Sitting of 29 May 1919

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
AGRICULTURAL PRICES (IRELAND).
Return ordered, "showing, to the latest year available, for Ireland as a whole, (1) the annual average prices for each year from 1881; (2) the annual average prices for each period comprised in the period from 1881 of five years, ten years, fifteen years, twenty years, and twenty-five years, and for the period of six years from 1909; such prices to be compiled from the Returns of prices of crops, live-stock, and other Irish agricultural products heretofore published from time to time by the Irish Land Commission, or the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, or from other information in the possession of those Departments (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 13, of Session 1917–18)."—[Major Newman.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  ALBANIAN GUIDES (PRISONERS).
  Lieut.-Colonel RAYMOND GREENEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what has happened to the ten Albanian guides who were taken prisoners with a British officer at Gusinje by the Yugo-Slavs?
  The UNDERSECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): It appears that the British officer who proceeded to Gusinje was accompanied by a certain number of Albanians who were anxious to return to their homes. Ten of these are stated to have served as guides. The information in ray possession is to the effect that, at the time of the arrest of the British officer, these men were separated from him. Beyond this no definite information has been received. I am, however, making inquiries of His Majesty's Minister at Belgrade.

  RIGA (GERMAN FORCES).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked whether German troops under General von der Goltz and Baron von Manteuffel have re-entered Riga; and what steps will be taken to compel these German forces to withdraw to their own country?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH:According to a report received from His Majesty's representative at Libau dated 24th May, Riga has been occupied by the Balts, who were supported on their flank by a German cavalry division. As regards the second part of the hon. and gallant Member's question, I understand that the matter has been under the consideration of the representatives of the Allied Powers in Paris with a view to the adoption of the necessary measures.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are these Germans not acting on their own initiative, without any Allied encouragement at all?
  An HON. MEMBER: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that these Germans are Bolsheviks?
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that the Allies are employing Germans to fight the Bolsheviks?
  An HON. MEMBER: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate the fact that the hon. Member for Hull has at last realised the necessity of maintaining a British force?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is not for the Minister to say what is in the mind of the hon. Member.
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I must have notice of the several supplementary questions which have been put to me.

  ZIONISTS AND JEWS (DEPORTATIONS).
  Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked the Under-Secretary whether he can give the House any official figures regarding the massacres and deportations of Zionist and other Jews by the Polish troops who have invaded Lithuania, more particularly at Vilna; whether steps are being taken by the Allies to put a stop to these massacres and to the circulation of anti-Semitic propaganda among the non-

  1385
  Jewish population of Lithuania and the Jewish pale of settlement of Russia now invaded by the Poles?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's question is in the negative. As regards the second part, His Majesty's Representative at Warsaw has been requested to furnish a full report on the whole subject.

  ENVER PASHA.
  Captain ORMSBY - GOREasked whether the whereabouts of Enver Pasha, late Minister of War in Turkey, are now known; and whether steps are being taken to secure his apprehension, with a view to his being tried for the massacre of Armenians, the torture of Arabs, the killing of British and Indian prisoners of war, and the many other infamies for which he was responsible during the War?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Enver Pasha's present whereabouts are not known, but His Majesty's Government are, for their part, resolved to bring him to account. I understand that provision to this effect will be made in the peace settlement with Turkey.
  Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Did the hon. Member see a paragraph in the "Times" two or three days ago saying that he had turned up in the Caucasus?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: No, Sir; my attention has not been directed to it.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Will the hon. Gentleman take care to correct the description of Enver Pasha by the Secretary of State for War as the Garibaldi of the Turkish Revolution?

  TALAAT PASHA.
  Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the present whereabouts of Talaat Pasha, late Prime Minister of Turkey, and Signor Carasso, grand secretary of the Committee of Union and Progress, are now known; and whether these two men have been or will be charged with responsibility for crimes against the laws of Islam, war, and humanity, carried out under their orders against Arabs, Armenians, Jews, Greeks, and others during the War?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Talaat Pasha's whereabouts are not known. Signor Carasso is at present detained in an Allied hospital at Constantinople. For the rest, I may refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to his previous question.

  M. PADEREWSKI.
  Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked whether M. Paderewski has resigned the Premiership of Poland; if so, on what grounds; and who has succeeded him?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first and second parts of the question asked by the hon. and gallant Member is that M. Paderewski tendered his resignation, and is reported to have done so because the Polish Diet, disregarding the assurances given by him to the Allied and Associated Powers, insisted on a further advance into Eastern Galicia. The answer to the third part of the question is that the resignation of M. Paderewski was not accepted by the Polish Government.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the Polish Government at present directed by a famous anti-Semite?

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    PRE-WAR PENSIONS.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Pensions Minister whether he has recently reconsidered or intends to reconsider the case for increase of pre-war pensions; and whether, in view of the 50 per cent. increase in old age pensions and the very general increase of wages in addition to war bonus in all classes of employment, men who served the country in previous wars and retired on pension prior to 1914 are alone to be debarred from receiving an increase of pension commensurate with the rise in the cost of living?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir James Craig): If my hon. Friend is referring to disability pensions I may remind him that men disabled in former wars, who are totally incapacitated or who suffer from certain specific disabilities, already have their pensions raised to the level of the present War, and to the pensions so raised the 20 per cent.

    1387
    bonus is added. The question of similarly increasing the pensions granted for other disabilities incurred in previous wars is under consideration.
    Mr. McNEILL: Has any consideration been given to pensions which are not for disability but for active service?
    Sir J. CRAIG: The Ministry only deals with disability pensions. Any question of service pensions as service should be addressed to the War Office.
    Colonel YATE: Does this consideration of pre-war pensions extend to the officers or only to the men?
    Sir J. CRAIG: Certainly; to both men and officers in the Navy and Army.

    DISABLED SOLDIERS (TRAINING).
    Mr. ALFRED DAVIESasked the Pensions Minister what provision is made by the Ministry for a disabled soldier who, having completed his training for a new occupation, is unable to find employment?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of LABOUR (Mr. Wardle): I have been asked to reply to this question. The policy of the Training Department of the Ministry of Labour is that disabled sailors and soldiers shall only be trained in trades which are capable of absorbing additional labour. The Divisional Training Authorities, acting in conjunction with the various local technical advisory committees and the Employment Exchanges, will assist in securing employment for men who have completed approved courses of training
    Mr. DAVIES: Is it not a fact that there are thousands of men who have already received training and who are at present unemployed?
    Mr. WARDLE: Not to my knowledge.
    Colonel ASHLEY: What provision has been made for them after they have had their training if they cannot get employment?
    Mr. WARDLE: Every effort is being made to place these men when they have received their training. If it is impossible to train them then they come under the unemployment donation fund.
    Colonel YATE: Where disabled officers and men are discharged from other Government Departments is their case taken up by the Minister of Labour?
    Mr. WARDLE: If my hon. and gallant Friend or anyone else has any such ease I shall be glad to have it investigated.
    Colonel YATE: I will send you one.
    Mr. ROSE: What arc the results of the-best efforts of the Ministry?
    Mr. WARDLE: That would take too long.

  COURT-MARTIAL, ROSCOMMOX (JOHN O'SHEEHAN).
  Mr. HARTSHORNasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland on what charge, and on what evidence, Mr. John O'Sheehan, Roscommon, was court-martialled in September and sentenced to two years' imprisonment; where he is at present confined; and whether he is undergoing hospital treatment?
  The VICE-PRESIDENT of the DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE, IRELAND (Mr. Hugh Barrie): This man, who had been convicted on two previous occasions upon the serious charges of carrying a revolver without a permit and obstructiong the police in the discharge of their duties, is now in Belfast Prison, where he is receiving treatment in the prison hospital. He was the proprietor and manager of a theatrical touring company, and his performances were of a very seditious character, and had been under the observation of the police for some time. On the 26th August, 1918, these performances were the subject of court-martial proceedings under Regulations 27 and 42 of the Defence of the Realm Act, and he was again lawfully-convicted and sentenced for doing acts likely to cause disaffection.
  Mr. HARTSHORN: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what the charge was upon which this man was convicted, and also the nature of the evidence? That was in my question.
  Mr. BARRIE: I am only passing on to the hon. Member the official information supplied to me.
  Mr. HARTSHORN: As the Chief Secretary is not here, I will put this question again when the right, hon. Gentleman is. present.
  Mr. LYNN: Is the hon.. Gentleman aware that incitements to murder are rampant in this district?
  Mr. MacVEAGH: What district? Do not talk nonsense in the House!

  ARREST AT WESTPORT (JOHN M'LOUGHLIN).
  Mr. EDWARD KELLYasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that, on the 3rd of April, 1919, a youth of twenty named John M'Loughlin was taken into custody in Westport by District-Inspector Victor H. Scott, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and after two days removed to the Royal Irish Constabulary barracks at Castlebar, where he was kept in custody till a few days ago; whether his father was refused a permit by the military authorities to go to Castlebar to inquire about his son; whether he is aware that no charge of any nature has been made against him; whether, when a conditional order for a writ of habeas corpus was granted by the King's Bench Division, the only excuse put forward by District-Inspector Scott was that John M'Loughlin had made a statement on the murder of Mr. Milling, and consented to be kept in custody for his own safety; whether John M'Loughlin was induced by District-Inspector Scott to make an affidavit stating that he did not object to being detained; whether, in spite of the alleged danger to John M'Loughlin, the Crown applied to the King's Bench Division to be allowed to send him home to Westport; whether, since his release, John M'Loughlin has stated that lie made no statement about the murder, that he never consented to be kept in custody, and that he was induced by threats to swear his affidavit; whether, in spite of the act that no legal excuse was suggested for the action of the Royal Irish Constabulary, no costs were given to the father of John M'Loughlin on his application for habeas corpus; and whether he will have the case inquired into?
  Mr. MacVEAGHasked whether another habeas corpus writ has been issued against the Irish Government, and in consequence a boy named John M'Loughlin, of Westport, has been re leased from custody and returned to his parents; whether this is the fourth case in which the law has thus been broken by the Government in Ireland; whether the arrest and abduction of these children was authorised by him or by the Law Officers, and, if not, by whom was it
  1390
  authorised; and whether he is aware that the violation of the law by those responsible for its administration has brought the administration of the law into contempt over a large part of the country?
  Mr. BARRIE: An application was made for a writ of habeas corpus in the case of John M'Loughlin, a young man aged twenty and a half years, to the King's Bench Division. M'Loughlin was not taken into custody, but was accommodated by the police at the barrack for his own safety, and afterwards with his consent at Castlebar. M'Loughlin attended the Court and made an affidavit, and the judges, on reading his affidavit, discharged the conditional order for a habeas corpus and refused to give any costs. There is no foundation for the suggestion that M'Loughlin was induced by threats to swear the affidavit. The district inspector reports that he has no knowledge of any refusal of a permit to M'Loughlin's father. The Irish Government have no knowledge of any statements made by M'Loughlin since the matter was before the Court.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the hon. Gentleman answer the second part of my question?
  Mr. BARRIE: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down another question.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the hon. Gentleman say when we can have somebody here from the Irish Office who can answer questions?
  Mr. BARRIE: I suggest that the Chief Secretary is more usefully employed for the moment in Ireland.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: He is never here.

