fingers and toes" carry away every year hundreds of acres of that important crop of turnip. Yet our experts have never been able to diagnose what that disease is. In addition to that we know the ravages of the potato disease. and of more than one form of that disease. We are at present threatened by a new form of it in the shape of what is called wart disease. I sometimes think that some of the advice which we are given by those in authority in reference to this questions is not of a very practical character. In fact, what they tell us to do would almost bring more loss to the farmer than the disease itself. But, undoubtedly, we have in that disease at the present time a scourge which is threatening to do great harm in the future to the production of potatoes in this country. In all those directions there is great scope for research work. All that work is not merely in the interests of the cultivators of the soil, but it would tend to the betterment of all those connected with rural economy, and of course would be in the interests of the consumer. Then in another direction, if we had a seed-testing station, and had more encouragement given to the veterinary profession, we would have reforms carried on which would be of the utmost advantage to agriculture.
  When we come to think of what we want to do to remodel the Board of Agriculture, so that it may take up all those questions and do the best work that is possible, we see that the Board of Agriculture must be connected directly with the agricultural opinion of the country. In Ireland they have a Department of Agriculture which is in direct touch with agricultural opinion. Through the Council of Agriculture which they have

  523
  in Ireland they have in every county direct communication between producers and the Department of Agriculture. Again, by its Agricultural Board, all the work that is taken on by the Board, while controlled and guided by a central authority, is yet delegated to local bodies in administering the work. In that direction the model of the Irish Department of Agriculture is one which we might wisely keep before us at this time when we are thinking of improving the condition and status of the English Board of Agriculture. In other countries we see large sums of money spent upon the development of agriculture. We see in Canada something like £800,000 spent every year. We see in France £1,000,000 spent every year, and in the United States something like £3,000,000. When we compare all that with the small, niggardly expenditure in this country, must we not recognise that in the past we have starved this industry? It is because we hope now that a better future lies before us and wiser counsels will now prevail that we agricultural Members bring this Motion before the House, recognising that, if this progressive step be taken, we would do much, whilst strengthening and enlarging the Board of Agriculture, to bring prosperity to what is, after all, the oldest national industry in the country, and bring wealth to our rural districts, which contribute so much to the social stability of the nation.
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: In seconding this Motion, I propose not to follow the example of the Mover by dealing with the question on general lines, but to devote myself to a particular aspect which is of very great importance. That is, the question of plant disease. During the last twenty or thirty years there has been increasing recognition throughout the world of the importance of this subject to agriculture, but it is mostly in tropical and sub-tropical countries that that recognition has been shown. In this country it is impossible to say that there has been any general recognition of its importance. Certain individuals, no doubt, and certain members of the staff of the Board of Agriculture, and certain farmers who are more enlightened than the majority, have appreciated its importance, but, broadly speaking, it has been so little regarded as a matter of importance to the industry from the commercial point of view that to-day there are no figures available for
  524
  ascertaining accurately the extent of the loss which the country suffers from year to year. In consequence, in estimating the size of the problem and the gravity of the loss caused, one has to resort to estimates, but, fortunately, I think I can put before the House estimates which are really trustworthy, made by skilled and experienced observers.
  Roughly, on present-day prices, the annual damage to crops in England and Wales is probably not under £30,000,000 sterling from insect and fungus diseases. Professor T. B. Wood, of Cambridge, reckons that 30 per cent. of the world's wheat crop is annually lost by fungus diseases alone. I will quote to the House certain figures which show some of the details of the losses in this country. In the case of wheat through rust, 10 per cent. of the crop was estimated to be lost last year, and that would be a crop of ten million quarters at an average price of 72s., so that the loss of wheat alone would amount to £3,600,000. The loss from wheat bulb fly, upon which calculations have been made, was one-tenth, or £360,000. Take the case of oats. From one particular pest, the frit fly, the loss is estimated at 10 per cent. in all probability, and that loss in the crop on last year's prices represents something like three millions sterling. On potatoes from blight alone, at pre-war prices, the loss was somewhere between a million and a-half and two and a-half millions sterling, and that is on the pre-war crop which was very much less than that of recent years. In the last publication of the Board on diseases in 1917, I observe that seventeen different fungus diseases are enumerated as affecting our potatoes. The figures I gave are for one only. In turnips and swedes in 1914 in Northumberland, Norfolk, Cambridge, excluding the Isle of Ely, and Essex, the loss on those two crops from diamond-back moth was at least half a million pounds, and probably the total loss on those crops in the country from this pest was, on pre-war prices, in the year, 1914 a million sterling. Those are simply five different pests I have mentioned, but their number in all is legion. As a result imports into the United States of potatoes were forbidden, and this country lost its trade, which was about 300,000 tons of potatoes annually, simply and solely because there was not adequate machinery for the purpose of controlling our plant pests in this country. I could give the House many other

  525
  illustrations as to fruit trees and forest trees. We are just starting forestry on a national scale, and the Department of Woods and Forests have not got an entomologist or a mycologist at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, who is responsible at the present time for this branch, knows that disease is rife in the coniferous woods. Take another criterion. In the ten years before the War applications for leaflets were received at the rate of 75,000 per year, that is leaflets about insects only, and not all the insects but only a certain number. Let me read a letter or two to the House which brings home the thing even more strongly. I desire to impress the importance of this question on the House. In a letter from Gloucestershire about the fruit fly in 1917 the writer said:
  "Two of the last ten years I lost the entire crop, and in the remaining eight I lost more than half entirely through the frit fly. The loss to the country I consider is very much greater than either from anthrax, sheepscab, or swine fever. In 1913 and 1914 numbers of farmers in the district have turned stock into their oat fields just before harvest as they found it was not worth cutting. I think it the duty of the country to investigate fully and be prepared with a remedy to meet further attacks."
  The President of the Wisbech Fruit Growers' Association in a letter in 1917 said:
  "I have no doubt you will have heard of the great damage done to both the crop and trees (apple) by the capsid bug, and I regret to say the damage by this insect is by no means confined to the apples, but they have very seriously damaged the gooseberry trees, and the potato, so much so that I have every reason to believe the yield will be badly affected. I view the matter as very serious indeed, and I feel that some move must be made at once to try to stop this pest as it is doing thousands of pounds of damage in this district."
  Those are illustrations. The point of importance is that those losses could be materially reduced if adequate steps were taken. I know that the Board of Agriculture is most anxious that it should be so equipped with staff, apparatus, and buildings as to make it possible to deal with those pests, and it is moat important that this House should register its conviction by this Motion that the Board should be put in a position to do what it wishes to do. In France ths phylloxera was successfully dealt with by adequate control measures. We could do an enormous amount if we set about it in an efficient way. I do not want to deal with the history of what has been done in this country. Let us start from where we are now,
  526
  and at the present time the position is this. Research work is concentrated at Rothampsted. Pure research work and other research work are two different things. I ask the attention of the House to the difference. Pure research work is work of scientific men, who must be given a free hand to work out their own theories and pursue their own ideas without reference to immediate practical application—work that could properly be done by men of the university type. But there is another kind of research work which is vitally important. In order to get the farmers of this country to do what is necessary to deal with these pests you must convince farmers that the proposals you make are sensible and are going to be effective, and that it will mean that they are going to make money instead of losing money and be worried for nothing. In order that that should be so it is vitally important that the men who go to advise farmers should be men who understand thoroughly what they are talking about. They should be practical farmers and also scientific men who have carried out their own experiments in connection with the research work done by others for the purpose of ascertaining if the control measures they propose would do good and not harm. That is a point to which I personally attach the greatest importance. From it follows two corollaries—(1) that there must be intimate touch between the advisory staff and the research staff; and (2) that the advisory staff itself must be so equipped with land in the right locality so as to enable them to make sufficient experiments themselves to understand really what they are advising in regard to control measures. The essence of the whole thing depends on the wisdom of the control measures. The advisory staff must also be able to carry out their experiments in the right place. In the first instance it will be at their own station, and, in the second instance, it will be on the fields of the farmers who are suffering from various pests. For that purpose you want itinerant arrangements, with vans which could go around, and a certain number of men who understand what they are about to go to the farms and win the farmer's confidence and show him on the spot what they can do, and the next year all the farmers will come and invite their assistance freely and voluntarily.
  In order that those measures should be carried out, it is necessary that the Board should have a large central station, that

  527
  the research workers should be in touch there with the advisory staff, and that the administrative staff of the Board, who have to enforce the Destructive Insects and Pests Acts and carry out, so to speak, the disciplinary measures that are the corollary of knowledge about control measures, should be in touch with the advisory men. You must not dissociate science from practice. I am not, of course, venturing to sketch out anything in the nature of the organisation the Board ought to have. I do, however, suggest that the Board ought to frame its scheme and come to this House and explain the principles of the scheme in asking for the money to carry it out, so that this House could deal with it and express an opinion on it in order to make sure that it is a really practical scheme. Just before the War we were spending in this country something like £5,000 a year. In the United States I do not know what they are spending. It is very difficult to dissect their figures accurately, but it is much nearer half a million pounds than five thousand, and if this problem is to be dealt with properly the country must realise that expenditure of money for this purpose will be remunerative to the country as a whole. If the loss annually is in the neighbourhood of twenty or thirty millions sterling, surely it is worth while spending anything up to a quarter or half a million, provided there is a reasonable certainty at an early date of saving 10 or 20 per cent. of the total annual loss. It is good business. I venture to submit that the House and the Treasury should look upon the matter from that point of view. There is one difficulty in the way which ought to be pointed out. At the present time there is not a staff of young men with the requisite knowledge in this country, and they have got to be trained, and one of the first steps the Board ought to take with young officers and men of intelligence from the ranks coming back from the front is to start a training centre where they can be given the right education for carrying out this work. The earlier portion of the education should be in the universities, but the later portion should be at the training centre, where they can, so to speak, ultimately be apprentices almost to the men who are doing the practical work and going about the country. I
  528
  have taken that as an expression of the sort of way in which the Board of Agriculture ought to be reorganised with a view to practical efficiency.
  Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALL: At the outset I am authorised by, I think, almost the most representative, and certainly the largest, conference of the occupying interests in agriculture to give the most strenuous support to this Motion to-night. This conference met yesterday afternoon and was composed of representatives of the House of Commons Agricultural Committee, the Central Chamber of Agriculture, the National Farmers' Union, the Agricultural Wages Board, the Agricultural Organisation Society, and the British Empire Producers' Association. I will divide my remarks under two main heads—first, destructive criticism, which is always easy, and secondly, if my hon. and gallant Friend on the Front Bench will allow me, I am going to be presumptuous enough to offer constructive criticism. Under both these heads he is too old a friend of mine, I know, to accuse me of making any personal attack whatever on himself or on, the Noble Lord who presides over the Board of Agriculture. As regards both of them, I am only too happy to pay a heartfelt tribute to their unfailing courtesy and consideration to all those with whom they come in contact, and also to many of my friends within the Board, the devoted band of Civil servants. It is not a personal matter at all, but all I am concerned with is this. They are asked now to hack down an oak tree with a penknife, and it, is an absolutely impossible task. They are asked to make bricks, and they are given no straw to do it with. As to the constitution of the Board, officially the Archbishop of Canterbury is a member of the Board of Agriculture. I do not know that he has ever sat on the Board, and I do not know that the average agriculturist could receive very much agricultural advice from His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury. He fills a very high office and a most useful place in our national life. I can only conceive that in the origin of the Board the Primate was added to its constitution because there might have been a time when supplications for rain or for fine weather were desired, but this office, I must remind the House, was undertaken last year by a Noble Duke in another place, and so efficacious was his intervention that, after writing to the newspapers during a time of drought,

  529
  when the land was so hard that we could not get our horses on, the blessings of the bucolics were immediately turned to the cursings of the whole countryside.
  In its constitution the Board was never intended to be the initiating guide, philosopher, and friend of the agricultural community. It was set up with the idea of administering certain Diseases Acts and collecting certain statistics. It gradually widened its scope. It was built up in a purely haphazard way, and never given its real place in the agricultural administration of the country. What happened? There was a wide gulf between the average agriculturist and the Government Department concerned. War broke out, and it was immediately necessary to bridge that gulf. At enormous expense, which was quite justified—just as we had to make shells at all costs—we had to increase our home production, at whatever cost. Committees were formed, money flowed like water, and the end justified the means. But my point is this, that those means ought never really to have been necessary if we had had an adequate administrative machine. As its scope widened, it neither had the staff nor the status, nor the accommodation to carry out its work. The result was that a new Department was formed called the Food Production Department. It nominally was a sub-Department of the Board of Agriculture, but, in reality, it was an entirely self-contained Department. I can make public now what, during the War, it was impossible to do. During the last year of the War I was head of a division of the Food Control Department, and in that capacity I received a confidential instruction that the Food Production Department was to be treated as a channel for official communications as a purely self-contained Department—that our communications were to go simultaneously to the Board of Agriculture and the Food Production Department, clearly showing that there was a superimposed Government Department concerned with the very first essential which the Board of Agriculture ought to have, namely, the administration of the whole cultivation of the land of this country. Subsequently the Food Control Department came along, and rightly had to control the whole of the raw material, production, distribution, and consumption of the large amount of foodstuffs in our country.
  530
  9.0 P.M.
  I have heard complaints during the last two years as to why the Food Controller should have anything to do with agriculture. Let me say, on the first opportunity I have of saying it, that my old chief, Lord Rhondda, held this, as I know, as a basic principle—and I think a great deal of his success was due to the fact that he carried it out to the letter—that if you are to have control, you must have it from the centre; you must have it all or none. He adopted a principle, and all this superimposed agricultural control was necessary, because there was not machinery in the country to do it. Therefore, he had to take control of the whole, raw material, with the universal accord that it received. Thirdly, there was the War Office. The War Office had to produce clothing for millions of troops. That, again meant control. All these three things—Food Production Department, Food Control Department and War Office—had to be superimposed on to the Board of Agriculture because former Governments, had never given to the country the benefit of a complete administrative machinery to carry out all these things. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend in his reply will, point to the research, the education and all the grants that have been made. There is published every year, the annual Report of the Education branch on the distribution, of grants for agricultural education. The uninitiated reading this will immediately say, "Everything that can be done is done. What more can you want? Here you have a document that runs into hundreds of pages, giving all the institutions and the counties which are receiving grants, and the total list of the whole of the activities of agricultural research and education in this country." In theory that is perfectly true, but I want to give the House a practical example of how, under the present regime, it works, and what I am going to say now casts no reflection whatever on my Friend at the head of this Department at the Board of Agriculture. There is no more zealous public servant in the public Departments than he. But here is how it works. During the last six weeks I have been in the position of deputy-chairman of the Milk Committee. That has entailed the chairmanship of all the Sub-committees, and one of our Sub-committees has dealt entirely with the facilities for education and research of the dairy industry in this country. I asked if, through the ordinary official channel, I

  531
  could be given a county that could be shown to be a really progressive county from the point of view of education and research in the dairy industry. I am not going to name the county, because we only get full, free and frank evidence because it is given on the distinct understanding that it is not to be made public. But I was given a county which was, in the opinion of the Board of Agriculture and other Government Departments, a really progressive county. This is how their scheme in that county is described:
  "Agricultural education is directed by the county organiser for agriculture. Itinerant cheese and butter schools are maintained. Schools and lectures in agricultural subjects are held throughout the county. In past years the teaching staff has been strengthened by an assistant-instructor in agriculture and jointly with an instructor in farriery, and in this way it is possible to give more agricultural instruction by means of lectures, and to give field demonstrations, and so on."
  From the point of view of output, that is really a very good county, and everything is going perfectly straight. Then I asked for evidence from the ordinary, average, everyday farmer, and, in order to get really good evidence, I asked the National Farmers' Union if they would nominate two average good farmers in that particular county to give evidence from that particular point of view. Here is the evidence I received. I asked the witness,
  "Is there anyone in your county to whom you feel you can turn for advice in case of difficulty? Mr. So and So said: 'I know of no one. I should probably ask my neighbour, or, in case of illness, the veterinary surgeon. I agree it would be very desirable to have more information available on such questions as the analysis of cakes and meal. Before the War I have obtained a good deal of information through reading the 'Mark Lane Express.' Latterly, however, it has not been possible to carry out the experiments which formerly were reported there. I do not rely in any way on county authorities. I believe some years ago a county farm school was established, un by the county council, but it was not financially successful, and was obliged to close down.' "
  A member of the Committee asked whether the farmers in the country were in the habit of turning to the county organiser in cases of doubt or difficulty.
  "Answer: 'I have never regarded him in that light, and I have never heard of any farmer of my acquaintance going to him for assistance. We should welcome the assistance of county authorities and educational facilities and means of obtaining information in case of difficulty if they were at the disposal of farmers in the county. What was wanted was a county organiser who could speak and act as a practical farmer."
  532
  There is a real instance of glorious Government theory up against the bedrock of farmers' practice! The real difficulty is that you have got this splendid theoretical curriculum which is wholly out of touch with the average everyday farmer in the country. My hon. and gallant Friend in his answer may say, "Well, what more can we do? You cannot expect us to keep running down into the country. That is the job of the county councils." I agree that to a greater extent the county authorities might help the farmer. All that the Board of Agriculture can do under the present system is to give financial Grants. The wealthier county councils say, "We do not want the Grants; we do not want to do the work." The poorer counties, if they are retrograde, simply fold their arms, and say, "We do not want anything." It is this you want to get over. I want to see the farmer really in a position to bring direct pressure on the Board and on the county authority, and I want also to bridge this enormous gulf which the evidence I have quoted shows does now exist between what help is now available, and which is wholly inadequate from a financial point of view—to bridge that gulf by bringing the real, practical farmer into far better and closer touch with that which concerns him deeply.
  The Canadian Mission now in this country sent their agricultural representative to give evidence before my Committee. I was ashamed at the end to feel that a country like Canada should be filling the bill to the extent she is, so far as her farmers are concerned, and our own country here leaving the farmer to shift in all these directions for himself. I asked my hon. and gallant Friend last week, having had the evidence that I have had before the Milk Committee as to the ravages of this disease, whether anything was proposed to be done? The position at present means this, that in every single one of the herds that is producing the one essential food for our women and children the output is diminished by 40 per cent., thus sending up the price to every one of us.
  An HON. MEMBER: What about the land?
  Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALL: It is not a question of land. I could take the hon. Gentleman to land in Lincolnshire, the manipulation of which would land anyone in the Bankruptcy Court in a very short time. This year, for instance, our autumn corn has been whipped by the rain during

  533
  the last three months, and the springtime sowing has thus been made backward. The point I wanted to make is this: Do the authorities, knowing the ravages of this disease, intend to do anything? The farmers in the country come to us and say this is one of the things which is interfering with milk production in the country; this is one of the things sending up the price to the consumer; what can you do? I asked the Board of Agriculture, and the answer I got last week was that an inquiry was held in 1905, in which year the Report of the Inquiry was published, and that that Report is available. Are we so bankrupt in imagination that we are going to say that veterinary science has not advanced one iota in the last fifteen years, and that all the help and assistance the present Board of Agriculture can give to the dairy farmers of this country in the stamping out of this disease which is causing great loss, is to refer them to a Report of fifteen years ago? From the point of review of research and of education I shall be extremely anxious to hear whether my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir A. Boscawen) can give us any real satisfaction. He may, I know, say that, of course, the matter is one for the Treasury. All, however, I want to say to him is this: The true statesman is always an economist and the true economist is the man who knows when and how to spend money.
  I can conceive of no way of advancing the interests of the agriculture of this country more than by wisely spending money in the stamping out of disease. It may be here suggested that up till now all my observations have been in the line of destructive criticism. I will endeavour, therefore, to make constructive suggestions—though it may be urged with some truth that it is presumption on my part to do so. I may, however, make the excuse that I have known agriculture from the inside and from the outside, as the hon and gallant Gentleman knows, for a great number of years. I have earned my living in this industry as an agent for very large acreages of agricultural land, and I have been farming my own and other people's land for the last twenty years. I have continuously sat on all the local authorities in my own part of the country for the last eighteen years, and I know, therefore, from the outside, as well as from the inside where it has been my privilege to serve as an acting Civil servant for the past year in another Government Department. The constructive suggestions are these: That
  534
  the Board of Agriculture should be re-organised on the lines of the present Irish Board of Agriculture. You should have your president presiding over it. You should have a council of agriculture, appointed as to 60 per cent. from your county councils, and as to 30 per cent. nominated by the Departments. Together with these you should have an executive agricultural board of twelve men, three of them for each province of our country (including England and Wales), with eight elected by the councils, and four nominated by the Departments. Let that be your supreme administrative machine. Let it be linked up with your county committee, which will be a true mirror and reflection, of the agricultural community in the particular county. Take into consultation and the closest co-operation all the great organisations, including the Agricultural Labourers' Union, and you will now have for the first time in the country a national agricultural body—after ten years' advocacy by some of us. It may be that if there had not been a war we should not have had it now. There is, however, a wholly different outlook in the industry. With that atmosphere we were able to form a national council which is equally representative of owner, occupier, and labourer. We have met once a month, and we have never yet got up from the table without a unanimous decision. That in itself is a great stride forward. I ask that the Board should make use of it; and have your county committees, truly representative of all the interests in the industry, directly linked up with the different Government Departments. Let your central control be as strong as possible. Let your local administration be as decentralised as possible. I cannot help thinking that if that sort of administrative machine were created you would bridge the enormous gulf that now exists between the average farmer and the Government Departments. I hope that this Motion will be a real test as to whether the Government are in earnest about the agricultural industry. It is no good talking to us about a great agricultural policy, and a great industrial policy. All that is perfectly splendid, but you cannot do it all without the necessary administrative machinery. I hope this Motion will be the first test as to whether the Government really mean business in their treatment of the agricultural industry or not. I know I should be out of order if I went further with

  535
  regard to that topic, but I will conclude by saying that if the Government are in earnest, and want to make the agricultural industry really prosperous; if they do not wish us to spend the rest of our days leaning on a financial crutch, because no industry can be successful from the economic point of view which is always compelled to lean on a financial crutch, then they must give us a real, active administrative machine, which will enable us to improve our education and our research, and reduce our cost of production, and then agriculture will be a real, live, stimulating interest in the whole of the industries of this country.
  Major WARD-JACKSON: I think we may congratulate ourselves and the Government upon the measures which they have already introduced, and which they will introduce in the future, and which were adumbrated by all of us in our election addresses, and which it is the wish, I am quite sure, of all Members of this House, as well as the people of the country, should be carried out. First of all, I think we were all exceedingly interested in listening to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down, in which he criticised fully and very drastically the formation of the Board which deals with the great question of agriculture. I think, possibly, the suggestions he has made may be perfectly correct. Reference has been made to the necessity for a large policy in dealing with the question of agriculture. I agree that large dealing with all these questions is an essential now, and I do not think it is entirely on account of the War that this large dealing is necessary. I think every hon. Member of this House will agree with me when I say that shortly before the War, and indeed for some time before the War, we had begun to see signs of foreign competition cutting deep almost into our vitals, and showing that we were not in the strong position which we always maintained we should be in, and, in fact, we were losing ground which we ought never to have lost at all in view of the wonderful advantages which this country has over all others upon earth.
  I should like to enumerate a few of those advantages. In the first place, there is the enormous proportion of the world's shipping which we had, and we had the greatest Empire on earth in which to deal with subjects of His Majesty the King. We had the most wonderful geographical
  536
  position so far as the markets of Europe and the world were concerned. We had a number of seaports far in excess of those existing in any other country, and I think the proportion was something like five to one. We had ideal facilities for the making of cotton and woollen goods, and we had large deposits of coal and iron in juxtaposition to our ports which were unequalled elsewhere; and we also had the finest grazing country and stock-raising, country in the whole world. Notwithstanding all these advantages, we noticed that before the War our hundred-year-old supremacy in commerce was slipping away from us. I remember many years ago a new manager being appointed to one of the greatest industrial firms in the North of England which owned its own, coal and iron mines and steel works, and he said if he was not able to compete with the whole of the world with this concern, and compete successfully, he would never believe in certainties again. Before the War that concern was not occupying that high place so far as its financial position was concerned as this manager had expected it to do, but he was hopeful that it would be absolutely successful. Nevertheless we felt our supremacy sinking away.
  Before the War I and a great many others looked upon this loss of supremacy and attributed it to one thing, and one only, and that was to the question of Free Trade, which involved, in our opinion, unfair competition. Since the War I think we have to a certain extent changed our view, and I am not so sure that it did not strike me last night that the question of doing away with Free Trade would not be a panacea for all these evils. We must look deeper, and we must look into the reason given last night by the hon. Member for Preston, to whose remarks I listened with the greatest interest. My opinion is that in the past we kept our heads above water not because of our methods, but in spite of them. As a matter of fact, I think it was the natural advantages which our country gave us which managed to keep us for so many years ahead of other countries. As a result of our supremacy slipping away we now see these enormous measures of reconstruction, which have to be put through as quickly as possible.
  I do not by any means see eye-to-eye in all respects with hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I think the House will agree that if some of the methods which they have put forward for a great many years had been

  537
  adopted earlier, as they are being adopted now, we should have arrived quicker at a state of prosperity and quietude than we are doing at the present moment, and we should have got through the War with more facility and dispatch. With regard to agriculture, I do not think any other industry can be mentioned in which such archaic methods and systems have prevailed as in that of agriculture. In the past nothing has ever been done for agriculture except to place burdens upon it, because it was one of the easiest industries to get at and it could not run away. People who were engaged in it were supposed to be only deserving of poor profits, and the wages paid to the agricultural labourer were miserably poor and insufficient pittances. I should like to make one remark with regard to some of the hon. Gentlemen who sit on the benches opposite in regard to certain sarcastic remarks which I have heard them make from time to time and to which we have got rather accustomed. They say that any idea that Members on this side of the House have with regard to the benefit of the workers of this country is, so to speak, put up as a peg on which to hang our hats. I would remind hon. Members opposite that we have just been through one of the greatest cataclysms that the world has ever seen, and that we have all been associated in France and in other fields of war, and those of us who were not so engaged worked at home. I myself have been so associated, and is it to be supposed that we have done so without having changed a good many of our views? So that if hon. Members opposite consider that there has been a certain tardiness on the part of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House with regard to our views, they must, notwithstanding that, give us the credit for being honest and believe that we do not put them forward from selfish motives after the terrible dangers and sufferings through which we have passed during the last four or five years.
  I am asking for nothing else in regard to agriculture but fair dealing. This industry has been living, and the Government knows it perfectly well, from hand to mouth for years and years. Innumerable statesmen have endeavoured to deal with it; they have dabbled their toes in cold water without taking a cold bath, which they were so strongly recommended to do by the right hon. Member for Cambridge on the occasion of the Debate on another measure
  538
  the other night. They have not succeeded in taking that cold bath which would have produced something of great advantage to agriculture. This industry has rightly earned the name of Cinderella. It has always been the one to be paid the least attention, but I hope that before many months have passed we may see agriculture deserve further the name of Cinderella, who after a certain time became preferred to all her sisters. There have been all sorts of propositions put forward for the improvement of agriculture, but I have always noticed one thing in all discussions which have taken place with regard to it, that the committees or authorities appointed invariably seem to take up the attitude that agriculture could go back, more or less, to the position in which it was before the War so long as everybody connected with it could make a profit. But I do not believe that that would be for the good of the community. I believe we shall have to introduce modern methods and modern systems into agriculture.
  Either agriculture is to exist, or it is not, and in this matter I use the word "exist" as a synonym for "succeed," because if it does not succeed, and if the Government cannot make it succeed, then it is just as well that it should not—and it certainly will not—in the future exist. How is it going to succeed? Is it by co-operation? Is it by centralisation or something of that sort? It is for the Government to say. We all know with regard to farmers that they are a very peculiar race, and co-operation and centralisation do not always appeal to them. I should think that, as a class, farmers stick less to each other, and their opinions coincide less with each other's, than in any other business. For this reason: When a farmer wants to sell a pig or a cow or a horse he usually goes to his next-door neighbour. We all know that buyers and sellers do not invariably see eye to eye, that there is a considerable difference between them, and, therefore, there is always a difference between the farmers; but I think that it will be a great incentive to them to learn when they realise that they are certain to have to pay not only the wages that they are paying now, but that in a very short time demands will be made for higher wages by the agricultural labourer. I am quite certain that if an inquiry similar to that which is being held in regard to the coal-mining industry could be held in regard to agriculture, the agricultural

  539
  workers would not be able to put forward the same good case, or to obtain the same results, rightly, on the finding of the Court, as the coal-miners have done. But I do not think for one instant that there ought to be any industry in this country, especially an industry like agriculture, which is the basic one of the whole lot, which should not be able to pay its labourers just as high wages as are paid in any other trade.
  The present condition of affairs means there is something wrong with agriculture. It is either the weak system, the apathy of the people involved, or it is want of co-operation between the three classes mainly concerned, namely, the landlord, the tenant, and the agricultural labourer. Surely it is the duty of the Government to prescribe some scheme which will make agriculture attractive not only to capital but also to labour. We have heard that a great number of the soldiers who have been applying to come home to work on the land, when they get home, have not wished to go on working. There must be something wrong if that is the case. If the land is not attractive enough, and the towns prove far pleasanter places to live in, it must be because there is no chance for the people who are interested in agriculture. I look to the Government to redeem their promises, after the splendid start they have made in the work of Reconstruction, to put forward some scheme or another which will place agriculture on a better footing. I would just like to put forward a figure or two in this connection. In 1907, the year of the Census of Production, the import of edible foodstuffs into this country was £194,800,000 worth. The amount of undutiable foodstuffs grown in the United Kingdom in the same year was £196,344,000, and in point of fact this industry in the United Kingdom was only supplying half the wants of the population. Let us take, for example, a step which the Government took with a view to inducing the farmers and agricultural community generally to produce more food for the benefit of the people. They caused an enormous amount of ground to be ploughed up from one end of the Kingdom to the other. I myself last autumn was employed on the Headquarters Staff of the Western Command. It was part of my duty to traverse the country from the Scottish border right down to Pembroke Dock, and I can assure the House that I saw acres of cereals which were untouched and ruined
  540
  by the third week in October. There is going to be nothing popular about that. When there are so many countries in the world able to produce without any danger cereal crops which are a necessity for everybody, but which are not the only necessity—when there are so many parts of the world which can produce these crops under much better auspices than we can, I submit that it would be better for us to devote our attention to the crops to which the climate of this country would not be so dangerous.
  I would like to give another figure. In 1904 the Board of Trade made a Census of the weekly budgets of expenditure of some 2,000 families in the United Kingdom. The average income of those families was 36s. 10d. per week. It was found that the total expenditure on bread and flour per family was 3s. 7d. per week. The other foodstuffs which were producable in the United Kingdom and which those families bought amounted to 14s. 7d. per week, and the balance of 27s. was made up of tea, coffee, and sugar. Therefore, nearly five times as much other foodstuffs as bread and flour were bought by each of those families. It seems to me that that part of agriculture has been totally neglected, and, notwithstanding the remarks the other day of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), I cannot help thinking that if a system of intensive cultivation were taken more carefully in hand considerable improvements would be seen. The Government's schemes of transport and of land settlement will effect something, but agriculture wants a very great deal more than that. We must remember that there are only two classes of people as far as working the land is concerned. One, of course, is the agricultural labourer and the other is the farmer. The farmer stands in a unique position with regard to his industry compared with other people in other industries. The farmer is the one man who cannot be changed from one industry to another. If we cannot keep our farmers going, if we cannot keep them in prosperity, we shall be absolutely no good at all so far as agriculture is concerned. They have borne the heat and burden of the day and many losses, and they are a little suspicious of what may be done for them in the future, but they will adopt, I am quite sure, any scheme which is put forward by the Government

  541
  for the amelioration of the present position, and the Government will find no more loyal helpers than the farmers.
  Mr. W. R. SMITH: I am in agreement with the greater part of what has been said in this Debate. I do not think that anyone who has any knowledge of the present position of the Board of Agriculture can feel that its condition is in any way satisfactory having regard to the great importance of the industry. The accommodation that is provided for it, so scattered and so inefficient, is evidence that up till now the industry has not been viewed from the standpoint that it ought to be viewed, but at the present moment one is justified in saying that the nation as a whole views the industry of agriculture from a different standpoint than it has done previously. The nation will expect in years to come to have as large a proportion of its foodstuffs grown at home as it is possible to do. We do not want to face the same risks as we have had to face during the past four years. The nation also recognises, if that is to be so, that we must have the Board of Agriculture given a proper status and properly and adequately equipped in order to carry out its numerous duties and functions. This is certainly not the case at the present time. It is deplorable that we should have an industry of this character carried on under conditions whereby problems may arise and there is no source from which information can be obtained in order to guide and help those who may be in difficulty. There is no industry in the country that wants a better equipped central department more than the industry of agriculture The geological formation of our country in itself constitutes a problem requiring a concentration of mind such as agriculture has never received up to the present moment.
  There has been a great deal of loose talk about agriculture in the past. Certain forms of cultivation have been referred to as though they were capable of being applied to the whole of the country but it can easily be shown that there is no given form of cultivation either on small-holdings or on large industrial farms that can be applied to the whole country. It is a question of finding out the best form of cultivation for given areas to give us the best results. We cannot hope to achieve that unless we have behind us a Department properly staffed and equipped with attached to it research departments from which shall be forthcoming all the information
  542
  that is essential for the guidance of those who are associated with the industry. I would not to-night rise to support this Motion if I felt that merely by raising the status of the Ministry, or even by giving it accommodation which harmonises with the importance of its work, we were going to rest there. We do not look upon this as the end in itself. It is but the means to an end whereby the fullest resources of this country may be tapped in order to provide the greatest possible amount of food for the people within our shores.
  I was struck by some information which reached me the other day when in conversation with members of a Farmers' Union, showing how little agricultural education has been taken up in this country. I believe there is a college in Kent which has simply languished for want of support to carry on its work, and I was informed that just previously to the War they were compelled to take in foreign pupils at higher fees in order to get the money necessary to carry on the work of the college. If it is in the interest of foreigners to come to these colleges in order that they may be trained, educated, and equipped, there ought to be some advantage attaching to them so far as our own people are concerned. This Debate has developed on rather different lines to those which have obtained in previous Debates in connection with agriculture. Previously the industry has sought relief in measures upon which this country I am afraid never will be agreed. We can, I should think, agree to-night that it ought to be possible for the Board of Agriculture to be equipped in such a way that the fullest resources of science shall be forthcoming to help the industry in growing the food of the people. We on these benches will at all times be ready to give support in that direction, while, on the other hand, we would hesitate to give support to proposals which in the end, unless the industry is changed, would be a means of giving protection very largely to inefficiency. We are prepared to look upon this question from the standpoint of national necessity, but we are not prepared to view it from the standpoint of backing up national inefficiency. National inefficiency, I am afraid, has formed a very large part in regard to agriculture in days gone by.
  We on these benches have a special interest in agriculture, although we find ourselves very largely on common ground with those who have brought forward this

  543
  Motion. Our special interest in agriculture is not merely to have a Ministry with a proper status, or even with buildings suitable to its requirements, nor yet is our interest limited to the growing of food for the people. Our special concern is to see the industry in such a condition that those who work in connection with it are able to receive a wage that would establish in their homes a standard of comfort which harmonises with their human needs. That is our special interest in this matter. We feel that the House must of necessity view the question of agriculture in the future from that standpoint. The day has gone by when the labourer will be content to live and work under the conditions which we have endured in the past. The whole circumstances of his life have got to be improved. He will expect better housing accommodation; he will expect to have opportunities for pleasure and recreation; he will want the whole surroundings of his life to be such as will tempt him to remain by the countryside rather than to present to his mind a condition of things he will only tolerate until the industries in neighbouring towns tempt him there or the conditions in the Colonies hold out an invitation for him to leave his native country. He will want a wage that will enable him to give his family that which they are reasonably and honestly entitled to, and I can tell the House that at the present moment there never was in the history of this country a greater determination, so far as Labour is concerned, to establish this condition as part of his working life. It is well that the House should understand that this question of agriculture has greater significance and importance because of that fact. It seems to me it is impossible for us to view the future with any idea of giving to the labourer that which he is claiming, and which we feel he is entitled to, unless we have a Department in the Board of Agriculture with the proper status, properly and adequately equipped, in order that the fullest resources of the nation may be brought to bear upon the industry, rather than, as has been the case in the past, concentrating our minds upon remedies that are no solution of the question, and will in the end leave us very largely at the point from which we started.
  We on these benches are glad to give support to this proposal, and we hope and trust it will not be taken as an indication
  544
  that we merely want to add to the dignity of those who occupy positions in this Department. We give our support to it because we want the Department to be able to render that service to the industry which national interests demand at the present moment. Possibly, if we were to go into this question from the standpoint which we would like to, we might urge a point of view with which some Members in the House would disagree. We would like to see this industry made really a purely national industry with the land of the country belonging to the people of the country, with the industry organised and developed in the interests of the nation and with the idea of eliminating vested interests entirely from it. We feel that until that position is reached agriculture can never hold a satisfactory position in this country. But pending the time when we shall be able to view the question from that standpoint—and I hope it may be in the near future—we are glad to welcome this Motion and we trust it will be accepted by the Government and that the industry will be able to look to the Board which controls its destinies as something in the nature of a real friend, ready to hold out a helping hand in those times of trouble which, unfortunately, come too often to the industry as a whole.
  Mr. ACLAND: I do not want to put the hon. and gallant Gentleman who is to speak for the Department into the position in which he unwittingly placed me the other night by compelling me to confine my remarks within a period of a few minutes, and I therefore rise now to make some observations on this Motion. Let us bring this matter down to practical facts. The dignity of an office is measured more by the salary which is enjoyed by the head of it than by anything else. As long as the salaries of the President of the Local Government Board and of the President of the Board of Trade are £5,000 a year while that of the President of the Board of Agriculture is only £2,000 a year, the Board of Agriculture will be treated by the Treasury, and by everybody else, as very inferior to the other two offices. That sort of treatment is now entirely out of date. In old days the organisation used to be something like this. At the head of the scale in salary came the legal officers, because lawyers have always been extraordinarily capable of looking after themselves from a financial point of view. They received something like £10,000 a year each. Then came the Secretaries of State

  545
  with £5,000 a year each. Then came the rest—rather a bad third. That was altered in the 1906 Parliament, when the offices of the Local Government Board and the Board of Trade were brought up to the level of the offices held by Secretaries of State.
  Two very serious anomalies were then left. The greatest, with all respect to agriculture, was with regard to the President of the Board of Education. That office ought certainly to have been made a first-class office long before now. But it is quite as important that the office of the Board of Agriculture should also be made of similar status from that point of view to the offices of local government and trade. This matter reflects itself even on the salary and status of the humble Under-Secretaries. I have had experience as Under-Secretary in four different Departments, and I have always found that the importance and difficulty of the work of an Under-Secretary varies inversely with the importance of the office which he happens to occupy. When I was Financial Secretary to the Treasury and was paid the most I ever had—£2,000 a year—my work was certainly easier, because that was the best-staffed office. The better an office is staffed the easier becomes the work of the Parliamentary heads. I afterwards became Under-Secretary to the Foreign Office, and then Financial Secretary to the War Office. They were also well-staffed offices, but the work was a good deal harder, because they were not so well staffed as the Treasury and the Foreign Office. Certainly the most difficult and hardest work, which gave me the longest task and more steady all-day-Sunday work than I have ever had anywhere else, was at the Board of Agriculture, where I was only thought to be worth £1,200 a year. That was because the staff was not adequate. My hon. and gallant Friend knows that. The men were frightfully overworked and hard pressed, and one had to make bricks nearly all the time without the necessary straw. One found it much more difficult to turn out first-class work, because of the way that office was graded, than it would have been if the office had been graded and staffed properly and if that staff had been paid properly.
  The simple facts with regard to premises is symptomatic of the way in which the Board of Agriculture has always been treated in this country. In my time the
  546
  Board was scattered in about fifteen different actual addresses in England and Wales. I believe the number has gone up to nineteen since then. The difficulty of working a Department scattered through fifteen or twenty different addresses can be better imagined than described. I have recently had an opportunity of visiting the Boards of Agriculture both in Scotland and in Ireland on forestry business. I went to Edinburgh, and found that the Board there had a central office, occupying very dignified quarters in a beautiful square in that marvellously noble city. But there, too, the Board was scattered into five or six different branches, only a nucleus being in the headquarters. It was only when I went to Ireland that I found the Board of Agriculture housed as the Board of Agriculture ought to be, in dignified, ample buildings, where the whole of the staff could come together. The housing of the Boards in England and Scotland is utterly inefficient, and it must make for less efficient work than they ought to do all day long. I am certain that a doorkeeper in the house of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland would refuse to be housed as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture is housed in London.
  10.0 P.M.
  The low grading of an office works in practice in this way. The Treasury regards an office like the Board of Agriculture as something like a third-class office. They refuse to pay adequate salaries to the staff. They refuse to allow that staff to be recruited from the best available class entering the Civil Service, or they give one an entirely inadequate number of men recruited in the best way and from the best class. In actual working this sort of economies in staff are the very worst forms of actual waste of the nation's money. I do not believe that first-class work can be done by a third-class office any more than we can expect A 1 efficient from a C 3 nation. The sort of thing that happens is that a real question comes up, and a suggestion is made of a profitable line to follow, where either money can be saved or some good work done for the State. The harassed chief of the office says, "Who is there in the Department who will take up this question, look into it, and present a memorandum which will suggest a policy that can be carried out usefully?" At the Board of Agriculture he has two alternatives: he has either to throw it on to some