  ALIENS (IRELAND).
  Major Sir KEITH FRASERasked whether there are a considerable number of aliens in Ireland, men who are apparently Polish Jews (who speak Yiddish), who visit the houses of the poorer classes in many parts of the country under the pretence of buying furniture, etc., but who are really engaged in spreading hostile propaganda; and, if so, will he take steps to have these undesirable aliens deported from Ireland whether they are naturalised or not?
  Mr. BARRIE: There are a considerable number of Jews in Ireland, some of whom

  1391
  speak Yiddish and trade as pedlars throughout the country. The police have no knowledge of the spread of hostile propaganda by these persons and have hitherto had no reason to suppose that this propaganda work was going on. Inquiry, however, is being made.

  HOUSING (IRELAND) BILL.
  Mr. ARCHDALEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he intends in the Irish Housing Bill to have a small advisory committee to assist the Local Government Board; and, if so, would he state the names and qualifications of the men he proposes to place on it?
  Mr. BARRIE: The Local Government Board have already set up a Committee, including expert professional men, not merely to advise the Board, but to carry out under their directions all steps necessary for expediting the progress of schemes and for assisting the local authorities at every step of progress. The four members of the Committee are:
  Mr. P. C. Cowan, D.Sc, M. Institute, C.E.. The Board's Chief Engineering Inspector; Mr. Hugh A. Law, Mr. Charles H. O'Connor, Chairman of the Departmental Committee, which inquired into the Dublin housing, and Chairman of the Agricultural Wages Board; and Mr. L. E. H. Deane, M.R.I.A.I., The Board's Chief Architect, with a competent and experienced staff.
  Mr. ARCHDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the unofficial members of this Committee will be paid, and, if so, how much?
  Mr. BARRIE: I must ask for notice of that question.

  JUVENILE OFFENDERS.
  Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that three small boys pleaded guilty at Grimsby to a charge of theft; whether it transpired that before being charged they had been taken into custody by the police and detained; whether he is aware that the magistrate held that such procedure was illegal and repugnant to justice, and therefore released the boys; and what action he proposes to take?
  Mr. PRATT (Lord of the Treasury): My right hon. Friend has not heard of the case. I have now called for a report.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Home Secretary to send a copy of the report to the Chief Secretary and Attorney-General for Ireland, both of whom are breaking the law?

  REDCAR PETTY SESSIONS.
  Mr. THOMAS GRIFFITHSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a case which arose in Redcar being taken for trial to Loftus, on 23rd May, although petty sessions can be held at Redcar any day and the case determined there; whether the man charged with larceny at Redcar was actually conveyed twelve miles beyond the town where facilities exist for hearing cases, and that four witnesses were compelled to make this unnecessary journey, thereby involving additional charges upon public funds; whether, in view of the fact that the country rates show a tendency to advance for necessary reforms, he will urge upon the authorities that such waste as in this case shall be avoided, and that in the interests of economy, as well as for the convenience of the public interested, cases shall be heard in the areas in which the offence arises; and whether he will ask for a Return of the money spent during the last two years through Redcar cases being taken elsewhere to be dealt with?
  Mr. PRATT: My right hon. Friend desires to refer the hon. Member to the answer on the same subject given yesterday to the hon. Member for Barnard Castle.

  DISABLED SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (PUBLIC COLLECTIONS).
  Mr. HURDasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that, at a public football match held under influential local auspices at Midsomer Norton on Saturday last, demobilised soldiers and sailors were prevented from making a collection, which had been previously advertised, in aid of all crippled and disabled men in the district; and by what authority that action was taken and for what reason?
  Mr. PRATT: My right. hon. Friend's attention has not previously been called to

  1393
  this incident, but he has asked for information with regard to it and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  TRINIDAD (HABITUAL IDLERS ORDINANCE).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there has been introduced recently in Trinidad and Tobago an habitual idlers ordinance; whether there is any intention of introducing this ordinance into other Crown Colonies; and whether, before doing so, he will lay copies of the ordinance, with the correspondence of his predecessor, the present First Lord of the Admiralty, upon the Table of the House for the information of Members?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut. - Colonel Amery): An habitual idlers ordinance was passed in Trinidad last year, but I am not aware of any intention to introduce similar legislation into other Colonies. The last part of my hon. Friends question therefore docs not arise.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: May we have copies of the ordinance together with the correspondence with the Secretary of State?
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I will submit that to my right hon. Friend.

  KEW GARDENS.
  Lieut.-Colonel WALTER GUINNESSasked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the hardship caused to children living in the neighbourhood of Kew Gardens by the charge of 1d. for admission, he will restore the pre-war practice of allowing free admission to the gardens on certain days of the week?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir A. Mond): I understand that the Board of Agriculture will reply to this.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: But are not the Kew Gardens under the Office of Works and within the province of the First Commissioner?
  Sir A. MOND: No, Sir.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is it not usual to pass questions on in such cases?
  Sir A. MOND: Yes, and I understood that in this case the Board of Agriculture were dealing with it.

  HAMPTON COURT PALACE.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the First Commissioner of Works whether any proposal has been under consideration to widen the herbaceous border in the front of Hampton Court Palace, involving an alteration in the width of the terrace and an interference with the architectural design by Sir Christopher Wren; and if he will undertake that no such interference shall be permitted without the sanction of Parliament?
  Lieut.-Colonel ARTHUR MURRAYasked whether any orders were given for alterations to the Pond Garden and other gardens at Hampton Court Palace during the year 1918; and, if so, whether he will state the nature of such orders?
  Sir A. MOND: A proposal has been suggested to widen the long borders in the front of Hampton Court Palace for my consideration but in no way interfering with any architectural design of Sir C. Wren. No orders for the alterations to any of the gardens at Hampton Court Palace have been given during the year 1918. Owing to the exigencies of the War a number of flower beds have been turfed over. Various proposals for improvements to the gardens at Hampton Court, involving the suppression of a certain number of flower beds under the yew trees and the rearrangement of other flower beds were submitted to my predecessor in office, and received his conditional approval. These are being referred by me to a committee of horticultural experts for consideration and report.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the names of this committee before he finally sets it up?
  Sir A. MOND: As soon as the committee has been arranged I will publish the names. The request is a very unusual one. I am appointing the committee to advise me and it is my own responsibility.
  Colonel ASHLEY: Is it necessary to have this committee? Would it not be better to revert to the 1914 condition?
  Sir A. MOND:I think it very necessary to have a report from the committee, so that I can come to a decision.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY:Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the real desire there should be no change?
  Sir A. MOND: I understand that that is not the view of a great many very qualified persons.
  Mr. ROSE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety even at this late hour of letting well alone?

  ALEXANDRA PALACE.

    OCCUPATION BY GOVERNMENT STAFFS.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the First Commissioner of Works whether the Alexandra. Palace will be handed back for the use of the general public as in the days before the War?
    Sir A. MOND:The Alexandra Palace is now being vacated by the aliens who have been interned there during the War, in order that it may be utilised temporarily for occupation by Government staffs, thereby securing the release of equivalent space in hotels, museums, public institutions, and premises requisitioned from business firms. I hope, however, that it will be possible to make arrangements for the public to be admitted to the grounds, which are at present closed to them.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say where the unfortunate aliens who have been imprisoned there for four years are being sent to?
    Sir A. MOND: In a camp provided by the military authorities.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: And where are the officials coming from who are to occupy the palace?
    Sir A. MOND: I am astonished that that question should be asked. I have said they are coming from the various hotels and institutions which are being given up.
    Mr. KENNEDY JONES: And what is it going to cost to transform Alexandra Palace into offices? Could not a more suitable building be found?
    Sir A. MOND: I think I ought to have notice of that question. Certainly the cost will be very small compared with. the size of the staff.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: What Department——
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice. There is a long list of questions to be dealt with to-day.

  BEACHLEY GARDEN CITY SCHEME.
  Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the First Commissioner of Works whether the Beachley garden city scheme is one for which His Majesty's Office of Works is responsible; if so, what is the area of the land embraced and its cost, the number of houses proposed to be erected, and their estimated cost; and if His Majesty's Office of Works is not responsible for the scheme what Department is?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel Leslie Wilson):I have been asked to reply. His Majesty's Office of Works are undertaking the supervision of all the housing schemes at the national shipyards on behalf of the Ministry of Shipping. The area of land covered by the proposed housing scheme at Beachley is, approximately, 42½acres, and forms part of a larger area of land to allow for possible extensions. The actual figure for the purchase of this land has not yet been determined. The number of houses proposed to be erected on the Beachley sites is 342, of which 66 are now in course of erection. The scheme is still in process of preparation, and I am not in a position to give a complete estimate.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (STAFF).
  Major LANE-FOXasked the First Commissioner of Works if he will state under what authority the National Health Insurance Commission occupy a portion of the premises known as 4. Thurloe Place?
  Sir A. MOND: The portion of the premises temporarily occupied by the National Health Insurance staff is held by arrangement with the Royal Air Force, who will eventually occupy the whole of the building.

  HOUSING SHORTAGE (DEMOBILISED SOLDIER).
  Lieut-Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Local Govern-

  1397
  ment Board if he is aware of the difficulty found by discharged and demobilised soldiers and sailors with families in obtaining houses; whether he will consider the taking over of large unoccupied private houses and turning them into flats and maisonettes for the accommodation of these men and their families until such time as more houses have been built; and, ii not, what other steps he proposes to take?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD(Major Astor): My right hon. Friend is aware of the difficulty to which the hon. and gallant Member refers and provision to enable the matter to be dealt with on the lines suggested has been made in the Housing Bill.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. NEIL M'LEANasked the President of the Local Government Board whether Mrs. Elizabeth Stevenson, a widow, eighty-five years of ago, has had her old age pension stopped on the ground that she has been overpaid £5 18s., and no further payment will be made until this earn is paid back; if he is aware that the total income of this old woman is her old age pension plus 10s. per week pension on account of her son who was killed in action in France on 25th September, 1915; whether the pensions officer was authorised to act in this manner; and what steps he proposes to take to secure to this woman her old age pension plus the full pension of 15s. war pension to which she is entitled on account of her age and infirmity?
  Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): As the answer to this question is rather long, I will, with the hon.. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  The following is the Answer referred to:
  Mrs. Stevenson's old age pension has been reduced by the local pension committee from the 5s. to the 3s. rate as from 18th January, 1918, on account of an increase in her means due to the grant of a war pension of 10s. a week. As she drew old age pension at the 5s. rate until 7th March. 1919, she has been overpaid the sum of £6, which, under Section 9 (2) of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908, is a debt to the Crown. The over-payment having arisen through her concealment of the in-
  1398
  crease in her means when next visited by the pension officer, the debt has not been. waived, and recovery is being effected by withholding the old age pension at the 3s. rate under the authority of Section 7 (3) of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1911. In the meantime the additional allowance of 2s. 6d. a week will be paid to her.
  The amount of the war pension payable is a matter for the Ministry of Pensions.