  547
  extraordinarily overworked one of the few officials—there are half a dozen men of first-class ability who have done marvellously good service to the State in the Board of Agriculture, all of them always up to their eyes in work because the office is so hideously understaffed so that men cannot possibly give attention to their new work; or he has to give it to some man underneath, perhaps a young man, who is underpaid, not recruited from the class from which he might be recruited, and who, with the best will in the world, cannot produce a first-class scheme or tackle the new subject that has come above the horizon. Although you may save an odd £100 a year here and there in economies on the staff, yet the hon. Gentleman knows well that during the period of the War you have over and over again lost in money value to the nation to the tune of millions because of that petty economy of staff and the inadequate staffing of the office.
  Think of the future! Agriculture has a very difficult prospect before it. The pending increase in the agricultural labourer's wage, which I am glad to find the whole House is ready to welcome in advance, is going to make farming extraordinarily difficult to almost every farmer everywhere up and down the country. A big man can make economies. He can use labour-saving machinery, buy tractors and lay field to field. He will survive. He may even nourish more than before. The small man who can run his farm with his own family is going to manage to keep alive, but the small farmer with a 100 or 150 acres and two or three labourers is going to find things very difficult indeed. The problems in front of the Board of Agriculture will be of extraordinary difficulty. You cannot meet the position simply by introducing high Parliamentary prices. To say that because agriculture, for the first time, has got to pay its labour decently, therefore you are going to pour into the pockets of the agriculturists extra bounties from the taxpayers' pocket, is not a policy which by itself will give that stability which is the absolute foundation of agriculture. You have to add something. You have to work out a regular scheme for giving to the nation safety and security and the best possible quality in their food supplies. If you can persuade the nation that they are really getting something for their money, if you can persuade them that
  548
  they are going to get from the new policy absolute safety in time of emergency, that a certain proportion of land is going to be kept under arable cultivation, sufficient to make us self-supporting in emergency, that the land is not only going to be better cultivated from the point of view of production but better used from the point of view of supporting men, women and children upon it, and that that factor is going to be looked into thoroughly parish by parish and every parish is going to be surveyed to see not only that the land is used properly but that the housing is proper, that the chances of the small man getting up are adequate, that all the best farms are not monopolised by one or two men who have more than they want with no chance for the small man—if all these things which concern the food-producing capacity of the land and the capacity of the land to sustain and train thoroughly healthy families are going to be tackled as they ought to be, you will want a far differently equipped Board of Agriculture from that which the Treasury and the Government have given us in the past. The truth is that production from the land and settlement on the land are now recognised—if not they ought to be recognised—as some of the very first and foremost activities and responsibilities that the State can possibly undertake. That, I think, means that this Motion is justified. We cannot go on struggling with premises which were suitable enough for a Department which only administered swine fever and the muzzling of dogs, and things of that sort. Perhaps the best solution might be that suggested by the Haldane Commission, a great Department of production of which the most important Sub-Department should be the Department of Agriculture, but we cannot afford in this matter, with all these big problems pressing upon us, to wait for an ideal solution. I think the form the Motion takes is rough, but it is justifiable, it is necessary, it is essential if agriculture is to be tackled in the way it must be tackled during the next few months and the next few years, to make it a first-class Department, to staff it, to house it, to pay its staff adequately from that point of view.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): May I say how very much I regret the circumstances of the Debate last week. If I had realised what was going to happen on that occasion I

  549
  should certainly have cut my remarks shorter. With regard to this Motion I am glad to be able to say on behalf of the Government that I am prepared to accept it. Not only so, but I am authorised to say the Government is prepared to bring forward the necessary measures, which will probably require legislation, to carry out what is contained practically in the Motion as soon as possible. We realise exactly what has been said by some speakers to-night. The Board of Agriculture must not be what it was originally, a mere negative Department charged merely with the carrying out of certain Acts of Parliament. We realise that it must become in the words of the Agricultural Sub-committee on Reconstruction presided over by Lord Selborne,
  "A great Department of State charged with the care of agriculture in its widest sense and with the promotion and welfare of rural as opposed to urban life."
  For that reason we accept the proposal that the Board of Agriculture should be made a first-class office. I am not sure whether it is altogether proper for me to support such a Motion because its carrying out may involve a slight increase in my salary, though not very much after the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had his pull. But still we feel, if we are going to do our work properly, if we are to carry that weight in the Cabinet that the importance of the subject demands, the Board of Agriculture should be placed on a level with other first-class offices in the Government. It is quite true that the present constitution of the Board is altogether anomalous. My hon. and gallant Friend (Lieutenant-Colonel Weigall) said the Archbishop of Canterbury was a member. I do not know why he should not be. As a matter of fact, I believe he is not. But according to the original Act establishing the Board it consisted of the following:
  "The Lord President of the Council, His Majesty's principal Secretary of State, the First Commissioner of His Majesty's Treasury, the Chancellor of His Majesty's Exchequer, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Secretary for Scotland, and any other such person as His Majesty the King may from time to time think fit to appoint during His Majesty's pleasure."
  We quite realise that no doubt the holders of these great offices in the present Administration and past Administrations have been excellent. But their time is so fully occupied that they cannot devote it to a Board of Agriculture con-
  550
  stituted in that way. Of course it is an anomaly and utterly impracticable in the shape in which it is laid down in the Act of Parliament.
  I ought to say perhaps what we propose should be done under present circumstances. Something has been said about what happened in Ireland. I quite agree that we ought to take our reforms from what occurred in Ireland and set up our Board of Agriculture more or less on the lines of the Irish Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction. What we are putting forward as our proposal at present is as follows. We wish to see set up an agricultural authority in each county. We have had during the War the county agricultural executive committees which have done splendid work. They were set up for a special purpose under Defence of the Realm Regulations. They are now being continued under the Corn Productions Act, under Part IV. of which we have the right to delegate certain powers with reference to the cultivation of the land to any persons in a particular county. But we want to go much further. We want definitely to link up this committee with the county authorities and just as there is now in each county closely allied with the county council but distinct from it, a county education authority, so we propose that there shall be a county agricultural authority in each county in the country. To that body will stand referred practically all matters coming under the purview of the county councils which have regard to agriculture. We shall propose a Clause in the Land Settlement Bill setting up county agricultural authorities on these lines.
  Sir R. ADKINS: Will that be in relation to the county councils?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Certainly. It will have very much the same relation to the county council as the county education authority has. That is to say, the majority of the members will be nominated by the council.
  Sir R. ADKINS: At the present time the county council is the education authority acting through the Statutory Committee.
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: That is exactly the proposal that we intend to make. The county council will be the authority acting through a statutory agricultural committee.
  Mr. REMER: Has that to do with afforestation as well?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No, I think not. I would ask the House not to press me on details, which they will be able to see when the Bill is introduced. That will give us a statutory body in each county charged with looking after agriculture. We have to link that body up with the central authority. We quite agree that instead of the somewhat nebulous Board we have to-day, we should follow the Irish practice; that we should have an agricultural council in England, and an agricultural council in Wales. There is, I think, an agricultural council in Wales to-day, but it has no statutory authority. That agricultural council will be partly elective by the county authorities I have indicated, and partly nominated by the Board. It is also proposed that there shall be a much smaller agricultural board or committee, which again will be partly representative of the agricultural council and partly nominated by the Board. In that way we shall hope to obtain an advisory body on all matters of interest to agriculture. New methods of cultivation, and so on, can be discussed, and the President will have at his elbow the best advice coming from every part of the country. These are the lines which we propose to follow in the reconstitution of the Board.
  It may interest the House if I say something about the administrative changes within the Board which we propose, some of which are authorised already. I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend (Mr. Acland) and others have said about the terribly inadequate housing of the Board. It is indeed a serious handicap to the work that we are trying to carry it on in nineteen separate buildings, with the result that even if a question is addressed to me here—and many are addressed to me—it very often necessitates messages being sent from building to building. The amount of additional labour entailed is most terrible and wasteful. We have already authority from the Treasury largely to increase our staff of Commissioners, who will be links between the Board at the centre and the county authorities outside. Originally there were, I think, nine small-holdings Commissioners. We have now authority for sixteen Commissioners and forty Sub-Commissioners. These officers will have their offices in the county towns which are the centres of their area. They will deal with the county councils in all
  552
  matters in respect of which we act either with or through the county councils and the county agricultural authorities.
  Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Will the Commissioners and Sub-Commissioners be paid?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Certainly we have sanction from the Treasury for the payment of the number I have indicated. They will deal with such matters as small holdings, the cultivation of land, drainage, agricultural education, land reclamation, diseases of animals, plant tests, seeds, and so forth. That change is authorised and we hope in that way to have a staff linking up the Board with the county authorities, being in touch with the farmers, and being able to disseminate information and knowledge which we think will be of value to agriculture.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Will the county agricultural committees be subject to the Commissioners?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No. The Commissioners will be officers of the Board, who will act largely in an advisory capacity. We do not wish in any way to have a bureaucratic system. What we want is to have a strong Board at the centre and as much decentralised work as we can get, but we must have a certain number of officers as go-betweens between the Board and the local bodies, to act as inspectors and so forth and to see that work is properly carried out. An hon. Member seems to criticise the fact that so many are to be appointed and that they are to be paid; but the work which these men will have to do in the first year or two under the Land Settlement Bill will be gigantic. The settlement of soldiers on the land is a very difficult business and will have to be done very rapidly in an emergency, and we shall want all the help and official aid that we can possibly get. So far from having too great a staff, I think it very likely that it will be found that our staff even as now sanctioned will be inadequate.
  Mr. ROYCE: Will the Commissioners be members of the county agricultural committees?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I should say not. They will be officers of the Board, but they will be closely in touch with these bodies, and they will be intermediaries between them and the Board in London. The next point is the establishment of what I may call the commercial department. We have the nucleus of that already in the commer-

  553
  cial branch of the Food Production Department. That branch did an immense amount of work. To give an example, I may take the question of fertilisers. Nothing was more important and nothing was more difficult than to obtain an adequate supply of fertilisers at reasonable prices. That matter was taken up by the commercial branch, and though I do not say that they did everything that everybody wanted, they did a vast amount of good. One particular matter I may mention. They took care that there was an adequate supply of sulphate of ammonia, and that it was supplied to farmers at a reasonable price. Farmers very often object to control, and none of us like control when it takes the shape of a maximum on what we have to sell, but in this case the control took the shape of a maximum on what the farmer had to buy, and it was a very great advantage to the farming community to be able to get sulphate of ammonia at a reasonable price. We hope to develop this comparatively small branch of the Food Production Department into what I should call a commercial division of the Board of Agriculture, and then there duties will be magnified. Control will disappear, but they will become largely an advisory body, helping us in all such matters as supplies of raw materials, e.g., of fertilisers.
  One great difficulty we have got to face to-day is the supply of phosphate rock for the manufacture of superphosphate, and the commercial branch will be of great advantage in acquiring adequate supplies, and also in such matters as the supply of lime substitutes, marketing, machinery, binder-twine—a question which is exciting a great deal of interest lately—seeds and seed-testing. I think that my hon. Friend who introduced the Motion suggested that we were doing nothing in the matter of seed-testing. That is not the case. We have got our seed-testing station which is to be removed to Cambridge. We attach great importance to it. That sort of work has got to be developed, and our commercial branch is the proper Branch to do it. There are other things, too.
  Mr. JOHN JONES: May I ask if the hon. Gentleman is prepared to deal with the question of wages and hours of labour?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: That, I may say, is already provided for by the agricultural wages boards.
  Mr. JONES: Not in so far as fertilisers are concerned.
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am coming to the question of the agricultural wages boards. That is another instance in which it may be that the staff will have to be increased. At all events that is provided for, and I do not think it is a question for the commercial branch of the Board. I was about to mention other things which could be developed by an adequate commercial division. We are looking forward to a development, it may be a revival to some extent, of what I may call rural industries, and I think there is an opportunity in connection with agriculture for the revival in some parts of the country of such industries. For example, if our experiment in sugar-beet growing is successful, there will grow up a considerable industry in the manufacture of sugar and alcohol, and whatever may be made out of sugar beet. Similarly there is the case of flax. We were called on during the War to do a good deal in the way of flax growing, especially for the wings of aeroplanes. I think we had in 1918, 13,500 acres under flax. There, again, there is in the retting and deseeding an opportunity for industry. Take hemp. Hemp was a considerable industry in the eighteenth century in some parts of the country, especially in the Fen district, and it might be developed. The same way with tobacco. Experiments have been made in the growing of tobacco. I am told that, especially in light soils, in some parts of Norfolk tobacco could be grown exceedingly well. Everybody knows, who has any knowledge of the trade, that the amount of industry employed in the drying and handling and what is called the re-handling of tobacco will constitute a very valuable industry. In all those sort of ways and, still more important, with the great question of transportation, with the acquiring of knowledge of where transport schemes are needed, and where a light railway would be an advantage, to collect agricultural produce, or motor lorries, the Commercial Branch of the Ministry, I believe, will render the greatest service to agriculture.
  I think the House is entitled to know the schemes we have in mind. If we are able to reconstitute the Board on the general lines suggested in the Motion, we hope to develop very largely the horticultural branch of the Ministry. We have got a horticultural branch now of the Food Production Department, but it

  555
  has got to be extended. With the extension of small holdings and of allotments, for which there has grown up a most admirable taste during the War, we realise that more market gardening and fruit growing have to be developed. We hope, therefore, that a strong horticultural division of the Ministry may do a great deal on those lines, and may, in fact, practically introduce into large parts of the country which are suitable for intensive farming that petite culture which is so successful in some parts of France and other Continental countries. Now I come to another matter which has been talked about a good deal to-night, and that is education and research. We have got now our intelligence branch. We wish to develop it, and we shall call it the technical division, and although I think what has been done up to date has been somewhat belittled, we quite realise that we have got to carry it further and to get the results of our research made better known and put more into touch with the practical agriculturist. But, after all, a good deal has been done in the way of research. At Cambridge we have research stations for plant breeding and animal nutrition, at Oxford we are making research in economics, etc., at Reading in dairying, and at the great station at Rothamsted on soils, plant nutrition, and plant pathology. I entirely agree with a great deal that fell from the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool (Mr. Leslie Scott) as to the importance of developing our research into plant pathology, getting further information as to these fungoid pests, and so on, that do so much damage, and bringing that information more into touch with the farmers concerned. We have got that matter in hand, and research is being carried on at Rothamsted under, I think, the most favourable conditions. Then there is another matter beyond actual research, the question of demonstration. Demonstration farms, run on commercial lines, have proved that certain things can be done which have not been understood before or, at all events, which are new to a particular district. I mentioned the other day, in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Lieutenant-Colonel Weigall) that we were experimenting on a number of demonstration farms with dairying on arable land, which we think will be of great advantage for two reasons—first of all, because it will enable us, we hope, to use a great deal of the
  556
  land which has recently been ploughed up for dairying, and so on, instead of letting it tumble back to grass; and secondly, in that way we think we may be able to increase the milk supply of the country, especially in winter—a very important matter. More milk could and should be consumed in this country. The average is about a quarter of a pint per head per day. In New York it is a half-pint. If we can do something in the way of increasing our milk production on the lines I have indicated it will be a very good thing for the health of the country and for the farmers of the country as well. I have not the time to go through all the other proposals that we are putting forward. We hope to strengthen our statistical division, because we must have exact returns of agricultural production for the purposes of the Corn Production Act. We hope to improve our branch which deals with financial control.
  We are often charged here with treating unfairly or, at all events, inadequately the Fisheries Branch of the Board. It must be remembered that we are not only a Board of Agriculture, but we are also a Board of Fisheries, and I know it is held by some Members that it would be far better if there was a separate Department of Fisheries altogether. Whatever the truth about that may be, and I am not one of those who are particularly keen on the ceaseless multiplication of Government Departments, what I say is this, that we do not neglect the Fisheries side. The Fisheries side of the Board rendered an extraordinary service to the country during the War. It was practically the intermediary between the fishermen of this country and the Admiralty, and it did splendid work. But there is a great deal more that can be done. A great deal more can be done in the purification of shell-fish, and in the way of marketing. I believe it is a fact that very often, owing to the irregular landing of fish, or owing to a glut, a great deal of the catch is wasted. Better systems of marketing might get over that difficulty.
  Lieutenant-Colonel J. H. WILSON: Is the ron. and gallant Gentleman going to deal with the question of the pollution of rivers under the Board now?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I was not going to deal with that.
  An HON. MEMBER: Will the Board take powers to deal with the question of the pollution of rivers?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am not quite clear on that point. If the hon. Member will put a question down, I will certainly answer it. I am dealing here rather with the prevention of the pollution of fish, especially shell-fish. No doubt a great ideal more can be done in insisting on proper precautions being taken, and also in the way of research, in ascertaining the best way of treating disease, and so on. These are the lines that I have sketched out—quite inadequately, I am afraid—on which we hope to reorganise the Board. But the first thing undoubtedly is, we must have the status of a first-rate office, and the staff and the housing accommodation, and, by means of the plan I have indicated, get into touch with the counties. By the advisory committees and the smaller boards we want to get into far closer touch with the practical farmers of this country.
  Those are the lines we propose to go upon. Of course, they are not of themselves going to solve the agricultural difficulties. As an hon. Member said, these are only means to an end. The difficulties of agriculture will be solve not by administrative machinery, although that may help a good deal, but by three things—by wise estate management and judicious expenditure of capital on the part of owners, by skill and perseverance on the part of the cultivators, and by industry on the part of the labourers, whom we all hope to see a contented and well-paid class of labour. Those are the main considerations. In so far as by administrative machinery we can help—whether by central machinery or a system of decentralisation such as I have described—we think it the duty of the Government to give this great industry every possible chance, and for that reason the Government are prepared to accept this Motion, and hope to carry it out at the earliest possible moment.

MINISTRY OF WAYS AND COMMUNICATIONS [MONEY].
Considered in Committee.—(Progress, 24 th March.)
[Colonel SANDERS in the Chair.]
Question again proposed,
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to establish a Ministry of Ways and Communications, it is expedient—
558

(1) To authorise the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament—

(a) of an annual salary not exceeding five thousand pounds to the Minister of Ways and Communications, of annual salaries not exceeding one thousand five hundred pounds to the Parliamentary Secretaries of the Ministry, and of such other salaries, remuneration, and expenses as may become payable under such Act;

(b) of such sums as may be required to fulfil any guarantee, to make contributions to pension or superannuation funds, and to make advances and other payments authorised under such Act;

(2) To authorise the creation and issue of securities, with interest to be charged so far as not met out of other sources of revenue on the Consolidated Fund."

Mr. LAMBERT: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give the House any information as to the amount of money that will be involved in this Resolution?
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): It is very, very difficult to say definitely, but the probability is, so far as we know, that there will not be in any one year more than three or four comparatively small sums. It is not a question of any very large undertaking; it will be the making or mending of a little bit of road or a site, a change at the docks—something of the kind comparatively small. These matters will come before the Treasury and the estimates will be considered. The work would be necessary or completing work. As regards guarantees for superannuation funds—that again is not a big matter. It is simply taking power to do these things which, if the railways had continued in the hands of the present owners, would be done by them, but, as they have been taken over by the State, has to be done by the State.
Mr. LAMBERT: Cannot the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us anything as to the extent of the offices, and as to whether or not there will be a central office in London? Can he give us any idea of the number and remuneration of the officials and the scope of their work? As I understand from the Home Secretary, the sums are not going to be large. But it has been said we lost last year £100,000,000. Will this Resolution cover that loss if a subvention has to be made by the Government? I am merely asking these questions for information.
Sir R. ADKINS: With reference to the Under-Secretaries. I notice the use of the plural "s." Does that mean that, suppos-

559
ing the House, after receiving the Report of the Standing Committee, considered it desirable that there should be, in view of the multiform character of the Ministry, three Under-Secretaries, that a further Financial Resolution would be insolvent, or is the plural "s" covered without any further Resolution?
Mr. SHORTT: So far as that is concerned I think the letter "s" is quite sufficient. It is quite impossible to say what the amount will be, because it is impossible to say how many of the existing Civil servants will be transferred from existing Departments to the new Department. The probability is that the number of new servants will not be great. With regard to the other point, most of the work will be done by the dock and railway officials and road surveyors who already exist.
Mr. LAMBERT: Will they be paid by the Government?
Mr. SHORTT: Yes, if it involves special money
"to make contributions to pensions or superannuation funds, and to make advances and other payments authorised under such Act."
Supposing the Minister said to a railway company, "Your bridge road to this siding is wrong, and you must make a new one." That company might be nearly bankrupt, and they might say, "We cannot do it." In that case an advance might be made. This does not cover the ordinary expenditure of the Department. As to salaries and expenses, it is impossible to say what the amount would be. It is a question of how many people can be taken over. So far as the Treasury is concerned it is simply a transfer of their salaries from, say, the Board of Trade or the Local Government Board to the Ministry of Ways and Communications. That is the only difference it would make. The Minister, and, of course, the Undersecretaries, are new. Some of the officials will be new, but I shall be surprised if there are many. It is very difficult to say at this moment, because we cannot know how wide the scope may be. Assuming that we get in Committee everything we ask in this Bill, then it cannot be a big Department of new people as apart from those already being paid by the taxpayer.
Mr. LAMBERT: Assuming the railways are being worked at a great loss, will
560
this Resolution enable a subvention to be made to recoup the railways?
Mr. SHORTT: No.
Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (b), to insert the words
"Provided that no new transport undertaking shall be established by the Ministry until an estimate of capital expenditure required to complete the undertaking has been approved by the Treasury."
I think this Resolution goes much further than the right hon. Gentleman has stated. I am not so concerned as to the appointment of the Minister. That matter was discussed on the previous occasion, and the Government gave an explanation. They explained that they could not forecast the exact expenditure and that matter was allowed to pass. There is here a very much more serious matter involved in the second part of the Resolution than the actual expenditure on the officials employed. The second part of the Resolution is to enable the Treasury to use such sums as may be required to fulfil any guarantee and to make contributions to pensions or superannuation funds, and to make advances and other payments authorised under the Act. The guarantees cover undertakings by the Government under the Act of 1871 and the Defence of the Realm Act when they took over the railways and then undertook to make up to the railway companies the dividends paid on a pre-war basis. The real pith of the matter lies in the words "advances and other payments authorised under this Act." Clause 3 of the Ways and Communications Bill authorises payment to be paid for securing a permanent way, rolling stock, appliances and equipment, whether fixed or moving, of a satisfactory design. That clearly indicates a very large expenditure on the reform or alteration of the equipment of the railways, permanent way and rolling stock. It may mean a very large capital expenditure upon the electrification of the railways, as explained by the Minister of Ways and Communications. Then they propose in the next Sub-section to carry out alterations and improvements in addition necessary for the public safety or for the more efficient and economic working of the undertaking. These various reforms which the Government propose would mean a very large capital expenditure.
Then in Clause 4 there are two Sub-sections to be carried forward into Clause 3

561
during the two years for which the powers are to endure. The Government is to be empowered, on page 8, under Sub-heading E, to purchase or take on hire or leave all railway wagons belonging to any private owners, and under Sub-heading F to establish, maintain, and work other services. Under both these headings the new Ministry, during the two years for which the powers are to endure, is to be entitled, under Section 3, to make very large capital expenditure. There has been a recommendation made by the Committee set up last Session, the Expenditure Committee. They say they have given careful consideration to the Standing Orders of the House to inquire into all Bills involving expenditure preceding or accompanied by a Resolution of a Committee of the Whole House, and go on to say they recommend that the principle that Money Resolutions involving expenditure should be retained and should be expanded. Their particular recommendation in this case has not been carried out. The Committee also state that, wherever possible, expenditure, capital or annual, should be accompanied by a White Paper. We have never received such a White Paper and no statement of the capital expenditure under the enormous powers intended to be conferred on the New Ministry. Further, one recommendation goes on to say, if cases should occur where conditions would not follow the forecast the fact should be stated in a White Paper with full explanations of the reason why. We have had no reasons given whatever of the capital expenditure which they intend to make under these new powers. I propose two provisoes which will cover these points.
The first proviso that I propose to move is as follows:
"Provided that no new transport undertaking shall be established by the Ministry until an estimate of capital expenditure required to complete the undertaking has been approved by the Treasury."
The normal course of procedure is that the Government from year to year produce estimates of the capital expenditure involved, whether it is for the erection of hospitals or any other buildings, for the approval of the House before the expenditure is undertaken. But under this Bill apparently the Minister may go to the Treasury and say, "This is an undertaking for which capital expenditure is involved. The expenditure this year will be so much. Are you prepared to authorize
562
that expenditure?" Those powers have been very fully exercised during the year, and there has been great laxity in matters of expenditure. Under the proviso which I propose, if it is accepted by the Committee, the Minister will be bound to submit to the Treasury a full and complete estimate of the total capital expenditure which he proposes in respect of the whole undertaking, and not merely of the expenditure for one year. During the War we have had experience of capital expenditure on a most lavish scale, and it has involved this country in great extravagance. There is the case of the Cippenham motor works in which an estimated expenditure of £1,000,000 was put forward, but in which the final expenditure was £1,750,000. These two instances ought not to be allowed, and I submit that after the loss of Treasury control during the War this House would be well advised to put into their Money Resolutions which may involve an unlimited capital expenditure a proviso requiring the Minister to submit to the Treasury an estimate of the total capital expenditure involved, whether it is upon wagons, the improvement of docks, or the development of roads, and requiring the Treasury to examine the expenditure and approve of it before advancing anything on account of it.
It being Eleven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

MEDICAL TREATMENT OF CHILDREN (IRELAND).
Resolution relating to expenses incurred under the Public Health (Medical Treatment of Children—Ireland) Bill.
Considered in Committee.
[Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That it is expedient to authorise the payment to local authorities, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of an amount not exceeding one-half of the expenses incurred by local authorities in the execution of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the medical treatment of children attending elementary schools in Ireland."—[Mr. A. Samuels.]
Colonel GRETTON: Is there any estimate of the probable expenditure involved in this Resolution? The statement is that

563
one-half of the expenses undertaken by local authorities is to be paid? I should like to have some explanation as to the amount involved.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. A. W. Samuels): It is perfectly impossible to form an estimate, but I may explain that that involves exactly the same kind of provision as is made for England and Scotland. It is identically the same provision as has been made for several years.
Colonel GRETTON: That explanation is hardly satisfactory. Has the Government inquired what the expenditure has been in the past, so that they can make an estimate for this year. I do not ask them to make a forecast for four or five years hence; no doubt such provision can be explained to the House when the occasion arises. But cannot the Government give us some estimate for the present year?
Mr. SAMUELS: For several years back there has been placed on the Estimates a sum of £7,500 which has never been expended as we have never had the power to spend it. Therefore I assume that £7,500 will be about the amount.
Colonel GRETTON: I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his reply.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Adjourned accordingly at Five minutes after Eleven o'clock.

  BOLSHEVIK PROPAGANDA.
  BOLSHEVIK PROPAGANDA.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  BANK OF ENGLAND (CHARGES).
  BANK OF ENGLAND (CHARGES).
INCOME TAX.
  MARRIED WOMEN.
  MARRIED WOMEN.
  TAXI-CAB DRIVERS.
  TAXI-CAB DRIVERS.
  WAR GRATUITIES.
  WAR GRATUITIES.
  BREWING PROFITS.
  BREWING PROFITS.
  LOCAL TAXATION LICENCES (MOTOR VEHICLES).
  LOCAL TAXATION LICENCES (MOTOR VEHICLES).
  STATIONERY OFFICE (DEPUTY-CONTROLLER).
  STATIONERY OFFICE (DEPUTY-CONTROLLER).
CIVIL SERVICE.
  EX-SOLDIERS (APPOINTMENTS).
  EX-SOLDIERS (APPOINTMENTS).
  WHITLEY COUNCIL.
  WHITLEY COUNCIL.
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT (WAR BONUS).
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT (WAR BONUS).
  WIGAN COUNTY COURT (REGISTRAR'S CLERK).
  WIGAN COUNTY COURT (REGISTRAR'S CLERK).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  CONSUMERS' COUNCIL.
  CONSUMERS' COUNCIL.
  NATIONAL KITCHENS.
  NATIONAL KITCHENS.
  COAST WATCHERS, WEXFORD.
  COAST WATCHERS, WEXFORD.
DEMOBILISATION.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
  ROYAL HORSE ARTILLERY (S BATTERY).
  ROYAL HORSE ARTILLERY (S BATTERY).
  ROYAL GARRISON ARTILLERY (LIEUTENANT WALKER).
  ROYAL GARRISON ARTILLERY (LIEUTENANT WALKER).
  CADRES, FRANCE.
  CADRES, FRANCE.
  WAR DEPARTMENT MOTOR CARS.
  WAR DEPARTMENT MOTOR CARS.
  PHYSICIANS AND SUEGEONS (VOLUNTARY WAR SERVICE).
  PHYSICIANS AND SUEGEONS (VOLUNTARY WAR SERVICE).
  ROYAL ENGINEERS (SIGNAL SECTION).
  ROYAL ENGINEERS (SIGNAL SECTION).
  HAY CONTROL.
  HAY CONTROL.
  "HOLMLEIGH," WEST ROAD, CAMBRIDGE.
  "HOLMLEIGH," WEST ROAD, CAMBRIDGE.
  "BORSHAMS," HIGH WYCOMBE (MILITARY OCCUPATION).
  "BORSHAMS," HIGH WYCOMBE (MILITARY OCCUPATION).
  CURRAGH CAMP (FOOD).
  CURRAGH CAMP (FOOD).
  NATIONAL SHIPYARD, CHEPSTOW.
  NATIONAL SHIPYARD, CHEPSTOW.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  WAR GRATUITY.
  WAR GRATUITY.
  DELAYED PAYMENTS.
  DELAYED PAYMENTS.
  CIVIL LIABILITIES COMMITTEE (LIEUTENANT AGNEW).
  CIVIL LIABILITIES COMMITTEE (LIEUTENANT AGNEW).
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  LONDON-BOURNEMOUTH FLIGHT.
  LONDON-BOURNEMOUTH FLIGHT.
  MISSING OFFICERS.
  MISSING OFFICERS.
  CLINICAL THERMOMETERS.
  CLINICAL THERMOMETERS.
  BLINDED SERVICE MEN (TRAINING).
  BLINDED SERVICE MEN (TRAINING).
  PUNJAB IRRIGATION ENGINEERS.
  PUNJAB IRRIGATION ENGINEERS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  ALIENS BILL.
  ALIENS BILL.
  MINES (SAFETY PRECAUTIONS).
  MINES (SAFETY PRECAUTIONS).
HOUSING.
  PUBLIC UTILITY SOCIETIES.
  PUBLIC UTILITY SOCIETIES.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES' SCHEMES.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES' SCHEMES.
  MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS.
  MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS.
  RATES (EQUALISATION).
  RATES (EQUALISATION).
  COAL DISTRIBUTION.
  COAL DISTRIBUTION.
  RAILWAY SEASON TICKETS (APPLICATION FORM).
  RAILWAY SEASON TICKETS (APPLICATION FORM).
  IMPORTS (RESTRICTIONS).
  IMPORTS (RESTRICTIONS).
  POSTAL AND TELEGRAPH SERVICES.
  POSTAL AND TELEGRAPH SERVICES.
  TELEPHONISTS (NIGHT DUTY).
  TELEPHONISTS (NIGHT DUTY).
  WOMEN'S LAND ARMY.
  WOMEN'S LAND ARMY.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (FISHERIES DIVISION).
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (FISHERIES DIVISION).
  FISHERIES INSPECTORS (APPOINTMENTS)
  FISHERIES INSPECTORS (APPOINTMENTS)
  MINERAL RIGHTS (SUMMONS OF DECLARATOR).
  MINERAL RIGHTS (SUMMONS OF DECLARATOR).
Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
BECCLES WATERWORKS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a

GOVERNMENT WORKS AT SLOUGH.
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH rose, to call attention to certain Government works being carried out at Cippenham, near Slough; and to move—
That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the conditions under which these works are being carried out, the cost that is involved, and the responsibility for the advice on which the scheme was undertaken.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have no desire to make any attack on the Government. I know the difficulties under which they are now struggling and the burden of responsibility which at the present time rests upon their shoulders, both here and abroad. But the time, I think, has come to put some check, if possible, on departmental waste, and, where waste has been proved, to bring the responsibility home to those who are concerned in it, and if the works which are being carried out are proved to be useless and extravagant, to see that, if possible, the losses may be cut and as much money as possible saved from the wreck. I propose to start by saying a few words about the site. I have more than once in your Lordships' House alluded to the matter, but I am sure you will forgive me for doing so again. Afterwards I should like to say a few words about the general policy of the scheme, and I hope that before I sit down I shall have advanced satisfactory reasons for appointing a Committee.
The site selected for this gigantic work was 600 acres of the very best wheat land in South Buckinghamshire. That cannot be disputed, and I do not think anybody denies it. I know something about South Buckinghamshire. I have represented it in Parliament, and have lived there all my life, and I say without the smallest fear of contradiction that these 600 acres
998
selected for the site of these gigantic and, to a large extent useless, buildings are the best farming land of South Buckinghamshire. When you get above into the Chiltern Hills, which come down into that neighbourhood, you get on to the chalk, and you cannot expect to grow on the chalk, however much time and money you spend, the same crops that you could grow on these 600 acres of wheat land in the south.
This land, besides being wheat land, was absolutely unsuitable for the purposes for which it was intended. It is very heavy loam, and below the loam there is rich brick clay. It is supposed to be able to support lorries. I have run over and ridden over this land, and I do not know whether it will support a Government lorry, but it certainly did not support me with any satisfaction to myself. This matter was very often, brought to the attention of Parliament during the whole of last year. If you look at the debates in the House of Commons and the Questions asked you will see constant references to what is going on at Cippenham—Questions, I think, very unsatisfactorily answered—but the whole time the scheme went on. On June 12 last there was a debate in the House of Commons about the whole matter and more especially with regard to the site, and I see that Mr. Macpherson, who was then answering on behalf of the Government, gave two reasons among others why this wheat land at Slough was selected for these motor works. He stated, in the first place, that there was a canal in the neighbourhood. This canal used to be used in happier days for carrying bricks to London. He also went on to say—
"It is necessary for the purposes of the centralised depot that there should be a gravel soil, because on a gravel soil it is very much easier to stand the very large number of vehicles which we are bound to send there."
Well, I went down to Cippenham last Saturday with my noble friend Lord Midleton to examine this gravel soil. It so happens that Cippenham Court Farm is occupied by a very successful farmer. He had good horses, and grew big crops Those have been destroyed. He sold his horses, and the whole of the fanning operations on this rich land have been interrupted. I said to him, "I am told this is a good, fine gravel soil." He gave the analysis of this "fine gravel soil," and the result was as follows. Cippenham Court Farm consists of 350 acres; of those 300 are rich loam with brick earth (not gravel), under-

999
neath, and there are 50 acres of gravel. Both are unsuitable for building purposes. The two pits which used to be used for gravel have long ago been given up by the local builders, because they did not make suitable concrete.
This is the land that was taken. The brick earth under the rich loam is very deep; I am told it is from ten to twelve feet deep. The brick fields of Slough are well known in the neighbourhood, and well known here, so not only is this land lost to cultivation, but the Government, or the Department rather, are concreting brick earth under these enormous sheds, and this at the time when one of the things the country most desires is bricks. If you go down there you will sec these shafts all over the 600 acres of land, showing very rich soil, which I am credibly informed is brick earth. You have a double waste going on. In ordinary circumstances if you carry out big contracts which require brick earth you make your bricks on the spot, but now you are doing just the opposite; you are bringing bricks from all over the country and at the same time you are preventing this brick earth being developed. Secondly, as to the canal. I am told that this was one of the great reasons for the place being put there; yet one of the first things given up was the canal. Not only am I told that the canal was given up, but that the works are so laid out that if the canal had not been given up proper use could not have been made of them.
Now with regard to the time chosen for entering upon this farmland. I suppose the time was the most inopportune in the interests of the country that could have been chosen. It was just at the time when everybody was being told to grow wheat, wheat, wheat, and yet more wheat, because the country was likely to be starved. Very often very ill-adapted grass land was being compulsorily ploughed up at the same moment that the Department, against the advice of the people most qualified to give it, were entering upon this land. It is unnecessary for me to remind your Lordships of the many demands that were being made upon the people to grow food at that time. Now, there were several other people interested in this land. I do not see him in his place at the moment, but the noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture gave me his opinion on this enterprise when I talked to him about it. Then there is Lord Lee of
1000
Fareham who was at that time interested in food production, and I know what his opinion was. Then there was the land adviser of the Government. The land inspector, whom I know, went down to-this place on more than one occasion and said the land was absolutely unsuitable for the purpose for which it was to be acquired. Then the Great Western Railway have a branch line there, and I understood from the Chairman, who is a member of this House, that he certainly was not enthusiastic about putting up great works of this kind in the neighbourhood of Windsor and Eton, and close to a loop-line, which latter fact was most inconvenient for the working of the railway.
I know I shall be told that this was all agreed to, and that the Department were so impartial that a very distinguished South. African General was sent down to view the land. I must say that, in a matter of this kind, the opinions of any number of South African Generals, however distinguished, would leave me cold as against the opinions of those who had worked on the land and known it for the last forty years, and whose advice the Department did not take. What happened? In the first week of June the Government for some reason or other entered upon this land and commenced their operations. They pulled, up, quite unnecessarily, the wheat in a certain field. The tenant farmer, as a matter of fact, had two fields, one of oats and the other of wheat; he implored them to take the oats (which were not very good), but they would have the wheat. The wheat was pulled up, stacked in heaps, and burnt. It is rather distressing to a farmer when he has spent time and trouble in growing crops to see them pulled out of the ground and burnt. The Department then began the leisurely and costly career which has gone for a long time by the name of "The Slough Scandal." Other people have given it other names, but that seems to be the one usually accepted. I do not think I need say anything more about the site.
I should now like to say one or two words on the scheme generally and on the policy. We were told by the Secretary of State for War the other day that this was an exceptional war measure. I believe it was at the start. On March 21 last year began, as we all know, the terrible German attack; our Armies were driven back, there was some danger of losing the Channel ports,

1001
and we had, perhaps, to go into some scheme for the repair of motor lorries—which vehicles have done such splendid service with oar Armies. The determination was arrived at to ship the lorries over here, rather than to repair them in France, and to make in this country some great central repairing depot. That I understand to be the motive; at any rate it has been given as the reason for this war emergency measure. But it does not seem very wise in connection with an emergency measure to begin buildings for the repair of motor lorries when such buildings cannot; possibly be ready for a year. There was no possibility of completing buildings on the scale of these buildings for a year. The war might possibly have gone on for a year, but these buildings are designed more for a thirty-years or a sixty-years or even for a 160-years war. They were certainly not designed for such a war as was then going on, especially as there were evident signs that our enemies on the various fronts were gradually being beaten. The withdrawal last year began on March 21, it is now March 26 in the next year, and I do not think that one of those buildings is finished. I was there last Saturday and did not see a completed building. What is the use of a repair shop for an emergency which is only half completed a year afterwards? As we all know, Germany was going back at the beginning of August of last year; large numbers of Americas troops arrived; and soon after, in succession, Bulgaria, Turkey, and Austria went out of the war; therefore there was no fear of the Germans then reaching I he Channel ports But as the Germans went back the Department went forward. Nothing seemed to be able to stop them whatever the circumstances of the case might be. At one moment this scheme was said to be for one purpose, at another moment we were told it was for another purpose; but whatever happened the Scheme went on, and goes on, and nobody can stop it, and no argument can make any difference.
The next difficulty after the wheat difficulty was that of labour. I think I shall be able to show your Lordships that it was not all smooth sailing for the Department, that there were struggles between them and the War Priority Committee. On September 9 the War Priority Committee issued Paper 153 that the works were to be postponed—a very wise decision. Then Mr. Fitzpatrick came down to Cippenham to report for the Ministry of
1002
National Service, and it so happens that I have his Report. That document is very interesting from many points of view, and it puts a great many of the arguments I am trying to place before the House. The dates of his visit were September 18, 23, and 24, and he begins with some general remarks. He says—
"The establishment in question is intended to form a depot for the repair of motor vehicles of all kinds for the War Office. I was unable to obtain any definite information as to exactly what work had been sanctioned, or the grounds upon which sanction had been obtained. Neither could I ascertain how many vehicles per annum the depot was intended to deal with, nor what stock of spares it was proposed to carry. Similarly I was unable to find out to what extent the manufacture of spare parts was proposed, nor could I discover the reason for the inclusion of an iron foundry as part of the scheme. Apart, however, from these very important points, I came to the conclusion that the way in which the whole scheme is being carried out is open to such serious and obvious criticism from the technical point of view that I feel that it should be fully re-examined by the proper authorities before any more work is done on the site. The points which should form the subject of the inquiry are as follows:—

The justification for the size of the works.

The choice of the site.

The lay-out and design of the buildings.

The programme of construction.