  GERMAN TRADE POSTCARDS.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that open trade postcards are now coming through the post from German firms seeking business from England; and whether such communications are delivered with his authority?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth):A general licence to trade with Occupied Germany was issued by the Government in February last, and postal communication was accordingly established shortly afterwards. All correspondence is subject to censorship by the military authorities, and any postal packet from Occupied Germany passed by the Censors would be delivered by the Post. Office in ordinary course.

  TELEPHONE FACILITIES.
  Mr. SITCHasked the Postmaster-General if he will consider the desirability of establishing a public telephone call- office in Brettell Lane, Staffordshire, for the convenience of the inhabitants of that area and the adjacent districts of Words-ley and Amblecote, whose business activities suffer delay by reason of the absence of speedily-accessible telephone facilities?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I am having inquiry made, and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.
  Mr. DAWESasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to a paragraph in the "Times" of the 25th May, 1919, headed Traffic in Telephones; why his Department is un- willing to provide new installations; and what steps he is taking to expedite the installation of the telephones, the con tracts for which he has accepted?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: During the early months of this year there was a serious shortage of skilled labour for providing telephone lines for subscribers in London owing to the number of Post Office workmen still on military service. This difficulty has now ceased, but others remain to be overcome. During the War the provision of underground lines, the construction of new exchanges and the extension of existing exchanges was necessarily suspended. In consequence, the margin of spare plant in many areas has been exhausted, and there will be a shortage of plant until arrears can be made up. A large amount of work is now in hand, but it will be a considerable time before much of the new plant is manufactured and installed. The available exchange accommodation has in the last few weeks been further reduced by an abnormal increase in the number of calls, which has now reached the highest pre-war figure, and at certain large exchanges it is impracticable to accommodate additional lines. At the end of 1918 the daily number of calls in London was about 1,000,000. It is now over 1,200,000. Where plant is available telephones are being provided without serious delay. In March 3,196 new telephones were provided in London, and in April, 6,447.

  POSTAL FACILITIES, KIRKBY STEPHEN.
  Mr. CAPEasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the inconvenience caused to the people of Kirkby Stephen and Brough, Westmoreland, through the lack of postal facilities; if he is aware that it takes two days for a letter posted at Kirkby Stephen or Brough for any part of the Eden Valley outside Penrith to reach its destination; and whether he will have inquiries made with a view of better postal facilities being granted to this district.
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I am aware that the postal service at Kirkby Stephen and Brough, as at many other places, is in some respects not so good as it was before the War; but additional deliveries have recently been provided in this district. Letters posted at either Kirkby Stephen or Brough in time for the night mail despatch should ordinarily be delivered in any part of the Eden Valley by the first post on the following day.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    SURPLUS AEROPLANES.
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Undersecretary of State to the Air Ministry if he will offer to the Overseas Dominions and Colonies some of the surplus aeroplanes now in the possession of the Air Ministry, with a view to their being used for postal and similar services?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for AIR (Major-General Seely): This question is at this moment being considered. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will repeat his question next week. Since I drafted this answer a satisfactory conclusion has been arrived at by the Government and I hope to make a satisfactory announcement when the hon. Member repeats his question.
    Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Will this be given as a free gift or will it be a purchase?
    Major-General SEELY: As a free gift to the Dominions, the Crown Colonies, and to India.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir SAMUEL HOAREasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether, in view of the high prices now being realised for obsolete and old motor cycles and cars being sold by Government Departments, it would be desirable to offer some of the new aeroplanes, now being broken up by his Department, to the public by auction sale so as to test the market on this matter?
    Major-General SEELY: The aeroplanes which are being reduced to produce are those which are obsolete for war purposes and unsuitable for civil aviation. His Majesty's Government accordingly could not accept the responsibility of putting them on the market. The responsibility of the Air Ministry ends when they have decided what machines are surplus and which of them are obsolete for service use and unsuitable for civil aviation. Thereafter the question of disposal rests with the Disposal Board under the Ministry of Munitions.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: Why could not the right hon. Gentleman put some of these on the market to see if there is a demand for them, and at the same time make it clear that any purchaser purchases them at his own risk?
    Major-General SEELY: That is a matter for the Disposal Board of the Ministry of Munitions, and questions on that subject should be addressed to them.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE - BRABAZON:Have steps been taken to dispose of some of these machines to neutral countries for trade purposes?
    Major-General SEELY: I have just announced the decision of the Government to make a free gift to the Dominions, Colonies, and India of those required for certain specific purposes, but the disposal of the machines is a matter for the Disposal Board of the Ministry, and I shall I e obliged if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will address his questions to them, as they have all the facts at their disposal.

    YATE AERODROME (WOMEN AND GIRLS DISCHARGED).
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Undersecretary of State to the Air Ministry whether he is aware that many girls and women who volunteered for work at the Yate (Glos.) aerodrome have been recently discharged and their places taken by other women; whether this action is locally regarded as unjust and results in the turned-off women receiving out-of-work donation; whether, as the result of newspaper correspondence, no women received fresh notices on Friday, 16th May, but many girls left that week owing to previous notices and eight or nine fresh ones were taken on; and will he say what justification there is for this conduct?
    Major-General SEELY: Apart from compassionate discharges (to which I presume my hon. Friend is not referring) I find that thirteen members of the Women's Royal Air Force at Yate were recommended for discharge in April last. The work in certain branches had then greatly diminished and the least efficient workers were selected for discharge when the staff was reduced. Discharges were carried into effect as regards eight of the women on the 9th May and as regards five on the 16th. Forty-seven members of the Women's Royal Air Force have since been enrolled, but only three of them, who were miscellaneous labourers, are of the same trade as those discharged. The women whose places they took were regarded as inefficient. Two civilian subordinates have also been discharged since the 1st April and their places taken by two members of the Women's Royal Air Force.
    Mr. RENDALL: Will my right hon. Friend explain why women are turned off and receive out-of-work donation and at the same time an equal number are being taken on and being paid?
    Major-General SEELY: I have asked for a full report from the officer commanding. I have not yet received it. I admit the point is somewhat obscure. If my hon. Friend will repeat the question next week I hope to be able to give an answer.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Cannot discharged soldiers do this work instead of women?
    Major-General SEELY: That raises a very big question. Where women are already engaged in doing work well it would be wrong to displace thorn if they are fully efficient for the work, and more efficient than men would be. It is a big question which I cannot argue at present.

    SOUTH-EASTERN AREA HEADQUARTERS.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOHN HOPEasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether the headquarters of the South-Eastern Area is the only unit of the Air Force accommodated in No. 4, Thurloe Place; by what number of officers and men the strength of this unit has been reduced since 11th November, 1918; and how much further it is intended to reduce the strength after the signing of Peace?
    Major-General SEELY: With the exception of two officers and three clerks, the headquarters staff of the South-Eastern Area is the only Royal Air Force unit accommodated at 4, Thurloe Place. On the 11th November, 1918, the total numbers of this staff were sixty-four officers and 195 other ranks; yesterday the figures worn sixty-seven officers, 173 other ranks and fifty-six civil subordinates. The increase shown has been made in consequence of the great increase of work due to rapid demobilisation. Thus, while the reduction of the whole force during the period mentioned is: Officers and cadets, 64 per cent., and other ranks 74 per cent., an increase is necessary in the staff of the areas in order to complete the great volume of work involved in this rapid reduction, and assist in building up the smaller permanent force.

    OCCUPATION OF PREMISES.
    Major BOYD-CARPENTERasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry what is the Statute under which

    1403
    the Royal Air Force occupies premises: and whether an Order under the Defence of the Realm Act issued by the War Office is deemed to be valid in such a case?
    Major-General SEELY: The Statute under which premises can be compulsorily taken by the Royal Air Force is the Defence of the Realm Act. Regulation 2, made under that Act, provides for any competent naval or military authority taking possession of any buildings or other property, when it is necessary to do so for the purpose of securing the public safety or the defence of the Realm.
    Major LANE-FOX: Has the right hon. Gentleman any right to hand them over to the Insurance Commission?
    Major-General SEELY:That is a legal matter. I should presume it must be legal otherwise we should not have done it.
    Major LANE-FOX: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken the advice of the Law Officers?
    Major-General SEELY: I am quite sure my predecessor must have done, because he was a most wise man, but I will inquire at once. It was before my time.

    CASUALTIES.
    Mr. CLOUGHasked how many casualties there have been in the Air Force since the Armistice up to the pre sent time, mentioning in addition those which have had a fatal termination?
    Major-General SEELY: The reply is as follows: Officers, fatal, 374 up to the 25th May, 1918, for Home and Overseas; other ranks, fatal, 848. The above figures are up to the 30th April, as it was not possible to work out the information up to a later date in the time available. The figures for non-fatal casualties up-to-date are being inquired into.

    HALTON PAEK CAMP (DISCHARGES OF MEN).
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Under-Secretary to the Air Ministry whether about 300 men have been discharged during the last month from the works now in progress at Wendover; if the cause for this is the delay in the passing of the plans for the continuation of the scheme; and if this is so, will he take steps to see that there shall be no further delay involving, as it has, the discharge of many demobilised soldiers?
    Major-General SEELY: The recent discharges of men employed on construction work at Halton Park have been due to the approaching completion of buildings.

  MISS DOUGLAS-PENNANT.
  Sir ROBERT THOMASasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether he has received a communication from Miss Violet Douglas-Pennant, dated 3rd May, which is a primâ facie case, such as he required to have before granting the inquiry; whether an answer has been sent to Miss Douglas-Pennant; and whether he will now assure the House that the Government will fulfil its pledge and grant the inquiry?
  Major-General SEELY: The communication referred to has been received and an answer sent. In the view of the Secretary of State, no case for a public inquiry has been made out. He has informed Miss Douglas-Pennant that he is prepared to publish the papers if the House desire it, and has asked what are her wishes in the matter. The Secretary of State has received no answer to his question, and, in view of the Debate which it is desired to have in another place, he has decided to lay the papers at once.
  Sir R. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a Committee of both Houses of Parliament has been sitting to consider Miss Douglas-Pennant's statement with corroborative evidence, and has come to the unanimous conclusion that a primâ facie case has been established. In these circumstances will the right hon. Gentleman appoint a Committee of this House to decide whether a primâ facie case has been established or not, and not take the responsibility upon himself?
  Major-General SEELY: I will communicate my hon. Friend's views to the Secretary of State for War, who is dealing personally with the matter.