Then he gives the sizes of certain of these buildings, and one of them for tyre stores was about five and a half acres. A tyre store is the sort of thing you do not want to keep for ever, unless you are setting up a war museum, which must be the object of many of these things; but I venture to say it is being carried out too late in every way. Then be goes on to say—
"It seems incredible that buildings of these sizes can be needed for the purposes indicated, and as already stated no information could be obtained either as to the amount of work to be done annually in them, nor as to the stock it was proposed to carry. The idea of a tyre store with about five and a half acres of floor area appears more magnificent than necessary… In this report I have dealt only with obvious and costly blunders which are being made in connection with this depot, but I think I have given sufficient justification for my recommendation that a full and thorough Inquiry should be carried out by a Board of competent men. I wish to cast no reflection upon any person actually engaged on the site of the works, as the staff there appear to be doing their best. The fault lies in the undertaking. Recommendation: That no further labour be supplied to the depot pending a re-examination of the scheme from the points of view indicated above."
This recommendation was at first adopted, as there came out an Order on October 9 that the scheme had to be reviewed. On

1003
October 16 General Hemming applied for priority, and this was refused, and on October 23 the Minister of National Service gave a limited priority to the War Office, though many officials objected to it. The Select Committee on National Expenditure in a Report dated August, 1918, say it must take twelve months. That is the history of last year. The war terminated in November, and I am informed that at the time of the Armistice there was only about one-tenth of this gigantic undertaking completed, of which we have not had very satisfactory accounts from those sent out, to look at it. The Armistice was signed in November, and I submit that the whole scheme ought then to have been reviewed before all this capital was sunk and this damage done; but the scheme went on as a War Office scheme and the General Depot scheme appears to be rather a secondary idea from the original War Emergency scheme. That was the end of 1918.
Now we come to 1919, and an entirely new state of affairs. As I was going up in the train I passed these works, and I saw a huge board up with the name of Sir Robert MacAlpine and Sons. I have not a word to say against Sir Robert MacAlpine and Sons, but my view is that they are going on too fast if the scheme is a bad one. They are going on, it seems to me, absolutely regardless of expense. They are roping in everybody from miles around. One of the accusations, and of course one cannot live in the neighbourhood without hearing a great deal, is that the buildings are not well constructed. A letter was written in the paper by Mr. Lovat Fraser, and I should like to take off my hat to Mr. Lovat Fraser and The Times if they can stop Departmental extravagance. He wrote a letter to the papers, and there was a reply from Sir Robert MacAlpine and Sons, which says this—
"Mr. Lovat Fraser states that a building 400 feet long collapsed owing to faulty design or execution, and that four smaller buildings also gave way. There is an infinitesimal germ of truth in his statement, as, in fact, an iron girder principal feel when in course of erection, carrying a few tons of brickwork with it. This small accident occurred before we were on the site, but now, to deal with fact, we would contradict Mr. Lovat Eraser's statement by informing him that at no time has any building, great or small, collapsed at the M.T. Factory, Slough."
Unfortunately, in my hand I have an account of the inquest. I very much regret- to state that not only did the
1004
building fall but unfortunately a gentleman, whose name I need not give, was killed and six others were severely injured. The account begins as follows—
"A huge building in course of construction at the Government Motor Transport Depot at Salt Hill collapsed on the afternoon of Friday, December 6—"
and so and so was killed. Then the paper goes on to give an account of the inquest, as follows:—
"Lieut.-Col. Norman Mackenzie Hemming, R.E., said the building was in course of erection by the War Office with direct labour. It was to be 600 feet by 570 feet, and about 16 feet high for the greater part, with 22 feet in the portion where the accident happened to be."
Then he was asked about specifications, and said there were no written specifications, and so on, and that the whole thing collapsed. He was asked "To what extent did it collapse?" and he said, "All turned over on their-bases." This is the account which I get from the local paper, and then it describes this rather sad ruin. This was an unfortunate accident, but I do submit that it is a little more than a girder tumbling down. It may not be an important thing, but I think it shows there is something in the accusation that these buildings were badly planned and badly constructed. I make no accusation against the firm, but it is notorious in South Bucks. I think it is a bona fide mistake, but I should like to draw the attention of the House to it,' because it is difficult to get at the truth of this matter, and I think it does to an extent boar out the accusation that the shed was not very well constructed. I do not wish to weary your Lordships, but I hope that the Committee for which I am asking will be set up.
Several NOBLE LORDS:Hear, hear.
LORD DESBOROUGH: It is necessary that there should be some sort of control over Government Departments. One Department now is going to absorb everybody and everything, and I think perhaps the House will judge that I have a limited enthusiasm for the management of public Departments. I do hope that if a prima facie case is made out there will be a Committee of Inquiry into all these matters; especially into the matter of extravagance. A little time ago I ventured to say in this House that if this war was to be won by wasting money we should have greater victories than those of Philip of Macedon

1005
or Alexander the Great. I go on to say that peace has its victories as well as war, and if the victories of peace are to be gained by wasting money then the Battle of Slough will go down as one of the decisive battles of the world. If this Inquiry is set up it will be found that there is a very great deal of waste. There is nothing to stop this Department.
There were three years of crisis. There was the cry of the country for wheat. It was a very serious cry. It was met by the Government burning the wheat, I suppose to encourage the farmers of South Buckinghamshire. After that we had the labour shortage. In my neighbourhood by these works labour has been taken away from everything, including agriculture. You know how short we were in agricultural labour. In addition to those which were taken over and concreted there were other farms which have been so stripped of labour that they have been given up also. Anybody who could walk was at one time taken on at Cippenham and given good wages—£10 s. or £5 per week. I cannot say that at that time they did very much. I have heard that they were even told they need not do very much. Some of our special constables—I have made inquiries in this matter and know it is true—saw a lot of men whom they thought were rather suspicious characters, and the men said "We are working over-time at Cippenham; it is all right." They were quite happy. I will give one more instance to show how labour was taken, denuding not only farms but also industries all round. There is a hale, old gentleman of ninety-two. He is employed now as a ganger at over £4 per week. Twenty years ago, when he was a hale, young man of seventy, he was pensioned by the Great Western Railway, but now at Cippenham and Slough they take him on at £4 a week, in addition to his pension. I do not think there has been any very great regard for economy in this particular transaction.
One of the causes of industrial unrest is bid housing. During the war we could not build houses—we were not allowed to do so—and before the war there were other causes which prevented it. Now, at a time when we want most bricks, you have the Government going down and concreting one of the best brick fields in the neighbourhood of London. You should not build a great barracks there. You should distribute your buildings all over
1006
the country in those localities where cottages are wanted. You should not bring a lot of people where they are not wanted, especially when by doing so you destroy a lot of bricks and prevent other people building horses elsewhere. It is almost impossible to get bricks now. I have had many letters from employers of labour who say they cannot get bricks and they complain of their men being taken away—all gone to join the gentleman of ninety-two at Slough. I hope I have not wearied your Lordships. I hope I have made a prima facie case for some sort of Inquiry and supported it by the Report I have just read to the House.
Among other things I think the following might be inquired into—(1) responsibility for the scheme; (2) the original object of the scheme; (3) the justification for the size, of the works; (4) the expenditure involved, including housing accommodation of which we have had no estimate at all; (5) the lay out and design of the buildings; (6) the programme of construction; (7) the choice of the of the site; (8) the refusal to have the plan reconsidered in altered circumstances; (9) the cost of running the works when completed. I hope the Inquiry will not be entirely negative. What we want to do, even in Cippenham, is to save as much money as we can. I hope the Committee will also consider (1) the possibility of stopping the works altogether; (2) cutting them down to reasonable dimensions; (3) saving as much as they can of the brick earth. If the Government, instead of putting up a building, had turned themselves into a brick company and produced bricks, they would really be doing some good to the country, whereas in setting up these huge museums I cannot conceive that they are serving any useful purpose at all.
There is rather a small matter which is important. I hope the Committee will consider the possibility of using the existing electric power station which is near, instead of building a most costly one which I understand they are proposing to put up. There is an electric cable which runs quite close, belonging to some works, and the owners are willing to supply electricity. The chairman wrote to me and asked if the matter could not be submitted to the President of the Electrical Engineers Society so that he might judge which of the two schemes was really the more useful and the more economical to the country.

1007
We live, as I say, in times of Departmental extravagance, and it is more than time that some check should be put upon it, and if a case for Inquiry had been made out in this matter I hope your Lordships will set up the Committee for which I ask. I beg to move.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the conditions under which the Government works at Cippenham, near Slough, are being carried out, the cost that is involved, and the responsibility for the advice on which the scheme was undertaken—(Lord Desborough.)
THE MINISTER OF MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY (LORD INVERFORTH): My Lords, it is with considerable diffidence that I rise to address you. I know that your Lordships' House is always considerate, and I claim your indulgence as the statement I have to make is somewhat long.
The subject of the noble Lord's Motion is one which strictly pertains rather to the War Office than to the Department which I represent in this House; but as I have been in touch with the scheme from its inception, and as moreover the Ministry of Supply, when that Ministry is formed, may be considerably interested in the use to which the works are ultimately put, it is perhaps convenient that I should make some remarks on the subject. My noble friend Lord Peel will doubtless deal, with fuller knowledge and in greater detail than I could do, with those aspects of the matter which more particularly concern War Office administration.
I will, for the sake of clearness, divide my remarks under the following heads. First, I shall endeavour to establish the case for the creation of a Mechanical Transport Depot at the time when the scheme was instituted; secondly, I shall refer briefly to the criticisms that have been made on the site selected and on the design and execution of the work; and, thirdly, I shall consider the change in the situation resulting from the signing of the Armistice, and the extent to which the continuance of the work, in its present or in a modified form, is justifiable as a permanent measure.
First, as to the original case for the scheme. Soon after I went to the War Office, as Surveyor-General of Supply, in May, 1917, with instructions from the Government to supervise the commercial
1008
activities of the Department, the unsatisfactory character of the situation as regards the storage and repair of mechanical transport was brought to my notice. That situation was briefly as follows. In June, 1917, the War Office, which at the, outbreak of war owned about eighty lorries and cars and had a call on emergency upon about 700 more, had in its possession more than 40,000 lorries, 20,000 cars, ambulances and vans, 23,000 motor cycles, and l,300 petrol and steam tractors—a total of upwards of 85,000 vehicles. The annual expenditure on motor transport material was estimated at £40,000,000, and the turnover of stores, spare parts, etc., at the home depots was about £7,000.000 per annum.
The storage accommodation and repairing facilities in this country were totally inadequate and unsuitable for dealing with material of this enormous aggregate value. As regards storage, there were five store depots scattered over the London area, besides one at Liverpool and one at Avonmouth; in every case the buildings were old and unsuitable; there were no railway or water transport facilities (except at two depôts), no mechanical appliances for handling packages or lifting heavy weights; and the aggregate storage capacity was quite insufficient, even though (as was often the case) the adjoining streets were used as overflow stores. The inconvenience and extravagance of such arrangements were obvious; economical and efficient supervision was impossible; clerical and other staffs were unnecessarily duplicated; an immense amount of time was lost and labour wasted by unnecessary transit and handling of goods; the economic and other advantages resulting from ordering and warehousing stores in large quantities, and from centralisation of packing arrangements, could not be obtained; while valuable stocks were held in many floored buildings not of fireproof construction, with grave risk of destruction or damage by fire.
As regards repairing facilities, the position was not more satisfactory. In addition to the repair workshops at Grove Park, Osterley Park, Kempton Park, Bulford, and Avonmouth, and to the small shops attached to each of the twenty-one local auxiliary mechanical transport companies distributed over the kingdom, there were five main repair shops situated in various localities in London. As in the

1009
case of the storage depots, there were no convenient rail and water transport arrangements, and no unloading facilities or mechanical appliances for handling heavy weights; the scattered location of the shops prevented proper central control and uniformity of administration, and entailed needless expense in supervision and duplication of clerical work; the accommodation under cover for vehicles awaiting repair was quite inadequate, and hundreds of vehicles and thousands of motor cycles had to be parked in the open, exposed to the elements and suffering serious depreciation; while vehicles that were to be repaired—e.g., at Camberwell or Catford—had often to be sent provisionally to Kempton Park, entailing duplication of handling and transit expenses. Worst of all, the repairing facilities were totally insufficient, resulting in intolerable delays, the scrapping of large quantities of repairable spare parts and the immobiling for long periods of many valuable vehicles.
The situation was not one that tended to cure itself by lapse of time; on the. contrary, it was becoming worse from week to week. The number of vehicles awaiting repair at home increased from 574 on July 1, 1916, to 850 on July 1, 1917, i.e., by nearly 50 per cent. In addition, there were on the latter date nearly 1,300 lorries and cars in France which required repair but were in excess of the repairing capacity of that country and therefore were awaiting transport to England. Moreover, the repairing facilities at manufacturers' works, of which full use had been made during the previous twelve months, had now fallen almost to vanishing point owing to the increased demands on their manufacturing capacity for aircraft and other munitions. And it was to be expected that as the average age of vehicles in commission increased, the proportion requiring repair would also become greater. No early termination of the war could be counted on, and any continuous forward movement, which was a necessary condition of such termination, must inevitably entail an intensified use of mechanical transport and thus greatly increase the strain on our inadequate repairing resources. In short, we could not disregard the possibility, if the situation were neglected, of a breakdown in our transport arrangements, which might have disastrous results on the whole course of military operations.
1010
Such was the state of affairs, as reported to me by the Director of Supplies and Transport; but before definite action was taken, I deemed it advisable to appoint an independent Committee to investigate the facts and make recommendations as to the measures to be adopted. That Committee entirely confirmed the views of the technical officers of the War Office as to the dangers of the existing situation, and recommended, in addition to certain minor though important reforms, "the immediate provision of a central depot, where the work now being done at the existing storage depots and repair shops would be centralised." This central depot, the Committee held, should be built on property conveniently situated alongside a railway, with ample transit facilities in the way of sidings, loading, and unloading bays, and up-to-date mechanical handling machinery; it should include a fully-equipped repair shop large enough to deal not only with all motor vehicles and cycles from home units, but also with those from France in excess of repairing capacity there; a spares store house large enough to maintain a reserve sufficient to cope with requirements of both overseas and home units, &c.; sheds sufficient to place under cover the vehicles awaiting repair; and the necessary accommodation for the clerical and technical staffs.
The Committee were, of course, fully aware that their recommendation entailed considerable capital expenditure, but they nevertheless supported it no less on grounds of economy than on those of safety and efficiency. Not only would a large saving be effected in wages and handling charges as compared with the existing storage depots and repairing shops, but still more important economies would result from the retrieving of spare parts which under present arrangements had to be scrapped, and from the elimination of the heavy loss due to the deterioration of valuable material through being stored in the open. Moreover, the, central depot, if established, would furnish the extensive housing and repairing facilities which would be indispensable in this country at the close of the war for vehicles returned from overseas during demobilisation, and would also provide for the permanent mechanical transport requirements of the fighting forces after the war.
The initial expenditure involved amounted, on the basis of a rough pre-

1011
liminary estimate, to £1,025,000, including the cost of the site. But against this was to be set a definite annual saving of £43,000 on the rent and rates of the existing scattered and inadequate store-houses and repair shops, of £10,000 on cost of road transport, and of at least £30,000 on storage and handling staff, apart from the indirect saving on national man-power through reduced haulage and handling in goods yards by railway staff, carriers, etc. In addition, it was estimated that facilities for proper periodical repair of the vehicles in use at home would enable at least 20 per cent. more efficiency to be obtained from them, representing an annual saving on petrol of about £45,000, to say nothing of the still more important economy in the life of the vehicles themselves. The value of the spare parts which could be retrieved instead of being scrapped was estimated at not less than £200,000 per annum, while the capital value of the vehicles put out of commission by the absence of repair facilities and therefore requiring to be replaced by new vehicles which would otherwise have been unnecessary, represented something like £1,600,000. Incidentally, the reduced demand for such new vehicles would have enabled the manufacturers greatly to increase their output of such supplies as aero-engines, which were most urgently required. It should be added that, on the basis of the first rough estimate, the expenditure proposed for the storage depot represented only about 4 per cent. on the value of the material for which it would provide accommodation, and that for the repair shop only about 7 per cent. on the new value of the vehicles to be repaired annually. It therefore appeared that quite apart from the necessity of the proposal as a military measure, it was fully defensible even as a business proposition, and I had no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that I ought to support it.
The Committee's recommendation, coinciding as it did with the views which had already been expressed by the Director of Supplies and Transport, were approved generally by the Quartermaster-General, and by the middle of October preliminary plans and estimates had been prepared, and had been examined and approved by a Sub-Committee of the Mechanical Transport Board—a body of military officers and civilians appointed by the Army Council, on the suggestion of Sir John Cowans and
1012
myself, to watch the administration of mechanical transport services and advise on important questions of policy.
It then became necessary to secure the definite approval of the Army Council to the scheme, and before this could be done it had to be submitted to the financial criticism of the Finance Department, and to the technical criticism of the Department of the Director of Fortifications and Works, who, as he would be responsible for the actual execution of the work, had necessarily to satisfy himself that the estimates and plans were suitable and satisfactory. Detailed designs, drawings, and estimates had also to be prepared, and extensive enquiries and investigations conducted as to the selection of a suitable site. Further, no definite steps could be taken until the approval of the Treasury and the War Cabinet had been obtained; and the latter body, before according their sanction, deputed one of their number, General Smuts, to go into the question and examine the possibility of obtaining an alternative site free from the objections which had been raised by the Food Production Department to that proposed by the War Office. It was not until the beginning of June, 1918, that it was possible actually to commence operations on the site finally selected at Cippenham.
It will be within your Lordships' recollection that shortly after the commencement of the work the whole question was thoroughly gone into by the House of Commons Select Committee on National Expenditure, under the chairmanship of Mr. Herbert Samuel, and that that Committee reported that they were convinced that there was no satisfactory alternative to the establishment of a central depot, and that the case for such a depot had been fully made out.
I hope the foregoing explanation may suffice to convince your Lordships that this costly scheme was not, as in some quarters it has been represented to be, a mere illustration of the irresistible tendency of Public Departments to waste public money, but that, on the contrary, it embodied conclusions only arrived at with great reluctance, after mature deliberation, after careful weighing of all possible alternatives, after the adoption of half-measures and makeshifts up to avid even beyond the extreme limit of safety; and that it was endorsed by the unanimous and considered judgment of all those responsible for the administration of the mechanical transport

1013
service, as a measure absolutely essential in the interest not merely of efficiency and economy but even of military security.
I pass on to the criticisms of the planning and execution of the work. Even assuming, we are told, that the establishment of a central depôt was necessary, gross incompetence and ineptitude were displayed, both in the selection of the site, the design and lay-out of the scheme, and the conduct of the actual building operations. The site selected was attacked on a ground in itself perfectly sound—viz., the withdrawal from cultivation of good agricultural land; but the critics entirely failed to exhibit any sense of proportion as to the relation between the loss of production involved and the value, from a military and financial point of view, of the advantages resulting from the scheme.
It is not necessary for me to enter into this question at any length, since the subject, as your Lordships will recollect, was fully discussed last June in another place, and the Government's decision was convincingly justified by the present Chief Secretary for Ireland and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was then shown that the fulfilment of certain conditions as regards site (proximity to a railway and a main road, reasonable accessibility to London and the southern ports, and also to the manufacturing centres, facilities for water transport, fairly level ground, a gravel soil, and so on) was essential if the administrative advantages of the scheme and the economies to be effected from it were to be realised to their fullest extent; that exhaustive investigations had been carried out over the whole available area in order to discover suitable sites; that before the Slough site was finally selected the possibilities of more than a dozen other localities which appeared prima facie to be possible alternatives had been thoroughly examined and deliberately rejected; and that the War Cabinet, anxious at that critical time to avoid the slightest unnecessary disturbance of agricultural production, withheld their sanction from the scheme until General Smuts, after the special enquiry to which I have already referred, had reported that it had been proved, to the satisfaction of himself and of the Food Production Department, that there was no practicable alternative.
Next as to design and lay-out. I cannot, of course, in this place deal in detail with
1014
the numerous attacks with which the scheme has been assailed from this point of view. From the general character of these attacks the critics would appear to be under the impression that a Department whose experience in works of construction had been mainly confined to the design and erection of barracks and defences, had attempted to prepare designs for workshops and storehouses on an unprecedentedly large scale, in the light of its own unaided knowledge and without seeking expert guidance. Such a suggestion is, I need hardly say, quite inaccurate. The design of these works, which has been the subject of so much amateur criticism, has in fact been evolved by engineers who have had wide experience in the lay-out, construction, and management of motor and other engineering works, and some of whom have during this war constructed, organised, and controlled factories for the repair of mechanical transport larger than any hitherto constructed for the civilian industry.
Much criticism has been directed against the scale on which some of the buildings have been designed; but the dimensions were in every case based on actual experience gained during the war, and were so calculated as to provide merely for existing; requirements together with a margin to cover such expansion as would have been necessitated by the continuance of the war. In particular, ridicule is poured on the size of the tyre store, which provided a floor space of some five and a half acres; as a matter of fact, the floor space already in use for the storage of tyres in War Department premises alone amounted to two acres; while a similar quantity of tyres was stored (to a considerable extent in the open) in manufacturers' works. The balance of one and a-half acres provided only a reasonable margin of safety. I may add that when the question was reviewed immediately after the Armistice, it was at once decided that in the changed circumstances work on this building (among others) should be discontinued.
Again, we are told that the factory buildings, instead of being located north of the railway, should have been placed between the railway and the Bath-road, and it is evidently supposed that this is an entirely novel suggestion, the possibility of which, had not previously presented itself to the Department. The fact, of course, is that this obvious alternative was thoroughly

1015
considered at the outset, but was advisedly rejected because, in the first place, the area south of the railway would have barely sufficed to meet requirements and would have allowed no space for expansion, the possible necessity of which it would have been most unwise to ignore; secondly, it would still have been necessary to construct roads leading to the parking-grounds, which in any case must have been located north of the line; thirdly, the railway siding arrangements would have necessitated a complete reconstruction of the Great Western Goods Station at Slough to the south of the line; and, fourthly, the difficulty and expense of extending the canal into the depot to secure water transport facilities would have been immensely enhanced.
The third point of attack on the Department is the manner in which the building operations have been carried out. They have, it is alleged, been marked by slow progress, wasteful administration, and extravagant payments to labour. It would be out of place for me to embark upon a defence of the War Office against these charges, since neither the Department of which I was in charge at that Office, nor indeed the Quartermaster-General's Department, had any responsibility for the actual execution of the work. This aspect of the Case I shall therefore leave to the noble Viscount who represents the War Office in this House.
But I may, perhaps, be permitted to point out, first, that during the five months between its commencement and the Armistice the work was carried on under circumstances of very great difficulty, owing to the extreme shortage of labour, the in efficiency of the small quantity that was available, and the competing claims of the aerodrome programme and other Government works which were considered of even greater national importance than the Slough scheme; secondly, that the rates of wages paid were, and are, the rates which are standard in the trade, and which must be paid on any Government work unless the Government is to infringe the Fair Wages Resolution of the other House and the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act of last session; and thirdly, that towards the end of last year an attempt was made at my suggestion, with results which appear likely to prove entirely satisfactory, to secure more rapid progress by taking advantage of the experience and
1016
organisation of a very eminent firm of contractors, to whom, with the full concurrence of the Director of Fortifications and Works, the conduct of the work was transferred in December last.
I observe that this last step has been criticised as though it had involved definitely committing the Department to heavy additional liabilities in connection with the scheme, at a time when the desirability of proceeding with it at all was at least open to doubt; but any such criticism is misconceived. The terms on which the contractor has undertaken the work give absolute liberty to the Department to determine the contract at any time without reason assigned and without payment of compensation, except for expenditure and commitments actually and properly incurred; and the contractor, with commendable public spirit, has left the amount of his remuneration (which will take the form of a lump-sum fee and not of a percentage commission on the cost of the work) to the decision of the Standing Inter-departmental Contracts Committee, presided over by my noble friend Lord Colwyn.
I now come to the third branch of the I subject—viz., the question whether in view of the situation created by the signing of the Armistice it is still desirable to go on with the scheme, and, if so, for what purposes the site and buildings should in the altered circumstances be utilised. It was recognised at once that the suspension of hostilities rendered it necessary to review the whole question, and on November 19 the matter was considered by the Mechanical Transport Board. It appeared that there were in existence over 80,000 four-wheeled motor-vehicles which would require repair, of which about 45,000 were of British and about 35,000 of American and Continental manufacture. If the repair of the former were entrusted to the British manufacturers, it was calculated that on a reasonable estimate of their repairing capacity the work would last them some two and three-quarter years. It was therefore considered that, even apart from the question of the availability of spare parts, the repair of the non-British cars would have to be undertaken by the Government, and that, on the assumption that the repair shop portion of the Slough scheme was completed in its entirety, this work would engage its full capacity for three years

1017
And it was calculated, on the basis of an estimate prepared by technical experts, that the difference in disposal value between the unrepaired vehicles and the same vehicles when placed in thorough repair was sufficient to show a profit of over £1,200,000 on the three years' working, after allowing for all expenses and writing down the capital expenditure by 75 per cent. The Board accordingly decided that the scheme, so far as it related to repair workshops, should be proceeded with in its entirety and pushed on with all speed.
As regards the storage part of the scheme, it was not clear to the Board that the full accommodation originally contemplated would now be required, and they thought it desirable to proceed with only one block at a time out of the five, and when that block was nearing completion to consider the necessity of a second, and so on. But it was evident that in so far as the buildings were required at all for the housing and repair of demobilised vehicles, their completion had become not less but more urgent by reason of the Armistice, and it was in view of this that an attempt was made shortly afterwards, as I have already mentioned, to speed up the progress of the work by placing it in the hands of a single contractor.
The question, however, of the advisability of the Government itself undertaking the repair of motor vehicles, whether British or American, for the mere purpose of sale, is one that has to be considered from many different points of view. The duty of disposing of all surplus property, to whatever Department it belongs, has now been entrusted to the Ministry of Munitions in anticipation of the establishment of a Ministry of Supply, and is discharged on my behalf by the Disposal Board; and it is by no means certain that that Board will favour the policy of repair before sale. Clearly, the decision on this point will have an important bearing on the question of the extent to which the repair side of the Slough scheme should be proceeded with; but whatever decision is ultimately arrived at—and the matter is still under consideration—it is certain that sufficient repairing facilities must be available to provide for the requirements of whatever vehicles may be retained on the normal establishment of the post-bellum Army (including the Air Force); and it is also probable that it will be wise to provide,
1018
in addition, for the maintenance and repair of the vehicles which will be required during an uncertain period for the temporary Armies of Occupation both at home and abroad, especially as the latter accommodation when no longer necessary for this purpose will constitute a valuable reserve-capacity of expansion in the event of future emergency.
As regards the storage side of the scheme, the position from the military point of view is that storage will in any event be permanently necessary for all vehicles equipment, spare parts, and other stores maintained for the purposes of the post-bellum Army (again including the Air Force); and also for the additional vehicles and stores requires on mobilisation and therefore maintained in reserve; and that, in addition, accommodation will have to be provided somewhere for the immense quantities of vehicles and spare parts, &c., which will be returning in the course of the next few months to this country from the various theatres of war. The complete disposal of these must be a gradual process extending over some years, and they must be housed somewhere pending disposal. No suitable accommodation exists elsewhere for this purpose; indeed, the demand for storage facilities in this country is already, and has long, been, far in excess of the supply. Immense quantities of spare parts, tyres, &c., are at present stored, for want of better accommodation, at the manufacturers' works, and the latter are insistently pressing to be relieved of the burden. Moreover, it must be remembered that transport vehicles and their accessories are not the only surplus stores for which room must be found over here when France and the other war-areas are evacuated.
I do not think the public has any conception of the vast surplus of every conceivable kind of supply which will have to be handled and dealt with. Meantime, the Minister of Reconstruction is pressing, in the interests of the resumption of the normal course of industry, for the early release of dock and railway warehouses and business premises, large numbers of which have been requisitioned for storage purposes during the war, and the Departments in possession are unable to comply with his instructions for lack of alternative accommodation. Already, some of the largest filling factories have been converted

1019
into stores, and the demand for space does not diminish, and must soon largely increase with the return of the war surpluses from abroad. Another permanent military necessity will be the mechanical transport training establishment, which, in order to provide instructional facilities, should be located in close proximity to the repairing and storage depôt.
This, then, is the position as regards strictly military requirements (in which I include for this purpose the storage, pending disposal, of surplus military property). First, permanent provision will be needed (1) for the storage of the transport material for the post-bellum Army and Air Force, including its reserve mobilisation equipment, (2) for repairing facilities for the vehicles of those forces, with some capacity for rapid expansion of such facilities on emergency, and (3) for the training establishment. Secondly, for an indeterminate period, which will certainly extend to some years, accommodation will be necessary for the immense quantities of vehicles, spare parts, and accessories brought home from abroad, and possibly also for the repair of a large proportion of these vehicles before disposal. And the question which, if there were no possibility of any other than a military use for the scheme, we should have to decide, would be whether it is better to abandon the whole project, or to proceed with it with such modifications as may be advisable, with a view to retaining one portion as a permanent military establishment, and disposing as circumstances permit of the balance as soon as the temporary need for it lapses.
Now, the simple fact is that, apart altogether from the repair question, we must have accommodation for these surplus vehicles and stores; and that, taking account of our other storage requirements, available accommodation does not at present exist. If we did not provide it at Slough, we should have to provide it elsewhere. The choice before us, therefore, if we looked only to military requirements, would be simply between those two alternatives—either to cut our loss on the expenditure and commitments already incurred, and, at the cost of great delay and expense, begin anew the difficult search for a suitable site, prepare fresh plans and estimates, and recommence building operations elsewhere, on, it is true, a smaller, but still
1020
necessarily on an extensive scale; or to take advantage of the progress already made, reap the benefit of the expenditure to which we are committed, and complete the scheme in a modified form, effecting such reductions and economies as circumstances may permit.
The money spent and the commitments incurred at Slough up to date amount to over £1,100,000, of which it is not likely that more than £250,000 would be saved by the immediate closing down of the work; and it is estimated that if the work is allowed to proceed most of the buildings will be available by June next, and the whole will be completed by September. How could we justify writing off so large a sum as £850,000 as a total loss, incurring fresh expenditure elsewhere to an unknown amount, and deferring to an indeterminate date the provision of the accommodation which is so urgently required, when by the outlay of some six or seven hundred thousand pounds, in addition to what we are already committed to, we can in a short period meet our immediate storage and repairing requirements, avoid the deterioration of valuable vehicles and stores, and (as regards any portion of the property which may not be permanently required) provide ourselves with an asset which, so far from being unrealizable, should by reason of its situation and of the road, rail, and water transport facilities we have provided, have an important commercial value?
But as a matter of fact, the choice does not present itself in this form. The alternatives before us are not limited to the total abandonment of the project or to its utilization for purely military purposes, for there are numerous other possibilities of turning it to account to meet needs, present or future, arising in connection with important national services. Let me mention one or two of these, though I must do so with the qualification that at present these are merely possibilities; they have not been before the Cabinet, nor have they formed the subject of the interchange of views between the Public Departments and other authorities interested which would be necessary before any one of them could be definitely adopted by the Government as part of its considered policy. But they may, perhaps, suffice as examples to show that there is no danger that any portion of the Slough

1021
establishment which may not be permanently required for military purposes will languish for want of use.
First, there is the centralisation of the arrangements for the provision and maintenance of all mechanical transport required for national services of whatever description. As your Lordships are aware, it is in contemplation to establish a Ministry of Supply, which would be responsible for providing the stores and supplies required by all Government Departments; one of the duties of this Ministry would be the supply of motor vehicles, including those required by the War Office, the Admiralty, the Air Ministry, the General Post Office, the Office of Works, the Stationery Office and other Departments; and it would be a natural extension of its functions to assign to it also the responsibility for the maintenance and repair of such vehicles (with the possible exception of those belonging to the fighting services which, while utilising the Ministry's shops and repairing facilities, might themselves prefer to provide to some extent the actual personnel for carrying out the repairs). Such a centralisation should effect important economies, and there would be available at Slough an admirably equipped and conveniently situated depot, which would afford all necessary facilities for repairs, and for the storage of reserve vehicles and of accessories and spare parts.
Secondly, the possible utility of the Slough establishment in connection with any scheme for the provision of an improved road transport service must not be lost sight of. Greater facilities for road transport, whether of passengers or goods, are obviously a matter of the highest importance, with a view both to the better opening up of rural districts generally, and especially to the encouragement of agriculture by affording the means for placing rural produce on the market more easily and at less expense. This question, however, will be one for consideration of the Minister of Ways and Communication, and without consultation with him I can do no more than make a passing reference to the subject.
Thirdly, great possibilities present themselves for the utilisation of any surplus accommodation at the new depot in connection with a reorganisation of the general arrangements for the housing of Government supplies and stores. This again is a question in which the new Ministry of
1022
Supply will be intimately concerned, since that Ministry will doubtless hold the central stocks of the stores which it provides for other Departments. I have already alluded to the existing pressure on the available storage accommodation in the country, and to the urgent necessity of relieving this pressure in the interest of business and industry generally. To instance only one Department of Government, the facilities which might be afforded by such an establishment as that at Slough would be of enormous advantage to various branches of the War Office, such as the Army Ordnance Department which is responsible for the custody of clothing and equipment, &c., and the Army Service Corps, which maintains the various supply depôts. Such a central store would afford valuable opportunities for securing substantial economics in labour and transport charges, as well as important administrative improvements. There is more than a possibility that it might be found desirable to provide further buildings in addition to any that have at present been contemplated. In particular, I may mention that the accommodation for stocks of clothing alone requires at this moment, and is likely to require for some years to come, a superficial area of some two and a half million square feet, which taking the low rate of 2s. per square foot, represents an annual rental cost of £250,000 per annum.
It has been suggested that the idea of utilising the proposed central depôt for general storage purposes is a mere afterthought, which even at so recent a date as the fourth of this month had not yet occurred to the Government; and in proof of this is adduced the answer given on that date by Mr. Churchill to Sir Charles Henry in another place, in which he stated that his first idea had been to transfer the scheme to the Ministry of Supply, but that he had received from that Ministry strong arguments which led him to believe that they wished him to retain the responsibility for dealing with the matter. This suggestion, however, is unfounded. As I have already mentioned, the independent Committee appointed by me in 1917 which recommended the establishment of a central depôt contemplated that in addition to the immediate military purposes which such a depot would serve, it would also furnish the extensive housing and repairing facilities which would be indis-

1023
pensable at the close of the war for vehicles and stores returned from overseas; and it war; always in my own mind that when those temporary functions in connection with surplus transport material had been discharged, the depôt might be turned to valuable account in relief of the general pressure on storage accommodation.
Mr. Churchill's statement referred, I think, to the responsibility for the actual execution of the works at Slough. As regards this point, I was at first strongly of opinion that it would be the most convenient course for the War Office, which had been responsible from the beginning for carrying out the scheme on its constructional side, to retain this responsibility until the end, and to hand over the site and buildings to the new Ministry in a completed state; and it is only in deference to representations from the Secretary of State to the effect that it was desirable for the Department which would ultimately administer the establishment to assume responsibility at the earliest possible date, that I have consented to take over from the War Office the task of completing the actual work of construction.
The resolution which the noble Lord has moved asks the House to resolve "that a Select Committee be appointed to enquire into the conditions under which the works at Slough are being carried out, the cost involved, and the responsibility for the advice on which the scheme was undertaken." I trust that I have said enough to convince your Lordships that no prima facie case has been made out for the appointment of such a Committee. As regards the last point, viz., the responsibility for the advice on which the scheme was undertaken, there is no matter for inquiry; it was admittedly on the advice of myself and the Quartermaster-General that the scheme received the sanction of the Army Council and the Cabinet, and it has already been established by a Select Committee of the other House that that advice was properly given and that the case for the scheme was fully made out. As regards the second point, the cost of the scheme, the latest figure given by the War Office is £1,665,000, but this allows for the omission of certain buildings which have been provisionally discontinued but may ultimately be found to be necessary. I have little doubt that, if it is the general desire of the House, the Secretary of State for War will be ready to cause an amended
1024
estimate to be prepared, revised to date in the light of any variations in cost of labour and material and any approved modifications in design.
As to the "conditions under which the works are being carried out," the position, shortly, is, first, that they are being carried out by a contracting firm of eminence, on terms which give the firm no inducement for increasing the cost of the work, and which permit the Department to discontinue the whole or any part of the work at any moment without notice, and (except as regards expenses and commitments already incurred) without compensation; secondly, that the whole scheme has been carefully reviewed in the light of the changed situation created by the Armistice, and that work on certain portions which it may be found possible to dispense with has been provisionally suspended; and, thirdly, that the future use to be made of the site and buildings is at present occupying the careful attention of Mr. Churchill and myself, and that pending a decision on this question no further expenditure will be authorised other than such as can be completely justified on the ground of practical necessity. I therefore submit that no useful purpose would be served by the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into these matters.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, those of us who listened to the powerful indictment of my noble friend Lord Desborough will, I think, not have derived very full satisfaction from the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down. The whole tenour of his speech seemed to me to confirm the two main items which are the cause of our attack upon the Government. It is a widespread attack, not in the least of a Party or political order, but simply, if I may so term it, the revolt of all sensible men against the course which has been pursued.
I have not the advantage, possessed by my noble friend Lord Desborough, of local knowledge of the tract of country which, has been devastated by these operations, but on much more general and public grounds I would ask your Lordships, after the explanation of the noble Lord who has just spoken, to allow me to take the dates and facts and to see how consistently, in the face of all the facts which ought to have guided them in the opposite direction, the noble Lord, of his own initiative as he

1025
has confessed, and with the assistance of the Quartermaster-General and other authorities, has continued to provide for an Army of 5.000,000 for years to come, instead of regarding it as something that had got to be done away with in order to avoid putting the nation to further expense.
The noble Lord was quite unable, as I gathered, to meet the impeachment which Lord Desborough brought against him. Early in 1918 there was a danger lest the repair depôts in France should be occupied by the enemy and there was then a great difficulty as regards the carrying out of repairs, apart from there being a central station, and the noble Lord showed that the figures had considerably increased. I think he told us that earlier in the war the number of vehicles which required repair had risen in 1917 from 574 to 850. Then he came to a much more serious figure and told us that at this moment there were some 80,000 requiring repair. I was not frightened by that figure because I happen to know, what is known to the noble Lord also, that the motor trade came forward at the moment of greatest difficulty last June and, as I am informed, undertook even then to deal with repairs at the rate of 350 a week, which is about 18,000 a year. That was at a time when labor, material, and room were all at a premium, which they are not now, and I have not the slightest doubt that if the noble Lord, instead of persisting in his scheme, had approached the motor trade, as I think he ought to have done, and had left them to fill up the gaps which they have to fill in their works and find employment which they could give readily, he would have had the repairs of as many vehicles as it could possibly be right to maintain executed in a very short space of time.
But what occurred? A Committee of the House of Commons considered this matter in July of last year. What was their verdict? They said that, if the end of the war were in sight, the situation would be completely altered, and the motor depot should not be continued on its present scale for post-war conditions. What was the reply of the Government to that? In face of that verdict of the Committee of the House of Commons who had all the facts and all the experts before them, the Government—the noble Lord—increased the cost of the depot in two months from £1,000,000 to £1,750,000.
1026
When he gives us these figures, which some of your Lordships were probably not able to follow, it should be observed that all that the motor trade asked for was an advance of £250,000 to be repaid by them, in order to undertake the very work which they could have undertaken at once, and which the noble Lord, with all his skill and all the weight of the Government behind him, will not be able to begin probably until November or December next—eighteen months after they were able to undertake it. It does not seem to me a business-like proposition on the face of it. If we go a little further we come to January, 1919. At that point there was no question of the war continuing and I understand then that a consultation was held at which my noble friend, Lord Milner, unless I am mistaken, was called in. It was then, two months after the Armistice, that the Government decided to proceed with the work posthaste.
They called in contractors who had not been called in before. There was no contract even to be broken; there was no penalty to be paid. They called in contractors—on what terms? On terms which I venture to suggest had never been proposed before. As I understand, the contractors waived all questions of remuneration to be settled in some honourable fashion after the war, and no doubt the country is greatly indebted for that. But no agreements were made as regards pay. Nothing was laid down which would be in any way a protection to the Government. It was practically said "Go ahead as hard as you possibly can with this, which is a war service"—two months after the Armistice had been proclaimed. I confess that when I heard the noble Lord finding so many reasons for spending these large sums, I wished that the Government, besides calling in men of business aptitude to spend money, would now call in men of business aptitude to save money.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I think I could have met the noble Lord on most of his figures, but I meet him with one caveat. Admit that we have got the motor transport for 5,000,000 of men. There is not a member of this House who believes that our future standing Army will be more than, say, one-tenth of that figure or something like it—it may be

1027
one-fifth or one-tenth. Is it, can it be, good business to keep on hand and in stock at great cost the motors which are to do for five million men? We heard a great deal from the noble Lord about concentration. What I should have liked to hear him speak of was dispersion. What is being done? The spare parts are being hived, according to the evidence. I think the Secretary for War said that the spare parts, which were of the value of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 last July, were now of the value of £15,000,000. Why in Heaven's name is an opportunity of buying them not to be given to the motor firms who at this moment cannot carry out their orders for want of spare parts? That is the first indictment I have. Unless I failed to follow the noble Lord I gathered that this is one of the cases with which Parliament should be called upon to deal, where individual Ministers insist on an operation that seems good to their own Department without the consent of the other Departments concerned. I should like to ask the noble Lord, had he the consent of the Board of Agriculture for taking this land? Were the Food Department consulted and did they agree?
LORD INVERFORTH: Yes.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: They did. How long had they to decide? I understand about twenty-four hours. I understand they never had an opportunity of going into it. That is the sort of agreement which we are told is the agreement of the Food Department. How could they find fresh land in twenty-four hours? I put another question. Did the Ministry of National Service investigate this matter, and what was the report which their representative made? Did he agree? I understand he asked to see the plans. I understand that when 750 more labourers were asked for, at a time when the Ministry of National Service required every man they could get to send abroad, difficulties were raised by an official who was refused the plans, and, as he did not agree, he resigned his office. He made what protest he could.
But there is a third Department which might have been consulted, and so far as they had the power I understand that every objection they could make to this absorption of labour was made, and was overruled by the noble Lord. I suggest to him one thing. Does he think that what
1028
is going on at Slough has had no effect on labour unrest in other parts of the country? Take the question of wages. We were told in the papers that the railway men were getting 28 s. per week before the war, that they had 33 s. as a war bonus, making 61 s.; and that more was still demanded. I wonder what the expert railway men, the drivers and engineers at Paddington Station, thought when they saw three special trains going down every day, as I am told, conveying men who, so far from being skilled, had been picked up as they could be for labour which they did not understand, and paid at rates which are in excess of those of the expert men who were bringing them down.
I submit, and I suggest to the Government, that what is going on at Slough, what is going on at Chepstow, what has gone on in munition factories, and what has been done in the administration of the unemployment allowance has been an indication to the country that the Government—I will not say are callous—but have absolutely shown no concern whatever to exercise that economy which they impress upon others. I believe these scandals, for scandals they are, as to the rates of pay have a great deal to do with strikes and labour unrest and the want of employment, because it is quite impossible for private employers to pay the rates which the Government have laid down. Lord Desborough spoke of what is happening in his neighbourhood, and I could tell your Lordships, but I spare you because of time, what has taken place in other neighbourhoods. There is not a man who has been turned out of his job, not a man who is unfit, or too old, who has not been taken on at £1 or 30 s. increase in wages upon anything he ever had before. I felt that in this case we had a right to expect something like a balance sheet from the noble Lord. He told us that this or that would only come to 4 per cent. I should like to ask him whether he can tell us how many motor cars would be dealt with in the depôt, and how the cost of repairs work out as compared with the repairs made by a contractor.
I will give the noble Lord a piece of information which he probably has not got. At one of these depôts at which the War Office deals with motor cars I am informed that so many men were taken on in advance of the work, and so much had been spent, that in an idle, moment some of the men set to work to make out what