  GERMAN-MADE GOODS (IMPORTS).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether there is any ground for the belief that German goods are reaching this country through Switzerland with the stamp upon them of "Made

  1405
  in Britain "; and, if so, what action he is taking or will take to prevent the importation of such goods?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): I am not aware of any ground for this belief. Goods of foreign origin marked in such a way if discovered by the Customs authorities in the course of their examination would be detained under Section 16 of the Merchandise Marks Act. Moreover, the importation of goods from Germany is still prohibited under the Trading with the Enemy Legislation.

  RAILWAY TRAFFIC CONGESTION.

    WAGON SUPPLY.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the serious congestion of traffic between Nottingham and London; why so few wagons are allotted to so important a business centre as the capital of the Eastern Midlands; why the railways only accept ordinary merchandise on two or three days in the week; and whether he will take steps to relieve a situation so disastrous to trade which is attempting to revive after the restrictions of war?
    Lieut-Colonel LORD HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that great inconvenience is being caused to the traders of Nottingham by the refusal of the railway companies to accept any goods for delivery in London; and whether he will take immediate steps to relieve the congested state of the railways, which is detrimental to the re-establishment of the trade of the country?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am aware that at the present time railway companies are, for various reasons, finding great difficulty in dealing with the amount of traffic being offered for conveyance, in many parts of the country. The Railway Executive Committee are giving the matter special attention, and are taking steps to improve the distribution of the available supply of wagons. I hope that the position will shortly be more satisfactory.
    Colonel YATEasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken, considering the shortage of railway trucks and the inability of the railways
    1406
    to carry the traffic, to increase the carrying powers of the canals and to ease the present congestion by substituting water traffic for railway traffic wherever practicable?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am afraid I can only refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the reply given on this subject yesterday to the hon. Member for North Salford.
    Colonel YATE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether anything is being done in. this matter?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will send the hon. and gallant Gentleman the reply, and he will be able to judge whether it is satisfactory or not.
    Colonel YATE: That is not satisfactory unless there is something in it.

    ARMY OF OCCUPATION, RHINE.
    Lieut-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to station a mixed Allied force on the Rhine for fifteen years; and, if so, what will be the strength of the British contingent?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I am informed that no arrangements have yet been made.

    BLOCKADE (HUNGARY).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether the blockade is still maintained against Hungary, because that State is a Socialist Republic?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer is in the negative. The blockade against Hungary is maintained for the present because the Associated Governments are not satisfied that the existing Government of Hungary, which is still an enemy country, is such as to offer any security for law and order.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: How is it that the only two Socialist Republics, Hungary and Russia, are the only places where the blockade is still fully maintained?

    MOTOR CARS (GOVERNMENT SERVICE).
    Major Earl WINTERTONasked the Prime Minister how many passenger

    1407
    motor cars, the property of the public, are at present placed at the disposal of the British delegation to the Peace Conference in Paris; whether any check is kept on the mileage run; and whether there is any authority responsible for the use to which the cars are put, or whether Ministers, military and naval officers, and Civil servants, to whom a car or cars are allotted, are permitted to use them for any purpose which they may desire?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: There are fifty-one cars employed by the British Peace Delegation, but, owing to the necessity for repairs and a shortage of drivers, the number in use from day to day is considerably short of that figure. A check is kept of the mileage run and a monthly return rendered. A certain number are allocated to Plenipotentiaries, Ministers of the Crown, and Dominion Prime Ministers, and are used at their discretion. The remainder form a common pool, and can only be used on written requisition sanctioned by a responsible official, whose duty it is to investigate and control the purposes for which each car is to be used in the interests of the public service.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Prime Minister when the custom was introduced of providing officials in Government Departments with special means of locomotion between their offices and homes or clubs at the public expense; and whether, in view of the need for economy in administration, he will give instructions that no transport shall be provided for any official except at his own cost?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid that it is true that the abnormal conditions prevalent during the War have given rise to the abuses. The whole question of control of Government motor cars is now being carefully considered by His Majesty's Government, and I hope that in a short time instructions will be given which will deal satisfactorily with this among other aspects of the subject.
    Mr. McNEILL: Am I to understand that the custom has originated since the beginning of the War?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I believe that is so, and I think it was only natural, because there were no means of getting locomotion.

    TRADE UNION CONGRESS, PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE.
    Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he recently granted an interview to the Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress; whether he was informed by them that unless the Government reversed its declared policy with regard to the liability for military service, the treatment of the conscientious objector to military service, and certain other matters, a general strike would take place; and will he, before be gives the Parliamentary Committee the answer of the Government, receive the Parliamentary Committee of the Middle Classes Union in order that he may acquaint himself with the views of the union with regard to the demands made on the Government by the Trade Union Congress and its alleged threat should it fail to comply with them?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave yesterday to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dulwich.
    Major NEWMAN: Will the report of the interview be made public?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have authorised them to make it public if they wish, and I think it will be made public.
    Major NEWMAN: Supposing they do not make it public, will it be published?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I said nothing that I have not said in the House, and I do-not care whether it is made public or not. I understand that it is to be made public-

    HAWKER-GRIEVE ATLANTIC FLIGHT.

      RECOGNITION OF DANISH GALLANTRY.
      Mr. CHADWICKasked if the British Government has officially conveyed to the captain and crew of the Danish steamer "Mary" its appreciation of their gallantry in rescuing Mr. Hawker and Commander Grieve in mid-Atlantic in a gale?
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: An expression of appreciation of the services rendered and the gallantry exhibited in the rescue of Mr. Hawker and Commander Grieve by the captain and crew of the Danish steamer "Mary" will be conveyed to the Danish Government for communication to the master and crew. The Board of Trade are considering what further recognition

      1409
      should be given. I take this opportunity of associating my right hon. Friend and the Board of Trade with the general expression of satisfaction at the rescue.
      Mr. J. JONES: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Danes are to come under the Aliens Restriction Act?

    WIRELESS INSTALLATIONS (MERCHANT VESSELS).
    Mr. CHADWICKasked the Prime Minister (1) if his attention has been called to the fact that an aeroplane was picked up by a vessel not equipped with wireless and consequently unable to report until she reached the coast, this demonstrating the importance that every ship which might be instrumental in saving life or property or in disseminating important news should be equipped with wireless; whether this matter will be brought up for international discussion at the earliest possible moment;
    (2) if the President of the Board of Trade, having regard to its value as a life-saving medium, he will now arrange that all merchant ships, other than fishing vessels and coasters, shall be compelled to be equipped with wireless telegraph apparatus?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The subject of wireless telegraphy on merchant ships was considered by the International Conference on Safety of Life at Sea in 1913–14, and an international agreement was reached on the subject at that time. Owing to the War, the Convention has not been brought into operation, and the question whether any modification of the Convention is necessary in the light of experience gained since the Convention was agreed to is being considered. A Bill dealing with the provision of wireless telegraph apparatus on merchant ships was introduced into Parliament on 21st May.

    ALIENS.
    Mr. KENNEDY JONESasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the issue of the draft Order in Council regulating the admission of aliens to the United Kingdom, he will state whether these Regulations will, with suitable local modifications, be applied to all parts of the British Empire other than the self-govern-
    1410
    ing Dominions; and, if not, what different principles for achieving the same end will be sanctioned by the Colonial Office?
    Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I am not yet in a position to say what precise measures it may be desirable or practicable to take in the various Colonies and Protectorates in border to provide effectively for the regulation of the admission of aliens, or to what extent those measures will be based on the Regulations proposed for the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend will realise that the question will require very careful consideration in order to secure the end in view in the manner best suited to local conditions in each case.

    BRITISH CELLULOSE AND CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY.
    Mr. RAPERasked when the Report of Lord Sumner's Committee regarding the British Cellulose and Chemical Manufacturing Company will be forthcoming?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I regret that it is not possible for me to name a definite date, but I hope that it will be ready within a week or two.

    UNITED BALTIC COMPANY.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the registration of the United Baltic Company with a private capital of £2,000,000 on 20th May to carry on a multiplicity of undertakings by land and sea; whether he is aware that the British directors are the Right Hon. Leverton Harris and two representatives of Andrew Weir and Company, and the remaining directors are Hans Niels Anderson, of the East Asiatic Company, and Emil Gluckstadt, who both direct the Landmandsbank of Denmark; whether he is aware that before and during the War the Landmandsbank was virtually a branch of the Deutsche Bank of Berlin; that it was a subject of complaint during the War that the East Asiatic Company assisted our enemies and that Hans Niels Anderson was given too many privileges; whether full inquiry has now been made as to whether it is desirable to give British registration to the company and as to whether Hans Niels Anderson and Emil Gluckstadt will promote British interests?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am advised that the Landmandsbank is not and never has been, either before or during the War, a branch of the Deutsche Bank; on the contrary, it has on several occasions during the War rendered services to His Majesty's Government. In particular, it made His Majesty's Government, through the British Bank of Northern Commerce, two loans of 30,000,000 kroner each, as well as a dollar loan in New York of 36,000,000 dollars, and renewed them from time to time at the request of His Majesty's Government. Mr. Gluckstadt, referred to in the question, was at that time, and still is, managing director of the Landmandsbank. With regard to the East Asiatic Company, charges were made some time ago in a certain newspaper against this company, but were later unreservedly withdrawn as being unfounded. With regard to Mr. Anderson, this gentleman is managing director of the East Asiatic Company, and has during the War rendered great services to His Majesty's Government. Before issuing his certificate of incorporation the Registrar of Companies was satisfied that no subscriber of the Memorandum of Association or any of the proposed directors were enemy subjects, and therefore there were no grounds on which he could refuse to register the company.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the bank in question were the agents of the Deutsche Bank, and does he derive his information from those best qualified to know, whose business it was to know, like the naval and military attaches at Copenhagen during the War?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot say whether the advice was from those best qualified to give it, but it was the best advice I could get.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. CLOUGHasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the strength of local feeling on the inadequacy of the old age pension and the need for greatly increasing the statutory scale of yearly means on which the several rates of pension are based, he anticipates being able this Session to give effect to legislation in this direction?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, these questions are at
    1412
    present under consideration by Committee, and I am not at present able to say whether its Report will be received in time to enable it to be dealt with this Session.