1029
the first motor car repaired would cost, and they made it out, after a good deal of discussion and argument, at between £20,000 and £25,000 for that one car. It is perfectly well known that in Government establishments there were actually men and women engaged in one factory unloading shells which it was known would never be required, while in another factory shells were being loaded which would ultimately have to be passed over to be unloaded. I do not say that these things are general, but I entirely demur to the suggestion that if it can be proved that there are so many Government articles in existence that they are bettor dealt with at a central depot, and that there will be a large number of spare parts which must be housed, we should be asked to accept concentration as covering the whole question of the commercial value of the undertaking.
If I may say so without offence to the noble Lord, I think that to-night your Lordships have had rather a lesson as to what a man who is brought into a concern because of his great business ability is likely to do in the way of ignoring other Departments who may possibly, and in the old days would have been able to, put some reason into his endeavours. On the other hand he proceeded with a business, at a far greater cost than was originally anticipated, on which he has set his heart, because he believes he has the whole public purse at his back.
There is one thing which seems to me to stand out quite clear in this question, and that is, that the sooner we get back to the system of Cabinet government the better. The individual Minister, who spends money quite honestly but, as we think, with undue belief in the necessity of the actual work he is pushing, is becoming the greatest danger to the country. We were told yesterday that we were on the edge of a precipice, and that if things are allowed to go on we shall go over that precipice. I feel very strongly when I hear the Secretary of State for War get up and say, "I have added £25,000,000 to the pay of the Army." He may be right. Then the Minister for Pensions says, "I have added 4s. a day to all classes of pensions." And the Prime Minister says, "I gave £15,000,000 yesterday to the railway men, and £25,000,000 the day before to the coal men." All these things are put as if they were private benefactions
1030
by Ministers, and they have never been properly thrashed out by the Cabinet. What we have to do to-night is at all hazards to insist upon an investigation—not an investigation like some of those on which I have been invited to serve since the war, in which the Minister is placed in the chair and in which one is ruled out on many of the points one wants to advance on the ground that the Government are not prepared to deal with them. In the case of more than one investigation we were not allowed to bring the facts before the public.
This ought to be a public investigation—an investigation by your Lordships' House with the assistance of the House of Commons, if they are willing to assist. I feel that this mischief goes far beyond the question of the Slough depot. It deals with the whole question of the reconstruction of the trade of this country; it deals with the extension of Government trading, for which no noble Lord is able to say that it gives results which commercial trading firms are able to give. Whether you take the telephone service, or the Post Office, or the telegraphs, or, I regret to say, even the Government establishments at Woolwich, you will find that you are trading at a disadvantage, and that the larger control you put into the hands of the, Government the greater the amount that goes in staff and such things. In this case you are taking the bread out of the mouths of the motor contractors, and doing so in one of the finest tracts of the country and in one the most populated districts; using millions of bricks at a time when they are wanted for the building of cottages, using also labour which ought to be applied elsewhere, and using, as I am informed, fifty tons of coal. This you are doing for the purpose of creating buildings which are not needed, and which, I have not the slightest doubt, you will find after the war is over will have to be scrapped. Yet a number of other buildings, situated within a few miles, might have been adapted for this purpose.
I feel that I must not trespass longer upon your Lordships' time, but I think that the case is overwhelming for a thorough investigation, and that the mere fact that the noble Lord has frankly shouldered the responsibility must not be allowed to absolve your Lordships from seeing whether the public purse cannot be saved this £800,000. If that sum has already been

1031
spent the action that I recommend your Lordships to take might nevertheless go some way to save tens of millions of pounds which may be spent in the future if no check is put upon these individual enterprises on the part of Ministers.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Desborough, concluded his most interesting and informing speech I am sure that there were many of your Lordships who felt as I did, that he had established a strong case for an inquiry into this matter. I must admit, speaking for myself, that my feeling that such an inquiry was needed was only stronger after I had listened to the speech of the noble Lord who replied to him, and my reason for that is this. I do not believe that it was possible for a single one of your Lordships, however closely and attentively you followed the long list of figures and details that were read to you, to have formed any idea as to the true position of this matter.
several NOBLE LORDS: Hear,
hear.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Yet, my Lords, the outstanding and simple facts are sufficiently striking. Lord Desborough points out that the site of this factory or store was selected upon the ground that the soil is of a certain character, and he uses his own personal knowledge to tell you that it is not of that character at all. He shows that the store was to be undertaken as part of the necessary equipment of this country at war, and he asks, "What is the justification for having it now that hostilities have ceased and peace is near?" He shows that the building has been changed in its purpose, and, for all we know, changed in plan, and he shows that the vast expenditure of public money that is proposed upon this building is a matter which demands public attention, and one that can only be properly sifted and examined by an independent Committee. What is the answer to it? Why is not a Committee to be set up? I could not find a single explanation on the part of the noble Lord to justify the refusal to allow this matter to be examined.
I quite agree with what the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, said just now. This matter really is more far-reaching than just a simple inquiry into this particular incident. It has to my mind a purpose more permanent and far more grave. It
1032
is for the purpose of seeing whether the vast spending establishments at the present moment are really exercising their powers with a strict and close regard to national economy, or whether they are simply using them for a purpose which they may be able to justify, saying, "Oh, you cannot, say this is not a desirable purpose, and therefore the money may well be spent." That is not the way in which these matters must be looked at. I think that we ought to know whether the Departments not merely considered what the use and value of this building would be when completed, but the extent to which they would interfere with private trade both by using the labour for its equipment and by diverting from private enterprise the work that was going to be done in the building when it was set up. They ought to have considered whether building materials could be better utilised in connection with that building than in connection with other possible schemes that were on foot at that moment. Was it a better thing to build this vast place, or to build the houses which the Government said four months ago were one of the first and most urgent needs of the country? What the Committee would see is whether these rival schemes had been properly balanced, and not merely whether you can justify this building.
It is a pretty easy thing for a Government Department to justify any expenditure, and one of the things which I think is most deplorable and most unsatisfactory about all Government administration is this. There is no person who is responsible for loss. Any person may get the credit for success; nobody bears the blame of failure. There is no man who has to think, "If this does not succeed it is ruin to my business; I must measure this enterprise in the terms of my own personal loss." No such consideration can ever enter into the mind of a Government Department, and the consequence is that if once an error is begun—I am satisfied that I shall in this be speaking the experience of each of your Lordships who have had association with Government Departments—it is the most difficult thing in the world to make the Department admit it.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD BUCKMASTER: The consequence is that if the enterprise is un-

1033
successful at the start the burden of the expense grows and grows and grows; because, in truth, there is no personal loss involved, and the expenditure comes out of the pockets which have only indirectly contributed to it. I should have been far more reassured if the noble Lord who has given us this full explanation this afternoon had said quite frankly, "I think that at one stage of this matter there was a mistake; we tried to remedy it; we believe it has been remedied." I should have been more reassured if I had heard that. But when I find that a case of this kind, attacked by the formidable charges made by the noble Lord, Lord Desborough, is answered as though it really were the best and wisest and most economical use of public money that could be devised by the best group of financial experts you could possibly obtain, it leaves me entirely unconvinced.
I quite agree with what the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, said. This matter is associated with something far bigger than the mere failure or success of that particular Department. The Government told us last night—it was the first time that I had heard it from any member of the Government—that the need for national economy, not personal economy, is a vital necessity for this country. I agree. I want to know what striking example of national economy the Government can show to the nation. What is it that they can point to and say, "We know that economy is. urgently needed; see what we have done." I can find no instance whatever. If there be such an instance it ought to be published, because the public ought to know by something more than mere exhortation that the Government really have this thing in their hearts, and that they are determined to cut down every single farthing of public expanse that they properly and reasonably can do.
It was, I think, said of Mr. Gladstone in the old days that his idea of national economy was this. If any servant in Government employ went abroad on Government business he was furnished with one luggage label, and he had to write the address of his destination on one side, and keep the label, and to write his own address on the other. That was his notion of public economy. If it be permitted to the shades of departed men to re-visit the
1034
scene of their earthly labours what a perturbed spirit his must be to day.
Is there any indication of any such control? Take, for example, the matter which my noble friend, Lord Midleton, referred to, the expenditure on unemployment benefit. If the country only knew that this was really the subject of consideration by a body of men, an equivalent of the Cabinet, that they really had thought out what was to be done, and that in the middle of the Election, when the matter was raised, it was not the mere caprice of a particular man, but the deliberate and carefully considered judgment of all the responsible Government, they would be more easy in their mind; but they have no such assurance. And with regard even to this expenditure I must say I am far from being satisfied when the noble Lord concludes by telling us—again nothing whatever to do, as far as I can understand, with the Treasury—that he and Mr. Churchill are going to exercise the control of this expenditure, Every one knows and has a high regard for the business capacity of the noble Lord, and believes that he would do his best to exercise control. But I say without hesitation—and I have no desire to conceal my feelings—I have no confidence in any financial control which is exercised by a body of which Mr. Churchill forms an equal half.
This matter really, as the, noble Viscount said, is a graver thing. It touches bigger and graver issues. It is associated with expense of this kind that we have the general growth of our public expenditure. We turn to military service and we have the depot at Slough; we look to the sea, and we have the docks at Chepstow; we look to the air, and we have the aerodrome at Loch Doon; and wherever we turn we find samples of this kind of thing, and we see that they are all associated with the growing expense. And the growing expense brings inevitably in its train the rising prices, and the rising prices necessarily lead to the demand for rising wages; and, soaring and towering above it all, you have the dark and menacing shadow of industrial unrest. I believe that value will be obtained by the appointment of an independent committee of your Lordships' House to examine this matter. If the Government are free from blame that Committee will acquit them; if they are not there is no reason whatever why their liability should be concealed.
LORD RATHCREEDAN: My Lords, in spite of the fact that my noble friend dealt with this question comprehensively and that the main features of his statement have not been criticised, I will venture, at the risk of wearying your Lordships, to recapitulate or emphasise some of the points which he brought forward. I will go back to the question of the noble Lord opposite, which divided itself into three—namely, the conditions under which this scheme was initiated, the cost of the scheme, and the responsibility for the advice upon which the scheme was carried out.
But before doing so I should like to ask your Lordships to consider this fact, that when my noble friend was asked to come to the rescue in this matter as Director General of Munitions and Supply this was the position which he found. The Army before the war had had some 800 mechanical transport vehicles to deal with; when he was called in they had 85,000 vehicles to deal with My noble friend Lord Inverforth, in his statement has shown that his responsibility rested in the first instance with the initiation of the scheme. He also takes responsibility for everything that took place after the armistice. But he takes no responsibility whatever for what has taken place under the War Office. It is no duty of mine to defend the War Office—my noble friend Lord Peel will do that; but I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to this fact, that whereas the War Office was instituted to deal with an army of 200,000 men, that army was rapidly enlarged to 2,000,000, and later on to 4,000,000. And then fault is found with the War Office authorities because, forsooth, they have made certain mistakes in constructional work after they had attempted to deal with the administration of 2,000,000 men, and finally 4,000,000 men.
Unfortunately the people of this country and the Press before the war took very little interest in Army affairs. My noble friend, Lord Lambourne, well remembers how for some twenty-three years in the House of Commons he and those of us who were connected with the Service Committee over and over again attempted to better matters in this direction. What was the result? When Army Estimates were on you heard, "Will you pair?" and the Press remarked, "The colonels had a field day"; and thus military affairs
1036
were dismissed. Therefore, I say, it is ungenerous on the part of the Press and the country to find fault with the War Office if they are unable to carry out a gigantic business concern without a certain number of mistakes.
Now I come to the conditions under which these works were carried out. Much has been said about the site. As a matter of fact 600 acres of corn-growing area were taken up. But are 3,000 quarters of corn to be placed in one scale and the risk of the breakdown of the whole of the mechanical transport of the Army to be placed in the other—at a time, moreover, when a considerable advance was expected? It was at that moment that my noble friend was called in to do what he could to prevent a breakdown in the Army Transport. He had to deal with 85,000 vehicles and with an expenditure of £40,000,000 per annum. He had to deal with the storage in the first instance, and with the repairs in the next. He has given you details of the position in which he found the feasibilities for both storage and repairing, and the very first thing he did was to appoint a Committee to advise him on these matters, and this is what this independent Committee reported: they said the immediate provision of a central depot where the work then being done at the storage depots and repair shops would be concentrated was necessary.
Some noble Lords have spoken of the trade doing this work. At this very moment the whole of the trade was overwhelmed by work for aircraft and for munitions and for new transport vehicles for abroad, and they were not in a position to undertake the repairs. After that Committee had been appointed the matter was submitted to a sub-committee of the Mechanical Transport Board and the Quartermaster-General. It was further submitted to the Finance Department of the War Office, to the Director of Fortifications and Supplies, to the Treasury, and to the War Cabinet; and finally, the War Cabinet before coming to a decision appointed one of their own members, General Smuts, probably the most competent man to deal with a matter of this kind, and he decided, in co-operation with the Food Production Department and with the sanction of that Department, to carry out the scheme. Because he naturally took a broad view of this matter; he realised that the mechanical transport of

1037
the whole of the Army was a much more important matter than the production of 3,000 quarters of food.
I pass to the next point. A Committee of the House of Commons—the chairman of which was Mr. Herbert Samuel, perhaps one. of the best men to deal with a question of this kind, especially where finance was concerned—was appointed, and they reported that they were convinced that there was no satisfactory alternative to the establishment of a central depot, and this after fourteen other localities all over the country had been carefully considered by all those authorities to whom I have referred. Now as regards the cost. The cost of the site was £34,000, not a very large figure—scarcely £60 per acre; the storage depôt, £527.000: the repair-shop, £464,000; or a total of £1,025,000. But against that you have to put the definite annual saving of rates and taxes of storage and repair shops which we already had, £43,000; reduced road transport, £10,000;reduction of storage and handling, £30,000. Then, again, you had the saving on the repair of the vehicles by being rapidly and efficiently repaired, more than 20 per cent., which saved 600,000 gallons of petrol and came to no less than £45,000. In addition to that there is the established value of spate parts retrieved instead of being scrapped, £200,000. Therefore you have a saving of over £300,000 a year against a total outlay of about £1,000,000. There are several other savings, which are not susceptible of estimate, to which I will not refer; but I might point out that the storage which was being put up at Slough was only 4 per cent, of the value of the material generally which would be stored there, and the expenditure on the repair shop was 7 per cent, of the vehicles which would be repaired. Therefore I contend that, leaving the military aspect of the question altogether aside, it was a sound business proposal—that is to say, the establishment of the scheme in the first instance; and for that my noble friend holds himself responsible.
The third point in the noble. Lord's Question is, What was the responsibility upon which the advice was taken to establish this depot? On the responsibility of the Director of Transport, who reported to my noble friend, Lord Inver forth; the Quartermaster-General, Sir John Cowans; the technical officers of the War Office; the independent committee appointed by
1038
Lord Inver forth; the sub-committee of the Mechanical Transport Board; the Finance Department of the War Office; the Director of Fortifications and Works; the Treasury; the War Cabinet; General Smuts; the House; of Commons Select Committee on National Expenditure—and in the face of all those authorities and exports we are asked to take the opinion of some self-elected amateurs on mechanical transport. I do not think that there is need for any committee to inquire, if the depot. were established on the authority of all those responsible whom I have quoted. Now, when the armistice came the firs-t thing my noble friend did was to investigate the state of the works at Slough, and he came to the conclusion—a very natural one—that to deal with a vast business arrangement such as this thee best person was not the Director of Fortifications and Works at the War Office. He therefore approved of placing the works in the hands of a great contractor who was accustomed to deal with things of this kind, and he did this in a very economical manner because the contractor, instead of being encouraged to incur great at expenditure by taking a percentage upon the value of the work done, agreed, from a patriotic point of view as much at; from anything else, to take after the work Lad been completed to the satisfaction of the Government a lump sum in return for his services.
Then my noble friend had also to consider the post-war position. The, post war position was this, that he found himself with 80,000 four-wheeled motor vehicles,45.000 of which were of British manufacture and 35,000 of American and other foreign manufacture. As he stated, it was computed that it would take two and three-quarter years to repair the British, and three years to repair the foreign; and that the difference in the disposal value of these vehicles, unrepaired as compared with repaired, would show a profit of £1,200,000. Then he viewed the question of storage also with reference to the future. Now, the Disposals Board are dealing with all surplus property belonging to the Government, and it is not yet decided by the Disposals Board whether they will sell these vehicles unrepaired or repaired. But in any case those vehicles have to be housed, and the amount of material returning from abroad and elsewhere is so enormous that it will require immense space to deal with it. It will be asked as regards the vehicles in the country, Where are they now?

1039
They are in dock warehouses, in railway warehouses, in large business premises, and the Minister of Reconstruction is now calling loudly for the vacation of all that space in order that he may carry out his plans with reference to the future national needs.
It is argued by some that we should cut our losses, If we try to cut our losses, the money is spent and the payments amount to £1,100,000; the saving by closing down would be about £250,000; therefore we should be at a dead loss of £850,000. Whereas by the expenditure of another £1,000,000 we should have a magnificent depot which would be able to deal with the whole of the mechanical transport of the country. My noble friend foreshadowed what in all probability would take place with reference to this matter in the future—namely, that there would be a centralisation of all the mechanical transport of the country, and that there would be no better plan than Slough. Furthermore, the Minister of Ways and Communications has in view a great transport service for the purpose of developing the agriculture of the country, and of improving the amenities of rural life generally. Here would be at Slough an admirable place for the concentration, the storing and repair, of all that transport.
Lastly, there is the Ministry of Supply, which when formed it is intended should become the buyer and the repairer of all transport material, and hold the central stores of the entire country. It will be asked, Why? Because all great business men are well aware that in matters of this kind an immense economy is effected, not only upon the transport but upon the labour, and upon a variety of costs, which are now borne by the various depots throughout the country. I think my noble friend also referred to the fact that in connection with the Army not only had we £50,000,000 worth of property of various kinds connected with mechanical transport, but immense quantities of clothing and other stocks in the possession of the War Office, and they must be stored somewhere. At present they are stored on an area of 2,500,000 square feet, which at 2s. per square foot works out at a cost of £250,000. There, will be an immense saving in that respect alone.
A Committee is asked for. I should like to know what would be the reference to that Committee, and whether it is to deal
1040
with this depot at Slough only, although I notice that two or three speakers opposite dealt with the national question generally. I am confining myself to this question of Slough, and if the Committee is going to inquire into Slough they will find that all the best authorities who dealt with this question came to the conclusion that there was no alternative but Slough. If they are going to inquire into the cost of the matter, I think the figures which I have given prove, up to the hilt that it would be false economy to scrap Slough. As regards the future, it is manifest that some large depot of this kind must be found; otherwise manufacturers and business men throughout the country in consequence of the congestion of dock and railway warehouses, and business places generally, will be placed in a most difficult position. Therefore I contend that no good case has been made out for a Select Committee. On the other hand, so far as my noble, friend is concerned, he welcomes a Committee of Inquiry, because so far as he is concerned—so far as concerns the inception of the scheme and what has taken place since the Aimistice—he is perfectly satisfied that he is on sound ground, and that a thorough investigation will do nothing but enhance his great business reputation.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (VISCOUNT MILNER): My Lords, the noble Lord opposite concluded his very powerful speech—a speech which dealt with a great deal more than the subject before the House to-night—with the argument that if we felt confident of the strength of our case we should welcome an inquiry. I do feel confident of the strength of our case. In the course of his speech he also made an appeal to me to give him any instance of economy that the Government had practised. I cannot give him an instance at this moment, but I will give him a promise, and that promise is that when all the operations of my noble friend behind me. since he has become Director-General of Supply come to be known, as they will be known, the country will be aware of the enormous sums that he has saved it. The noble Lord must take it from me that that information will be forthcoming in due course of time.
As regards economy, this scheme is, I believe, one which is destined to save the country a great deal of money, and I am fully prepared that the whole history of it, the reasons for it, the justification for it,