    PEACE TERMS.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Prime Minister if, in order that the public may be in a position to judge of the moderation of the Peace terms submitted to Germany, the Government will publish particulars of the terms of Peace proposed by Germany in the course of the War so far as regards France, and communicated officially to the United States Government while that country was neutral; including the arrangements pro posed as regards the surrender of French territory, the payments of indemnities, and the granting of economic concessions?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: His Majesty's Government have no information upon this subject.

    AMERICAN AND ALLIED ARMIES (RELATIONS).
    Sir F. HALLasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the report by Mr. Kahn, chairman of the United States Congress Military Committee, of dissensions between the American Army authorities in Europe and the Allied military staffs; if he will state whether there is any foundation for such a statement; if so, if he will indicate what is the position of this country in the matter in order to remove any impression that Great Britain is lacking in appreciation of the sacrifices made by the United States in the War; and if he will at the same time give particulars of American expenditure and casualties in the War, and the same, information with respect to this country?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part, therefore, does not arise. With regard to the third part I may say that the relations between the American and British Army authorities have been most cordial.
    Sir F. HALL: Would the right hon. Gentleman like to see the report referred to in the third part of my question?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think so.

    NATIONAL SHIPYARDS.
    Mr. HAYDN JONESasked whether a sum of about £6,000,000 has been already spent upon the shipyards at Chepstow, Portbury, and Beachley; and whether the Government will consider the desirability of instituting an inquiry into what is alleged to have been wasteful expenditure of public money?
    Colonel WILSON: I have been asked to reply. The approximate cost to date is about £4,250,000. The ultimate completed cost depends on the number of ships to be equipped at the various yards, the nature of the equipment, and the number of houses to be built. Having regard to the statements which have been made from time to time in the House, and particularly in the Debate on the Vote of Supply for the Ministry of Shipping on the 19th instant,;t is not considered that a further inquiry would serve any useful purpose.

    GLOVES IMPORTED.
    Mr. HALLASasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a trade union meeting of glove and leather workers recently held at Worcester a resolution was unanimously passed protesting against the recent Government Order removing restrictions from imported leather gloves, and expressing the hope that a sufficiently high tax would be imposed on imported gloves or partly-made gloves to ensure that English workers shall not be rendered unemployed by underpaid foreign competition, as was the case before the War, and that it shall be made compulsory for imported gloves, whether finished or partly finished, to be stamped with the name of the country of their origin; and whether consideration will be given by the Government to these proposals?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN:The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. I have no information about the resolution alluded to. The decision to allow leather gloves to be imported under general licence, free from restriction, was consequent upon a recommendation of the Import Consultative Council made after considering all the circumstances of the case. With reference to the suggested stamping of these goods with the name of the country of origin, I will see that the point is brought before the Committee about to be established to consider questions relating to the marking of goods of foreign origin.

    BRITISH PRISONERS (COMPENSATION).
    Mr. CLOUGHasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that some of the civilian British prisoners interned in enemy countries during the War lost every thing they possessed and, owing to the in evitable delay in securing compensation on their claims submitted to the Foreign Office, have now barely enough to exist on and no immediate hope of re-establishing either their health or their fortunes; and whether it is possible in obviously genuine cases to treat these men more generously and more promptly?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:I am informed that the Repatriated British Civilian Prisoners' Help Committee, Surrey House, Marble Arch, which is a sub-committee of the Red Cross Society, deal with cases of the nature indicated in the question.

    CAPITAL LEVY.
    Major O'NEILLasked the Lord Privy Seal whether or not the Government are definitely opposed in principle to a capital levy as a method of reducing the war debt in order to dispel doubts from the minds of those who have savings to invest in the forthcoming Government Loan?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:In such a matter the Chancellor of the Exchequer speaks for the Government, and I would refer my hon. Friend to his statements on the subject.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman's mind now closed?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that I can deal satisfactorily with that in answer to a question, but I shall be glad to say what my view is when the matter comes up on the Finance Bill.

    AMERICAN SECURITIES.
    Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEYasked what is the total amount of American securities deposited with the Treasury; what was the total amount of American securities deposited with the Treasury which have been sold; and what is the net balance of American securities deposited with the Treasury now held by the British Government?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The dollar

    1415
    securities (including Canadian securities) now held under the Treasury deposit schemes amount to just over $500,000,000. Most of these securities are pledged as collateral for loans in America. In addition deposited securities to the value of $106,111,000 were purchased by the Treasury and most of these have been sold.

    BRITISH DEBT (UNITED STATES).
    Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEYasked what is the present amount of the indebtedness of the British Government to the Government of the United States; what is the present amount of the indebtedness of the Government of the United States to the Government of the United Kingdom; and, when all the necessary adjustments have been made, what is the estimated net balance: of the indebtedness of the British Government to the Government of the United States?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The present amount of the indebtedness of the British Government to the Government of the United States is $4,260,000,000. Exact figures of the amount of the indebtedness of the Government of the United States to the British Government are not available, such indebtedness consisting of claims on current account by various British Departments against several United States Departments, but the amount may be roughly estimated, converting sterling at the rate of $4.65, at $210,000,000. On this basis the estimated net balance in favour of the United States Government is $4,050,000,000.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Do these figures include any guaranteed loans for which this country is responsible?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The question is about our indebtedness to the United States.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Would the right hon. Gentleman be able to answer a question as to the extent of the loans from the United States to other nations of which we have guaranteed the payment, if any?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know what my hon. and gallant Friend is thinking of.
    Lieut.-Colonel LOWTHER: Is the indebtedness purely for the purchase of war materials?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say what the indebtedness is for. We have made purchases of many things in America besides war materials—principally food.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Were we not guaranteeing the exchange at the rate of 4 dollars 75 cents?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is not a guarantee to the United States.

    GOLD (PURCHASE PRICE).
    Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the costs of all gold-mining companies have greatly increased and the intrinsic value of gold also greatly increased, while the standard mint price is arbitrarily fixed at an artificially low price, namely, £3 17s. 6d., being at least £l below its selling price to industries, and that as a result of this low price production is greatly diminished and many mines are closing down; and whether he will approach the Allied nations to base a price fixed among them for gold more nearly approximating to its real value and the costs of production, and therefore stimulate production and reduce the world shortage of gold, and increase the gold reserve which is vital to our foreign trade?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Mint price of gold is £3 17s. 10½d. per oz. standard. The prices now being paid for the very limited supplies of gold at the moment available in London for the arts are not, I think, any indication of what would be the price in a free market. In any case, I can imagine nothing more mischievous to our foreign trade than tampering with the standard of value.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if a citizen wished to sell a sovereign for 25s. or 26s. he would be prosecuted and imprisoned for it, and will the Government persist in buying gold at much less than its market value, and should not the Government in this matter of purchasing gold try to be at least as honest as they try to make the citizens be in reference to the sale of silver?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not propose to argue this with my hon. Friend in answer to a question. I can only differ from him.

    INCOME TAX.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now definitely decided not to modify the Income Tax laws until the Royal Commission have reported?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is obvious that I cannot carry out any general reform of the Income Tax and Super-tax until I have received and considered the Report of the Royal Commission. Very big questions are involved in any such reform which may require a fundamental revision of many of the principles on which the assessment of those taxes has hitherto been based, and I should therefore be glad if changes in the taxes could be postponed until they can be considered as a whole and their cumulative effect can be ascertained. But I conceive that it would be quite improper for me at this stage to prejudge the effect of the discussions in Committee on the Finance Bill or in any way to tie my hands in dealing with the questions which may then be raised.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Has the Committee yet given any indication as to when it is likely to report?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: None other than I have conveyed to the House.
    Major NEWMAN: Will the Government enforce the present Income Tax laws while the Commission is sitting?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked what the miners' demand for an alteration of the Income Tax limit to £250 would cost?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Estimate of from £16,000,000 to £20,000,000 which I gave on the 8th instant in the course of Debate on the Income Tax Resolution. The precise figure would, of course, depend on the particular scale of abatements which might be adopted, but if it were framed in due relation to an exemption limit of £250, the loss would be in the neighbourhood of the higher figure mentioned, and might easily exceed it.

    FOOD STUFFS (EXPORTS).
    Mr. KENNEDY JONESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the new ordinance relaxing the export of foodstuffs from this country to
    1418
    neutral countries, he will inform the House of the exact nature of these foodstuffs and state whether the supplies of them are assumed to be adequate for our own requirements not merely now but in the immediate future?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I presume my hon. Friend refers to the inter-Allied agreement under which all commodities other than war material may be imported into the Northern neutral countries and Switzerland without quantitative restriction. This relaxation, however, does not remove the necessity to obtain a licence in the case of goods prohibited to be exported to non-British destinations, and these goods include all foodstuffs of which there is any danger of shortage in this country. The principal items in this category are bread, fresh meat, fresh fish, poultry and game, condensed milk, butter, sugar, fresh fruit (with a few exceptions), dried fruit and preserves, confectionery, fresh vegetables, cheese, eggs (except liquid frozen eggs and dried eggs), sausages, margarine, lard, rice, wheat and wheat flour, and also tea, coffee, beer and whisky. All foodstuffs not retained on this list are free of export except to Russia. In determining what articles should be retained on the prohibited list, and the extent to which licences for their export may be granted, the Board of Trade are guided by the advice of the Ministry of Food.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very large quantities of whisky arc being sent abroad to foreign countries, and will he try to rectify as far as possible the exchange?

    COMPULSORY PILOTAGE (HOME WATERS).
    Mr. SPOORasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the considered policy of the Board of Trade to allow foreign shipmasters to pilot their ships in home waters now that hostilities have ceased; whether he has considered the desirability, in the interest of the nation, of making pilotage on all ships entering and leaving British ports compulsory; and whether measures will be adopted to require every ship entering or leaving a British port to employ a registered and certificated pilot?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am proposing to ask the Advisory Committee on Pilotage,

    1419
    which I hope will meet shortly, to consider whether, and to what exent, it is desirable to apply the principle of compulsory pilot age to ports in which pilotage is at present non-compulsory.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the distress that exists at the present time among pilots on the East Coast?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I shall be glad to hear further particulars about it.

    RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.

      PASSENGER FARES.
      Mr. CLYNESasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what railway fare reductions are offered to boys' cadet units recognised by the War Office or Admiralty; and whether similar facilities for camp or training purposes can be granted to boy scouts' troops, lads' clubs, and other units approved by a competent authority such as the Home Office Juvenile Organisations Committee?
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am in consultation with the Railway Executive Committee on this matter, and will let the right hon. Gentleman know the result as soon as I can.
      Mr. TURTON: May I ask my hon. Friend whether he is prepared to consider also the question of granting the same concession for the annual outing of the Girls' Friendly Society?
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes, that is also under consideration.
      Mr. CLYNES: Will the Railway Executive be willing to receive a deputation from the bodies referred to in the question?
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I shall be very glad. They are considering the matter, and I should have thought it would have been better to deal with the general question rather than with any special case.

      ROLLING STOCK REPAIRS.
      Mr. GRUNDYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that two railway-coach repairing shops at Ashford are not working full-time, and that twelve men have been discharged and further discharges are expected; and whether he will make inquiries into this
      1420
      matter, and state the reason for this shortage of work at a time when railway rolling stock is admittedly out of repair?
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not aware of the circumstances of the case, but I am making inquiries.

    FOREIGN HOPS (IMPORTS).
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any licences have been granted, or are about to be granted, for importation of foreign hops; and, if so, in view of the fact that there is a large stock of hops in the country, will he say why the intention to grant no such licences has been abandoned?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Board of Trade have neither given nor promised any licences for the importation of hops. I understand, however, that the Hop Controller has proposals to make respecting a limited importation of hops for the brewing of the increased barrelage of beer that has recently been sanctioned.
    Mr. McNEILL: With regard to the proposals which the Hop Controller is making, will those proposals not have to come before the Board of Trade before any licences are granted?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not yet know what the nature of the proposals is, but as soon as I learn what they are I will let my hon. Friend know.

    AMERICAN TRADE ADVERTISING.
    Sir W. SEAGERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the report that the American Government are providing a large sum of money for advertising American goods throughout the world; and whether he is prepared to take similar action in regard to the goods manufactured in the United Kingdom, so that our own manufacturers may not suffer in the markets of the world?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am aware of the report to which the hon. Member refers, though I have no official information on the subject, and I would be glad of any which he can communicate to me. Specific advertising of particular goods should, in the opinion of my right hon. Friend, be left to the firms individually concerned.

    1421
    He is, however, considering, in conjunction with the Foreign Office, the general question, which is one of great importance, of attracting attention in foreign markets to British industry.

    WOOL MANUFACTURERS' PROFITS.
    Mr. BR1ANTasked the President of the Board of Trade if wool manufacturers are obtaining a profit of 100 per cent.; and, considering the consequent heavy price of clothing, if he can take steps to prevent such profiteering?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not know how the hon. Member arrives at his figure of 100 per cent., but it is common knowledge that very large profits are being made at present in certain sections of the woollen and worsted industry. My right hon. Friend regards this state of affairs, which in not confined to the industry mentioned, with great concern, not only from the point of view of the consumers, but from that of the permanent welfare of British trade. It is receiving the serious attention of the Board of Trade and of the Government.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Why not open the ports and allow woollens to come in competition?

    GOVERNMENT LEATHER PURCHASES.
    Mr. BRITTONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the date on which the first consignment of upper-leather purchased by the Government arrived in this country, the quantity of this leather that had arrived in this country on the 24th of May, and the quantity that had been actually distributed from Government warehouses on the 24th May?
    The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): The information asked for is being prepared and when it is completed I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

    REQUISITIONED PREMISES, THURLOE PLACE.
    Major LANE-FOXasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, when the premises known as 4, Thurloe Place, were sold to a crippled Army officer for
    1422
    the purpose of conversion into flats, he was informed that these premises were still subject to the original Order issued by the War Office, under the Defence of the Realm Act, commandeering them for the Central Prisoners of War Committee; and whether it is by virtue of that Order that, after the premises had been so sold, the Royal Air Force have occupied them and prevented the owner from carrying out the scheme for which he had bought them?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Before the tender for the purchase of 4, Thurloe Place was accepted the purchaser was informed, in writing, that the premises were in the occupation of the War Office, that His Majesty's Office of Works had indicated that the premises might be required by the Government after they had been vacated by the Central Prisoners of War Committee, and that he, should form his own conclusion as to whether the premises could be further commandeered under the Defence of the Realm Act.

    SCOTTISH POTATOES.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAYasked the Food Controller whether he is now in a position to communicate the results of his inquiries regarding the removal of potatoes from the North-Eastern counties of Scotland, and the orders which it is alleged were given to railway companies to refuse to carry potatoes?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The position to which the hon. and gallant Member called attention was due to the fact that one of the contracts for the shipment of potatoes to Europe was cancelled at short notice when it had only been partially completed and it was necessary for the loading of potatoes for export under this contract to be stopped. Shipments of potatoes from Scottish ports to the Continent have, however, now been resumed, and I hope that the whole of the surplus potatoes in Scotland will have been removed by 30th June. If there are still potatoes remaining in the growers' hands on that date, arrangements will be made by the Ministry of Food to take over these potatoes and to pay for them.
    Lieut-Colonel MURRAY: Does that mean that some potatoes or the unsound potatoes too will be taken over? There will be very few sound potatoes loft. Will the Food Controller consider advancing the date for adjudication?
    Mr. ROBERTS: We are dealing with the situation, and I think the hon. Member will find that it will be satisfactory.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: No; it is very unsatisfactory.

    AMERICAN AVIATION (TRANSATLANTIC FLIGHT).
    Mr. GRANT (by Private Notice)asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the achievement of American aviators in crossing the Atlantic, suitable arrangements have been made to welcome the Flying Boat N.C. 4 on its arrival in this country, so that our admiration for the exploit may be publicly expressed?
    Major-General SEELY: Yes, Sir. All possible arrangements are being made by the Air Ministry to give fitting reception to these intrepid American aviators so soon as they have completed their course. Our flying boats and seaplanes will meet them, if possible, and escort them to Plymouth. Our Air Station at Cattewater is arranging to entertain them, and I am informed that the naval, military, and civil authorities will co-operate in every way possible. I may add that my latest information is that the N.C. 4 has not yet started. It is expected to start to-morrow.

    OIL DEVELOPMENT SCHEME.

      GOVERNMENT DISCOVERY IN DERBYSHIRE.
      Mr. WOOLCOCK (by private Notice)asked the Deputy-Minister of Munitions if he is in a position to give the House any information in regard to the reports that oil has been struck in connection with the Government's oil development scheme?
      Mr. KELLAWAY:I am glad to be able to inform the House that the Government have struck oil at Hardstoft, one of the areas being tested by Messrs. Pearson for the Ministry of Munitions in connection with the Government's oil development scheme.
      Work on this boring commenced in October last. On Tuesday night a depth of 3,075 ft. had been reached, and traces of oil were found. When work was resumed on Wednesday morning the oil rose rapidly to a height of 400 ft. Boring had to be stopped to ensure the oil being kept under control to prevent flooding.
      1424
      The oil—a sample of which I have with me—is, I am advised, of light gravity and of good quality. The oil-bearing rock has been penetrated only a few inches. It would be a mistake to base any sanguine expectations on what has yet occurred. Whilst it is impossible at present to form any definite conclusion as to the extent of the discovery, or whether oil exists in paying quantities, the experts in charge of the work express themselves as satisfied with the prospects of this the first serious effort to explore the oil possibilities of this country.
      I desire, on behalf of the Government, to congratulate Lord Cowdray and his staff, and Sir John Cadman and the Petroleum Executive, who have shown great energy and determination in connection with the work in spite of many difficulties and a good deal of sceptical criticism.
      As soon as I am in a position to do so, I shall be glad to give full information as to the progress made.

    IRISH QUESTIONS.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: I wish to ask the Leader of the House whether his attention has been called to the fact that, although Thursday is the day allotted, no Minister was here this afternoon to answer Irish questions, or, at all events, no Minister who was able to answer them? I wish, also, to know whether the Chief Secretary or the Attorney-General will be here before the Recess?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think so. A Minister representing the Irish Government was here.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: He said he was only a gramophone.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I understand he did answer the questions.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: No; not the supple-mentaries.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. ADAMSON: I wish to ask the Leader of the House what business it is proposed to take next week?
Mr. BONAR LAW: On Monday, a Resolution in Ways and Means, when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will ask for powers to issue a

1425
loan; also the Restoration of Pre-War Practices Bill, the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Bill (Report), Disabled Men (Facilities for Employment) Bill (Committee), and the Government War Obligations Bill (Second Reading), if time permits.
On Tuesday, there will be a discussion on Devolution.
On Wednesday, if it should be the general desire, a continuation of that discussion, and further stages of business on the Paper.
On Thursday, we propose to take the Government, of India Bill, and any other small measures which we desire to clear off before the Recess.
On Friday, we shall take the Adjournment Motion.
Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will give an assurance that the Land Acquisition Bill, which is a Bill of prime importance, will not be taken after 8 o'clock on Monday night?
Mr. BONAR LAW: We shall certainly try to arrange that, but I should like, if possible, to get the Report on Monday.
Lieut.-Colonel C. LOWTHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to give a, day for the discussion of the Peace terms, or does he still think it would be prejudicial to British interests?
Mr. BONAR LAW: There has been no change since my last answer.
Mr. BOTTOMLEY: As the extended time for signing the Treaty is now expiring, is it proposed to give any further extension?
Mr. BONAR LAW: I can only say, according to information received this morning, no suggestion of that kind had up till yesterday been made.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: On the Second Reading of the Government of India Bill, will a statement be made as to its reference to a Select Committee?
Mr. BONAR LAW: Certainly.
Mr. R. McNEILL: May I ask why, in view of the fact that there are many Motions on the Order Paper of the House, he has selected that on Devolution?
Mr. BONAR LAW: I will give the reason. At the end of last Parliament I
1426
received a memorial signed by something like half the House, making a request to this effect.
Ordered,
"That the Army Estimates, 1919–20, Further Vote on Account (presented 21st May), be considered in Committee of Supply." —[Mr. Bonar Law.]

FERRIES (ACQUISITION BY COUNTY COUNCILS) BILL [Lords]
Second Reading deferred from Tomorrow till Monday next.
SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Major Godfrey Palmer; and had appointed in substitution: Captain Watson; and that they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee: Lord Henry Cavendish-Bentinck.

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Major Hills; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Dennis.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Belfast Harbour Bill,
Dover Harbour Bill,
Blyth Harbour Bill,
Bristol Corporation Bill,
Dublin Port and Docks Bill,
Newport Harbour Commissioners Bill, without Amendment.
Swansea Harbour Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable the Official Solicitor

1427
for the time being to exercise powers and perform duties conferred or imposed on the person holding office of Official Solicitor." [Official Solicitors Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Newark Gas Company to raise additional capital; to confer further powers upon the company in connection with their undertaking; and for other purposes." [Newark Gas Bill [ Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Poole to acquire the undertaking of the Poole Bridge Company, and to make provision with regard to lands in the borough adjacent to the foreshore with regard to the health, local government, and improvement of the borough, the establishment of a fund for the granting of superannuation allowances to officers and servants; and for other purposes." [Poole Corporation Bill [Lords.]
Ministry of Health Bill,
That they insist on their Amendments to the Ministry of Health Bill to which the Commons have disagreed, for which insistence they assign their Reasons.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Newark Gas Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Poole Corporation Bill [Lords]
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH BILL.
Lords Reasons for insisting on their Amendments to which this House hath disagreed to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 95.]