1041
and the reasons for continuing it when the war was over, should be fully examined. But I do not know that it is fair for your Lordships to come to-night to a decision which absolutely ignores one of the most fully and carefully prepared arguments which I have ever listened to, and which was put before your Lordships by Lord Inverforth. I fully admit, what was obvious to everybody who was in the House, that an argument which could only be understood if it was followed with most close attention was not heard by one-tenth of your Lordships. I do not believe that it was perfectly heard by a single member of the House, because I notice that two subsequent speakers made very strong points against the Government on subjects which had been definitely and precisely answered in the speech of the noble Lord. My proposal then is this: I think it is only fair that you should have time to consider the arguments of the noble Lord, and that we should adjourn the debate for a day or two for that purpose.
Several NOBLE LORDS: No, no.
VISCOUNT MILKER: I think it is fair to him that that should be done. I think it is fair to a man of exceptional knowledge of this subject, of exceptional qualifications as a business man, that his case should be considered by your Lordships before you sweep the thing into the waste-paper basket because you have not heard it. What harm would there be in an adjournment? There is going to be a discussion of this subject to-morrow night in the House of Commons. The House of Commons may decide to appoint a Committee, and in that case I should think it very much better that there should be a Joint Committee of both Houses. If the House of Commons do not choose to appoint a Committee it is always open to this House, upon resuming the discussion, to appoint a Committee of its own; but I am not at all sure whether, on a fuller consideration of the case which has been put forward, though it has not been heard, this House would wish to go on and have a Committee of Inquiry into this particular matter.
This particular master is to be inquired into as a test of the Government's conduct of its business. Personally, if the Government is to be tried for its business capacity, for its pursuit of economy or its neglect of economy, if it is to be tried on that general
1042
count which my noble friend opposite brought against it, I should be very glad if this Slough depot were to be the crucial, the deciding case. I want more reflection given to this matter, and the case of the Government to be studied. If, at the end of that study, your Lordships are not satisfied and still want further inquiry by a Committee, I shall not, speaking for the Government, resist it. I would put it to the noble Lord opposite rather as he put it to me. If he is so convinced that further inquiry is necessary, he can have it if he likes. If he is so sure of the strength of his case I do not think he could wish to deprive noble Lords of the opportunity of thinking over the matter for forty-tight hours. My proposal is that we should put off this discussion until we see what the House of Commons have got to say—
Several NOBLE LORDS: No, no.
VISCOUNT MILNER:—and until noble Lords have also had time to consider the case that is being put forward. I should the more welcome that because I do not think the further discussion of the matter at this hour will be very profitable. It is highly technical, and the House is rather weary; but, if this in to be the last word spoken about it in the House, I think it will be necessary for something more to be said on the part of the Government, which will consist largely in repeating arguments which have been already used here this afternoon, for they, unfortunately, did not reach many of your Lordships. I am very anxious that noble Lords should not think that I wish in any way to burke the full examination of this matter. I do not indeed, because I think we can make out a strong case about it I think we have made out a strong case, and I want you to consider that case before you decide whether inquiry is necessary or not.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I can assure your Lordships that I do not intend to delay you for more than two minutes. There is no man in your Lordships' House whose wishes we would rather study, if our public duty permitted it, than the wishes of my noble friend the noble Viscount who has just sat down. He is a great personal and political friend of most of us, and we should have been only too delighted, if it were possible, to do so, to fall in with any advice he offered to your Lordships. But I am afraid that

1043
that is not possible. My noble friend says that we have not heard the case for the Government. Some of us did our best to hear it, and though, of course, I do not desire to press that point, I am quite aware that the art of public speaking, especially in your Lordships' House, which is not acoustically very favourable, does require rather a powerful voice. Perhaps the attitude of a noble Lord whose head is bent forward while he is speaking makes it a little more difficult for us to hear. We are not surprised that that should have happened. But, after all, in a Parliamentary assembly the Government must stand by the case which they make out, and, if it had been possible, there were any number of your Lordships, practised speakers, sitting or. that bench who could have risen and enforced the more important points of the noble Lord's statement. No, my Lords, this is not a case of desiring to condemn the Government. We do not want to condemn anybody. What we want to do is to ascertain the truth.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My noble friend says most candidly that he is not afraid of the truth. Very well, let the truth come out then. If this case of Cippenham stood alone we might listen to the charming of the noble Viscount, but we know it is only one of many cases. We know that, unless some effort is made to stop this vast expenditure and to check the extravagance of the Departments, we are in danger of that awful catastrophe which was pointed out with such force yesterday. Therefore, your Lordships' House can only do its duty. Your Lordships can have an investigation, and I think your Lordships are determined to have an investigation. "We would much rather, of course, be joined with the House of Commons in holding it.
The noble Viscount says, "Why not wait to find out what the House of Commons is going to do?" There will be nothing to prevent the House of Commons joining us in the investigation when we have appointed our Committee to-night. If the House of Commons do us the honour—it will be a great honour—to join with us in the investigation, then your Lordships will be only too delighted to vary the terms of their Order, or to add to it in such a way as to make the Committee a Joint Committee of the two Houses instead of a Com-
1044
mittee of one House. That can be done at any time. For the moment we have one single duty before us. We have had laid before us a case of what is apparently gross extravagance. We are the trustees of the country. We are bound to see that a proper investigation takes place, and we ask your Lordships to support us in that endeavour.
VISCOUNT MILNER: Very well, then. Am I at liberty to speak? I certainly want to speak in that case, if the House will listen to me. I am told that there has been a case of gross extravagance put before us, and the noble Marquess seems to conclude that the case has been already established. I take an entirely opposite view.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I said the case which was laid before us was one of gross extravagance. So it is.
VISCOUNT MILNER: Very well; we must go on discussing it. I regret the necessity of having to go over a great deal of ground again—
Several NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
VISCOUNT MILNER:—but I have no option. I cannot allow the thing to go by default. To the noble Lord who introduced this debate to-night I must apologise for the defects of my own statement, because, being aware of the case which was going to be put before your Lordships, I did not come down here prepared to make the case of the Government myself. I am sufficiently acquainted with the matter to follow most of the points which have been raised, and in the circumstances I am bound to do so.
The noble Lord who introduced the Motion made a great deal of play with the loss to agriculture which arose from taking these six hundred acres at Cippenham. There is no one in this House, or out of it, to whom that consideration would appeal more strongly than it does to myself. I have constantly here been, perhaps, one of the most extreme advocates of what -may be called the policy of agricultural production. I remember myself, at the time when this matter was first raised, taking the point in the Cabinet whether some other site could not be found to save these particularly valuable acres. And the point was present to the mind of the Cabinet. The matter was

1045
thoroughly considered from that point of view. One of the most extraordinary arguments I have heard to-night is that of the noble Viscount opposite, who said he was making a fight for the re-establishment of Cabinet Government. At every stage of these proceedings the whole Government has been involved, lie seemed to think that the noble Lord behind me had run away with the Government, and had simply carried out this scheme dragging a reluctant Government after him. Over and over again in the history of this matter the thing has been thrashed out by Committees of various sorts with the knowledge of the Cabinet, and in this case there was actually an inquiry as to the site at the instance of the Government by a Committee specially appointed, with a member of the Cabinet in the chair. It was only after that Committee had reported that it could not find a better site that the objection to this particular site was waived by the Government as a whole, and the noble Lord, who is supposed to have run away with the Government in this matter, was perfectly innocent of that decision. I do not think he even appeared before the Committee.
Objection is taken to the fact that the member of the Cabinet to whom the Cabinet as a whole entrusted this inquiry was General Smuts. He did not himself decide in favour of the Cippenham site. He only presided at the Committee which collected the evidence for the Cippenham site, and I cannot conceive on what his discharge of that duty could be objected to. He was perfectly competent, and an absolutely impartial man in the case, and he simply took the chair at the Committee as other members of the Cabinet constantly took the chair at other Committees of investigation. It seems to me that he was, in some ways, a particularly good man to put into that position He was absolutely impartial in the matter, and wholly uninterested except to arrive at the best conclusion on a point of public interest. So much for the question of site.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: On that point may I ask the noble Viscount a question? Here is a direct conflict of evidence. The noble Viscount said that General Smuts's Committee had control. I challenged the noble Lord as to whether or not the Food Committee were against him or supported him. The noble Viscount nodded his head,
1046
indicating that he had consulted them and that they were with him. I am told that before General Smuts the Food department absolutely succeeded in overthrowing, the noble Viscount, and that General Smuts's Committee supported them.
VISCOUNT MILNEKR: General Smuts's Committee—
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Evidently the noble Viscount does not know.
VISCOUNT MILKER:—reported in; favour of this site. They had evidence and among the people who appeared before them were representatives of the Agricultural Department. They heard evidence and they decided in that way.
Several NOBLE LORD: Divide! divide!
VISCOUNT MILNER: I am extremely sorry to keep your Lordships at this late hour, but I have a good deal to say. I apologise that I am speaking without adequate preparation, but I am speaking about a case which I know, and you will have to listen to me. A great deal has been said about economy, and the Government has been violently attacked on the ground that it makes no effort at economising. The whole basis of this undertaking was the conviction, which we still hold, that it was going to save a large; amount of public money. That is the root and the starting point of the whole thing. One would think that all these attacks upon the Slough depot had been new discoveries. From the very first moment that this scheme was mooted it has been the object of the most fierce attacks both in Parliament and in the Press. A continual fire of criticism has been directed against it. After it had been subjected to this fire of criticism for a long time the Select Committee on National Expenditure, under Mr. Herbert Samuel—a very criticial Committee which condemned, and I dare say-rightly, a great deal of public expenditure—having gone into this matter, reported that the case for the depôt had been fully made out. The attack which has been made upon this scheme to-night is flogging-a dead horse, discussing a res judicata This critical Committee was satisfied that the waste resulting from the dispersion, of these motor vehicles and spare parts-was such that it was absolutely necessary-there should be this central depot, and up

1047
to that point the action of the Government, I maintain, was perfectly justified. I was Secictary of State for War at that time, and if, with that Report before me, I had not gone on with the work I should have been guilty of an absolute breach in the discharge of my public duty.
There is one other point to which I want to call your Lordships' attention, because it greatly impressed me at the time. The Committee reported—
"It appears to us that the case for the depot has been fully made out. The criticism that may properly be made is, that much waste would have been avoided had the repair workshop been established long ago"
With that decision of the Committee before me, the decision that the case had been fully made out, and with the warning of the loss which the country had sustained by the delay in creating it and the loss which was actually being sustained every day, I naturally was anxious to press on with it as hard as I could. It is perfectly true that the Committee also say that the work was on a scale—I do not remember the exact words, but this is their substance—which they would not have recommended undertaking except for war purposes.
Now we come to the really critical point—the only point where I think there is room for reasonable doubt as to whether the action of the Government was right or wrong. Here I must take the responsibility, because I considered the matter very carefully at that time. I do not think that up to the point which I am now discussing I had any option. Here had this thing been fiercely attacked in the Press and in the House of Commons. It was most carefully considered by the most critical Committee that has ever sat, and they reported that the case had been made out. There was nothing for it then but to go on. Now I come to the point where a reasonable doubt may exist and does exist. I will tell your Lordships my reasons for the decision to which I came. The doubt arises at the date when the war, having come to an end—or apparently having come to an end, the armistice laving been declared—"the question arose whether we should still go on with the Undertaking. The Committee to which I have referred had reported in favour of a scheme on a greater scale than would be justified except for war purposes. Were we to go on with it or not? One of the
1048
things which the Committee had originally recommended was that we should review the size and scale of this undertaking. We did review it, and the work which was gone on with after the armistice was materially different and in many respects reduced from the original enterprise. The repair shops were cut down to some extent, and, much more than that, the storage houses, of which five were originally contemplated, were curtailed for the time being to only one. I believe we shall find that that is too little, but at any rate we did review and therefore did exactly what the Committee told us to do. We reviewed the whole enterprise in view of the altered circumstances. You may say, "Yes, you cut it down; you took account of the altered circumstances; but ought you not to have scrapped it altogether?"
It is easy to say that repair shops and storage houses which are necessary for the motor vehicles for the transport of an Army of 5,000,000 must be enormously too big when you come down to an Army at most of 500,000. That is apparently a very good argument, but it really is not a sound argument under the circumstances. What were we to do with our 80,000 vehicles that wanted repairing? The noble Viscount says, "The trade would have been willing to do the repairs of them" The trade were perfectly incapable of doing it. They were incapable of repairing more than half, and it would have taken them two and three-quarter years to do that, and what were we going to do with the other half—40,000 transport vehicles representing an enormous amount of public money and for which we are going to get, if we have proper care of them, good prices? They could not have been repaired at all, but if they had been they would have had to be repaired on the wasteful, scattered system which had been the reason for adopting in the first instance the plan of the central depot which had been entirely approved by the Committee. Every argument which existed at the time when this Committee on National Expenditure went into the matter and said the case had been made out applied equally as long as you had this enormous mass of motor vehicles of great value which you had not any proper means of repairing except the establishment which we are in process of creating.
A very careful investigation was made. I really am totally unable to admit, what has been constantly said in this debate,

1049
that we have proceeded in this matter in a careless way, throwing away public money. There is no single subject that has been examined and re-examined and examined over and over again like this. It has been debated over and over again by the Army Council with all the expert evidence that it could get. Outside experts, not members of the War Office staff, were called in, to inquire into this question of the saving which would probably be effected by having the means of repairing these vehicles which, the trade was not able to repair. I am not now talking of the whole 80,000. I am referring to the half which the British manufacturers were unable to repair even in the two and three-quarter years that we were prepared to allow. This calculation was made, and what was the result? It is stated in one of the Reports of the Committee, and this is the latest Report and not the Report from which I formerly quoted—
"It is clear that accommodation it necessary for the storage of vehicles and spare parts belonging to the Government which have a value of many millions, and which, if not properly stored, will rapidly deteriorate."
"Why don't you sell the spare parts to the trade?" says the noble Lord. What would have become of our vehicles if we had sold all our spare parts?
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: The vehicles could have gone to the trade to be repaired.
VISCOUNT MILKER: I have already told the noble Viscount that the trade could not do it.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: They say they can. I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount, but the evidence that I have before me shows that they are able to deal with 20,000 a year at the very least.
VISCOUNT MILNER: There are 80,000 to deal with. The question of the numbers, indeed, is here in the Report of your own Committee—
"It is clear that accommodation is necessary for the storage of vehicles and the spare parts belonging to the Government, which have a value of many millions, and which, if not properly stored, will rapidly deteriorate. There is a very large number of motor vehicles at home and in foreign theatres of war which need attention—52,130 lorries, 28,590 cars and 33,000 motor cycles."
The trade, according to the noble Viscount's own statement, could deal with 20,000 a
1050
year; we had nearly 100,000 to deal with. Well, everybody is fallible, and we may have made a great mistake. I do not deny that, but it is not such a simple matter of carelessness and throwing away public money as it has been represented to be here to-night. I am bound to say I am still as convinced as ever I was that we were right to go on then.
The noble Lord who made such a powerful speech against us said he should have-felt easier in his mind if the noble Lord behind me had not represented the whole-thing as so perfect, had not made out so-good a case. Well. I will gratify him. I am going to make a full and free confession of. mistakes which have occurred in this matter, and for that purpose I am afraid I must go back a little in my history. You must forgive me if the order of my discourse is not perfect, because I am speaking absolutely without preparation and simply from my knowledge of the case. When this momentous decision to go on-with the work after the conclusion of the war, for which I must hold myself responsible, was taken, the construction had been carried on for some time directly by the War Office, and during those months, that is to say, between June and November, when the. War Office was directly responsible for the work, I think I am bound to confess that it did not progress as fast as it ought to have done, and that we had the disaster to which my noble friend Lord Desborough referred—the deplorable disaster in which a large shed fell down and there was a certain amount of injury and loss of life. That is perfectly true. It does not condemn our scheme, it docs not condemn our policy that in the execution of it some regrettable mistakes were made. They were made, and that was the reason why, when the decision to go on with the work was taken in No member I also decided to transfer it from the War Office to a contractor. I think the noble Lord who initiated the debate called in question the-statement of the contractor that no accident had occurred there. It is fair to the contractors to point out that they might have been, for all I know, perfectly ignorant of the accident which happened a considerable time before they took over the work. They took it over in November.
LORD DESBOROUGH: I am not accusing them of bad faith, but they said that at no time had there been any such, accident.
VISCOUNT MILNER: That was a clear mistake. It is a fact that there was this accident. It is also a fact, as I have freely admitted, that the work was carried on rather slowly during the months from June to November by the War Office. I think considerable allowance must be made for the War Office. I am bound, in fairness to the officers of the Department who were in charge of the work to say that I think considerable allowance must be made for them, because, of course, it was the very worst time as far as labour was concerned. It was that period of the war when there was the greatest strain on the labour market, when almost every able-bodied man in the country was being pulled out. It was therefore a very unfavourable time, when there was great pressure on the labour market for every Government work, especially for aerodromes, and the competition was very unfavorable to the work at Slough, and we suffered very much in consequence. I think these allowances must be made. And at the same time during this period, as your Lordships will perfectly well remember, there was a great rise of prices and a consequent huge increase of wages all round, and therefore the work was not only delayed, and in some respect less efficient than it ought to have been, but it was also more costly.
At the time when the decision was taken to go on with the work under altered conditions in November I had to take account of the fact that, owing to all these circumstances, the expenditure already incurred had been larger than that which was originally contemplated. Altogether, from first to last, it is fair to say that this enterprise is going to cost appreciably more than the original estimate—I dare say 50 or 60 per cent. more. That is regrettable, but it does not alter my view of the policy, nor does it alter my conviction that even with this greatly increased expenditure the "Slough scandal" is going to result in the saving of millions of public money.
After this digression let me come back to the consideration which weighed with me in taking the decision of November to go on with the work, even after the conclusion of the armistice. I have got before me the passage from the Report of the Committee which I have already read, and "which stated that there was Government property to the value of many millions which, if not properly stored, would rapidly deteriorate. The Committee also sad that
1052
an estimate had been furnished by the War Office which showed that when all costs for labour, materials, establishment charges, and interest were included and the capital expenditure of £1,000,000 written down to £250,000 at the end of three years, there would be a net profit on the undertaking of £1,233,000. The Committee took no responsibility for that estimate. They recommended that the estimate referred to in this paragraph should be at once subjected to independent expert examination. When they made that recommendation they thought it was a War Office estimate. As a matter of fact, it had been made by professional and business men entirely outside the War Office; and it was with that estimate of the saving to be effected by continuing the work after the war was over which largely contributed towards inducing us to go on with it.
The fact that we called in a contractor has been subjected to criticism, as have also the terms of the contract. I cannot imagine that we could have got more favorable terms than those—that the work was to be conducted under supervision, that the whole expenditure and the books should be subjected to inspection, with a right to us to stop the work at any moment at any stage without compensation, and that the remuneration of the contractor should not be so much on the expenditure but a lump sum to be fixed by an outside authority of unquestionable impartiality, Lord Clown. I really cannot imagine any fair criticism which can be directed against those conditions. May I say that at this stage the thing passed from my personal cognizance, but from all I can learn the work is being carried on now with great efficiency and certainly with increased speed. Getting on quickly is a matter of enormous importance, because one of the main reasons for the whole thing is to stop the deterioration in most valuable material which is due to repairs being unduly delayed. The buildings, I understand, are to some extent available even now, and they will be completely ready by September.
When this work is finished we shall be in a position to deal under the most favourable conditions with the enormous mass of mechanical transport which was left on our hands at the end of the war. We shall not, to the best of my belief, find ourselves with

1053
anything in the way of surplus in the repair shops. It may be that we shall find ourselves short on the present plan in respect of storage. For it is possible—this is a very important consideration which has to be borne in mind—that the mechanical transport which is surplus to the requirements of a reduced Army will not to a great extent be surplus to the requirements of the Government; because in the general transportation scheme of the Government the use of a large number of these Government lorries for transportation, especially of agricultural produce, is in contemplation. But whether that be so or not, whether the amount of mechanical transport ultimately retained by the Government be greater or less, the saving on the repairs of the vast quantity of this transport—whether it remains in our hands or is brought to market—will, I am convinced, fully justify the expenditure which has been incurred on Slough, even taking into account the fact that we have had everything against us in the way of high cost of labor and high prices, and even making allowance for any shortcomings there may have been during the time when the work was (for the reasons I have stated) being less efficiently carried out than it is at the present time.
The noble Viscount (Lord Peel) reminds me that as far as the question of wages is concerned, the wages have been those which by law had to be paid under the fair wages clause; and under the Statute, I think it is, which at present regulates these wages we could not do otherwise, than pay them. I am sorry to have trespassed upon your Lordships, time for so long, but, Committee of Inquiry or no Committee of Inquiry, I could not allow this debate to close without some statement in reply to the very grave charges of mismanagement and waste which have been brought against the Government, and which, as far as this case is concerned, I believe are entirely unjustified, as an investigation (if your Lordships decide on undertaking the investigation, to which I do not object) will show.
On Question, Motion—That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the conditions under which the Government works at Cippenham, near Slough, are being carried out, the cost that is involved, and the responsibility for the advice on which the scheme was undertaken—agreed to.

CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

INCREASE OF RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST (RESTRICTIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments, and Commons Amendment to one of the Lords Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I beg to move that these Amendments be considered to-morrow.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of March 25.]
LEITH HARBOUR AND DOCKS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Stanmore), and reported from the Committee.
SHOREHAM-BY-SEA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL.
Petition of the Council under their Common Seal praying for leave to introduce a Bill to empower the Urban District Council of Shoreham-by-Sea to construct a bridge over the River Adur; to make further and better provision for the improvement, health, and local government of their district; and for other purposes; together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
SUNDERLAND GAS BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Orders made on the 27th of February last and the 6th instant discharged, and Bill committed.
BANKERS' GUARANTEE TRUST (TRANSFER) BILL, [H.L.]

  HARTLEPOOL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
  Buckles Waterworks [H.L.]
  Also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Petition for Bill have not been complied with:
  Lineally Rural District Council.
  And also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the Petition for additional provision in the following Bill have not been complied with:
  Middles rough Corporation [H.L.].
  The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned at ten minutes, before eight o'clock.