LAND SETTLEMENT (FACILITIES) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee D.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 110.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No 110.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 96.]

MEMBER SWORN.
William Lehman Ashmead-Bartlett Burdett-Coutts, Esquire, for Westminster Borough (Abbey Division), took the Oath and signed the Roll.
BILL PRESENTED.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL,—"to make further provision with respect to the Government of India," presented by Mr. Secretary MONTAGU; supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Herbert Fisher; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 94.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.— [12th Allotted Day.]
  Considered in Committee.
  SUPPLY.— [12th Allotted Day.]

    ARMY ESTIMATES, 1919–20.—FURTHER VOTE ON ACCOUNT.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
    Motion made and Question proposed,
    "That a further sum, not exceeding £50,000,000, be granted to His Majesty on Account for defraying the Charges for Army Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920

    WAR OFFICE CIRCULAR.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £1,000,000.
    I do so for the purpose of giving the Secretary of State for War an opportunity of explaining fully the purpose of the extraordinary document that was issued by his Department some time ago, and as the document itself bears out, was issued for the special information of the Secretary of State himself. The document to which I refer reads as follows. It is marked:
    "Secret and urgent.
    1. I am directed to request that until further notice you will furnish information on the headings hereunder as regards the troops in your area, and that you will arrange for a report to reach this office without fail not later than first post each Thursday morning."
    I understand from a reply given recently that these reports are still being supplied to the Secretary of State. The points on which information was asked were—

    "(a) Will troops in various areas respond to orders for assistance to preserve the public peace?

    (b) Will they assist in' strike breaking?

    (c)Will they parade for draft to overseas, especially to Russia?

    (d)What has been the effect of Army Order XIV. of 1919 on the men? Do they consider the policy of dividing the Army into the classes demobilisables and non-demobilisables, a sound one, and, if so, do they think that the line of cleaverage has been equitably fixed. Is there any dissatisfaction with either the principles or the de tails of that Order, and, if so, what are your recommendations?

    (e) Any other information or suggestions.

    (2) You will please give your own views for the information of the General Officer Commanding.
    (3) You will, of course, understand that any material change in a situation, and any cases of disorder or indiscipline are to be reported at once.
    (4)The above is to be circulated to all officers commanding Stations, Formations, and Units in the area under your command and to save time you will please instruct Officers Commanding Stations to forward reports under the headings given above direct to these Headquarters attaching any report from an Officer Commanding Formation or Unit which is of importance. They will quote the above number and mark the reports "Secret and urgent."
    (5) I am to add that the above is required with a view to the establishment of an efficient intelligence service whereby the Army Council can keep its finger on the pulse of the troops, and that the information desired is required for the information of the Secretary of State."
    The following was also issued to Station Commanders:
    "Will you please let me have the following formation for the C.M.A—Area as speedily as possible with regard to the Units on the Station under your command:

    (a)Whether there is any growth of trade unionism among them.

    (b)The effect outside trade unions have on them.

    (c)Whether any agitation from internal or external sources is affecting them.

    (d)Whether any soldiers' councils have been formed.

    (e)Whether any demobilisation troubles are occurring and if so (i) what troops are demonstrating; (ii) the numbers involved; (iii) what their grievances are; (iv) what has been done."

    Commander BELLAIRS: What is the date of the circular?
    Mr. ADAMSON:I cannot give its date, but this extraordinary document was, as I have stated, issued some time ago. I think that the hon. Gentleman who replied on behalf of the Secretary of State when I asked a question two weeks ago with regard to this matter, stated that this circular had been issued three months ago. He went on to explain that it had been issued at a time when there was the probability of an extensive strike taking place in the country. I want to say, with regard to this document, that in my opinion it was a very foolish one for the Secretary of State to issue, and its issue has caused intense feeling among the working classes of this country. Those of us who are in the habit of going from place to place in the discharge of our duties as trade union officials know the extent of the dissatisfaction and the intense feeling that has been engendered by the issue of such a document by the Secretary of State for War. Its issue might easily have led to serious consequences. If the trade union movement of

    1471
    the country—that movement which receives special attention in the circular issued by the Secretary of State for War—had been as hasty as I think he was, they might have taken that up as a direct challenge to a trial of strength between the Government and themselves. Fortunately, they have taken a saner line, and I hope that the experience of the Secretary of State for War in this connection will be a lesson to him, that the issue of this document will be stopped immediately, and that we shall not have any other foolish circular of this kind issued by his Department in the future.
    As hon. Members will have observed from my reading of the document, it contains a large number of points. I have no intention of wearying the House by dealing with all of them, but there are four or five which I want to deal with as briefly as I can. It is just possible that others who follow me may take the opportunity of dealing with some of the other points which the document contains. The points to which I want to direct special attention are:
    "Will they assist in strike breaking?"
    "Will they parade for draft to overseas, especially to Russia?"
    "Whether there is any growth of trade unionism among them."
    "The effect that outside trade unions have on them."
    In dealing with these points, I want to take them in the reverse order from that in which I have read them to the Committee, and to deal with the last one first—namely the effect that outside trade unions have on them—and I want to put this question to the Secretary of State for War: What effect did he imagine that outside trade unions, as he described them in his circular, would have on the men who, at the present moment, make up the British Army? Largely the Army, as we know it to-day, and as we have known it for the past five years, has been made up of trade unionists. They were members of their trade unions before they entered the Army, and in many cases their trade unions were keeping these men in full membership without asking them to pay a single farthing of contribution. That was one of the burdens which the trade union movement of this country took upon its shoulders with a view to keeping the men who were to on into the Army in order to defend the country in full benefit as members of their trade union. So that, in the main, the
    1472
    men to whom this circular applies were members of trade unions, knew the arrangements that had been made for maintaining their membership, and, as a matter of fact, in countless instances were in close and intimate relationship with the officials of the trade union movement. Whenever any difficulty arose, the first person to-whom these men applied was the general secretary of their trade union, and in thousands of cases letters have been sent by the officials of the trade union movement to the various Government Departments, and in particular to the War Office, to get the particular grievances of these men remedied. In addition to that close personal connection, their fathers and their brothers who remained at home were also members of the trade union movement. Did the Secretary of State for War expect that because they had gone into the Army they would entirely cut themselves off from any association with their own trade union, or with the work of the trade union movement, and cease to take any further interest in the movement with which they had been connected for such a length of time?
    Commander BELLAIRS: Surely the view has never been put forward by a Minister that they should cut themselves off from their trade unions?
    Mr. ADAMSON:Reading this circular that has been issued by the Secretary of State for War, one would take it to mean that that is his attitude of mind, and the attitude of those who haye been advising him in regard to this matter. A further point that I want to deal with is-one that I think should have been remembered by the Secretary of State before he issued any such document. When the country was in need of men in the early days of the War, to whom did he and his fellow Members of the Government go in order to get assistance to raise-men for the Army and the Navy? To whom, in the main, but the leaders of the trade union movement of this country? If the position is such as I have described it, what effect did the Secretary of State for War imagine that the trade union movement would have on men who were still remaining in the Army? Why should the men who for the time being were in the Army have been either ashamed or afraid to take an active interest in the movement of which they had been members before they went into the Army? They were in those unions

    1473
    for the purpose of protecting their labour. Those unions were protecting the working conditions to which these men hoped to return after the War was over, and they had no cause either to be afraid or ashamed of being connected with any such movement. The next point to which I want to direct the attention of the Secretary of State is the third one which I read out to the Committee, namely, "Whether there is any growth of trade unionism among them." From what I have already stated I think the Committee will realise that the Army as at present constituted is largely made up of trade unionists. That being the case, did not the Secretary of State for War or his advisers realise that these men, naturally enough, would discuss amongst themselves, in the few moments of leisure that they got in the Army, the benefits of trade unionism, and that in all probability the talking of it over with that section of the men in the Army that had not had a trade union connection before their enlistment, would have the effect of increasing the favourable feeling regarding the trade union movement'! I do not think that the growth of the trade union movement in the Army was a matter that should have seriously alarmed the Secretary of State for War. It is not as if the right hon. Gentleman had had no experience of the trade union Movement and of the benefit it has been to the country during the course of the five trying years from which we are just emerging. When the right hon. Gentleman was Minister of Munitions he had a Trade Union Advisory Committee at his disposal for advising him in the event of critical questions arising. It is true that he sometimes only called for their advice when some difficulty bad arisen in which it would have been better if he had called for their advice and discussed the matter with them before the difficulty arose. I am certain of this, that he always found, after lie brought in his Trade Union Advisory Committee, that he was all the better for the advice and the guidance which he obtained from these men of experience —[Mr. CHURCHILL: "Hear, hear!"] — and I am not sure but that he would be all the better for having a trade union advisory committee at the War Office in order to guide him in many of the difficulties that his Department is face to face with to-day. I am certain of this, that if he had such a committee at his command
    1474
    some of the difficulties that he has had to face in the near past would have been got over in a much more satisfactory manner than has been the case, so that, instead of requiring to get information regarding the growth and the effect of the trade union movement on the men in the Army, the Secretary of State, from his own personal experience, would have been in a position to realise the benefits that he and the country had obtained from a close and intimate connection with the trade union movement of the country.
    The next point to which I wish to direct his attention is the second one of the number that I read out—namely, "Will they parade for draft overseas, and especially for Russia?" It is just possible that there is no part of this extraordinary circular that has caused more feeling than this particular part. It is not so very long ago since we were discussing in this House, on another issue that was raised, the question of sending our men to Russia, and on that occasion we had a specific assurance from the Secretary of State for War to the effect that only volunteers were to be sent to Russia. If I take the words that are used in this circular, it does not appear to me as if the intention of the Secretary of State was that only volunteers were to be sent to Russia, and it appears to me, from the words there used, that the commanding officers were to ascertain what effect the intimation that they would be required to go to Russia would have on the men. [Mr. Churchill indicated dissent.] I see that the Secretary of State shakes his head at the interpretation I am now putting upon the circular, but I want to give him some information that has already confirmed me that the interpretation I am now putting on this part of the circular is the correct one. Within the past week I have had several soldiers belonging to my own part of the country calling upon me and informing me that they are on draft leave and that the information that they have got at the headquarters of the battalion is to the effect that when their draft leave is over they are to be sent to Russia. I want to say quite plainly to the Secretary of State for War that that is a breach of the specific undertaking that he has given in the House regarding the men that are to be sent to Russia. If he has any doubt about the statement which I am now making, I will give him the name of the battalion. It is one of the battalions of

    1475
    my own Territorial' regiment, the Black Watch, and it is stationed at Haddington, and these men have been told, before they were sent on draft leave, that when they return to the headquarters of their unit they are to be sent to Russia. [Mr. CHURCHILL: "No!"] I am pleased to hear that statement from the Secretary of State, and I will take the earliest opportunity of conveying to the men who were interviewing me on this matter that I have the assurance of the Secretary of State for War that they are not to be sent to Russia.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): No men are being sent by compulsion to Russia. A few officers may be sent who are indispensable, but no men are being sent who do not volunteer to Russia.
    Mr. ADAMSON: The men to whom I am referring have been informed they are to be sent to Russia.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Well, it is quite wrong.
    Mr. ADAMSON: In many cases these men have already been on active service overseas, and in certain cases have even been prisoners of war, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that they were informed they were to be sent to Russia. I am, however, pleased to have his assurance that such is not to be the case, and I will convey that information at the earliest possible moment to the men affected. In connection with this point, I wish to say that the retention of the men who are in Russia is causing a large amount of dissatisfaction among the people of this country. I do not know what the object of the Government is in continuing to retain a large number of our men in Russia, but whatever the object, it is one that is receiving no sympathy from the majority of the people of this country. They are not in favour of our troops being used in order to dictate the principles of government in Russia. The form of government that should obtain in Russia is a matter for the Russian people themselves, and the people of this country resent the interference in any shape or degree of our Government with the people of Russia just as strongly as they would resent the interference of any outside nation with the form of government that should obtain in this country.
    1476
    That brings me to the last of the points that I want to deal with, namely, "Will they assist in strike-breaking?" This part of his circular, I need hardly say to the right hon. Gentleman, is one that also has caused an intense amount of dissatisfaction throughout the country, and it is not to be wondered at that that feeling has seized hold of the working classes of this country. I do not think there will be a single member of the Committee here who will be surprised that the working classes feel very strongly regarding this part of that extraordinary document that they have discovered has been sent to the Army within the past few months. I want to put a few questions to the right hon. Gentleman. Did ho. expect that the men who form the British Army to-day would be likely to be consenting parties to be used as strike-breakers in any industrial dispute? Does the right lion. Gentleman think that it would be an easy thing for any of his battalion officers to get any of the men in the British Army to-day, composed largely of members of the trade union movement themselves, to shoot down any of their fellow trade unionists? Because if he thinks that, the thought is a very foolish one. Did he realise when he sent out such a document that the men who largely compose the trade union movement of the moment are men who have been demobilised from the Army a short time ago, and that these men are just as well trained as the men who remain in the Army, and are just as well able to protect themselves in the event of attempts being made to break any strike that they might be engaged in by using the troops? In the beginning of my remarks I said that, in my opinion, this was a very dangerous circular. To use such a circular, to attempt to put into operation such things as are contained in the circular, was simply playing with fire in the present state of feeling in this country, and it was a very foolish measure for the Secretary of State for War to do anything of the kind.
    When I asked the question regarding this circular a fortnight ago we were informed by the hon. Gentleman who replied on his behalf that the Secretary of State for War's Department was entirely responsible for the issue of this document, and in view of information given us at that time we must put the responsibility on the Secretary of State for War, and I hope that in the course of the afternoon we will have some satisfactory explana-

    1477
    tion of the issue of this extraordinary document. Frequently, from these benches, we have intimated to Members in all parts of the House, to the Government, and to the country, that the men who comprise the Labour party in this House are constitutionalists and stand by constitutional action. Not only have we stated that specifically and definitely on the floor of this House, but that has been the principle that has guided our action in the country, sometimes under very trying circumstances. Some of us have had to tell those whose opinions and whose influence we respected and valued that in the event of any attempts being made to engineer anything in the form of a revolution we would be standing up against any such movement. I want to say as specifically to the Secretary of State for War this afternoon that if I find any attempt being made from any single member of the Government to engineer anything in the form of a revolt by the action they have taken, I will as strongly oppose any such action on their part as I would on the part of those for whom I have been speaking on the floor of this House. I hope that the experience the Secretary of State has gained by the issue of this circular will be a lesson to him, because it cannot have escaped the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge that this is one of the things that have caused intense and deep feeling in the country, and I hope that the issue of this will be immediately discontinued, and that we shall have no repetition of the issue of any such document in the future.
    Mr. INSKIP:I am sure the whole Committee will have heard one passage, at any rate, of my right hon. Friend's speech with satisfaction, though not with surprise, when he said that he and those associated with him were determined to maintain a constitutional attitude in all these great questions. We on this side, and Members in every part of the Committee, I think, most sincerely believe in the right hon. Gentleman's professions on this point, and it would be unfortunate if the action of any Government Department or any word from any Member of the Committee led the right hon. Gentleman or his party to believe that we disbelieved in his professions, or that we are not prepared to meet him halfway, or, indeed, go with him the whole way. He and his party have rendered too great service to the working men of this country and to the nation an a whole to allow us to believe that in this
    1478
    crisis of our history they arc prepared to desert the great cause of the country which they have served, and when the right hon. Gentleman suggested that, if it were the intention of the Secretary of State for War or the War Office to provoke something in the nature of a revolt, the right hon. Gentleman and his party would resist the revolt by any means—as I understood him to say—within their power, I think he is making a suggestion less fortunate than probably he intended, because I am quite certain that it never entered the mind of the Secretary of State for War and the advisers of the War Office that any action they had taken, or intended to take, was devised with the idea of engineering a revolt of working men or any section of the working classes. It is the last possible thing that could enter the mind of any responsible man at this time in the history of our country, and I am sorry to see some hon. Gentlemen behind the Front Bench opposite are inclined to receive that statement with ridicule.
    An HON. MEMBER: The circular was proof of it.
    Mr. INSKIP: I venture to dispute that statement that the circular was proof of it. The right hon. Gentleman enlarged with some effect upon the unfortunate character of that circular. We are not prepared in any part of the Committee, I suppose, to defend the language of the circular or to suggest that it could not have been drafted with greater wisdom and greater skill, but if this discontent has been provoked by its publication, who was responsible for it? There was no necessity for the "Daily Herald" to publish the circular. It was intended to be a secret and confidential document for commanding officers to report on facts which came within their knowledge, and when the right hon. Gentleman said that dismay and discontent had been provoked in the ranks of the trade unions and of the working classes, it is obvious that dismay and discontent would not have been provoked if the "Daily Herald" and those associated with it had followed the more patriotic course of making private representation to the Minister who was responsible; and if they had failed to obtain satisfaction they might then have considered whether it was necessary to give further publicity to the Report. If the document was so undesirable, if it was so harmful, surely the best way was

    1479
    to secure its withdrawal at the earliest possible moment and to keep inviolate the secrecies which those who issued it intended it to have and to maintain the privilege which obviously attached to it. Hon. Members opposite are inclined to meet this with: ridicule, but they must be aware, or one day they will be aware when they come into power, that many things have to be done with secrecy and with confidence which are not fit to be, and not intended to be, disclosed to the public. At many times, I suppose, during the War inquiries must have been set on foot by Government Departments absolutely unobjectionable and absolutely necessary, but inquiries which at the same time would have provoked a certain amount of dismay and discontent in various parts of the country. Hon. Members opposite will not suppose' for a moment that this particular inquiry was singular. It may have been singular in its drafting and language and in its comprehensive reach, but it is certainly not the document which the right hon. Gentleman opposite appeared to think.
    Without any knowledge of the internal administration of Government Departments, and a very small knowledge of the internal administration of one Department, I venture to think that many inquiries of this sort have been put on foot, not with the object of provoking a revolt, but with the genuine and properly democratic idea of enabling commanding officers and responsible Ministers to find out what is the feeling of those for whose direction and administration they are responsible. The first point which the right hon. Gentleman attacked was the inquiry as to the extent to which trade unionism was permeating the Army. I do not know why that was such a harmful inquiry, assuming it could have been made in language not open to objection, and, perhaps, more tactfully framed than the way in which this circular put it. Why should it be so objectionable for commanding officers to inform their superior officers at the War Office as to the extent to which trade unionism was affecting the conduct of men who were either in the Army for long service or during hostilities? Surely if commanding" officers reported the facts, as we must assume honourable men—as commanding officers are—would, they would have reported such facts as those to which the right hon. Gentleman gave prominence The trade unions were treating
    1480
    their men with great generosity and fairness during the War, and men who had entered for hostilities naturally were absolutely loyal to their trade unions, and nothing could be expected of them which was contrary to the principles to which they attached their names when joining the trade unions or contrary to the decisions of the majority in the trade unions to which they belong. I imagine that many of the commanding officers gave that reply, and I fail to see what there is injurious either to the trade union, to the Army, or to the State that commanding officers should be asked for such information as this, or that they should supply it when asked for it.
    But it seems to me there is a more serious question at issue even than this. Surely it must be obvious to everybody—and I am sure it is as obvious to hon. Members opposite as to anyone—that to a certain extent the maintenance of discipline in the fighting forces is not easily to be maintained side by side with loyal allegiance to another authority. Trade unionism undoubtedly is a great authority, and it wields a great influence, and, of course, the trade unions came into existence and have been maintained for the benefit of the working men, and the better the trade unions have treated their members, the more excellent the work that they have done, the more loyal is likely to be the allegiance of the members of the trade union to their leaders. It is obvious, as I have said, that that loyalty, that allegiance, is not easily to be maintained if at the same time the implicit discipline and allegiance to the King, which every soldier and sailor professes, is also to be maintained, and one of the difficulties we have to face in the future is this: How are you going to reconcile the old ideas of discipline with the new ideas which permeate trade unionism? Whether you study the King's Regulations or the Admiralty Instruction, in both Services you will find what some people may call obsolete regulations dealing with this question of combination and allegiance to outside authorities. But I think, as one who is prepared to move with the times, and to recognise what the trade unions have done for the working men, the trade unions will have to work with the Ministers of the Crown to find the right solution of what is an exceedingly difficult problem, and if a circular and inquiry of this sort were properly phrased and used properly, as I think it would be in the Army, I ven-

    1481
    ture to think nothing but good could come out of this inquiry made week by week, while trade unionists were in the Army in very great numbers, as to what was the attitude of these men to their trade unions, and how they felt when they were asked how to reconcile their allegiance to the Crown with their allegiance to the trade unions.
    This question is surely not remotely connected with the next question raised, as to whether these men would be prepared to parade for Russia if ordered to do so. It was obviously a duty to obey the orders received, but unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to charge the Secretary of State for War with a deliberate breach of faith, obviously this inquiry as to whether they would be prepared to parade for Russia was to ascertain the extent to which volunteers would come forward for Russia. There is no other alternative. You must either charge the War Office with a deliberate and intentional breach of faith—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear !"] —although some hon. Members cheer, I do not think the Committee will require me or anybody else to refute that charge against the War Office, and I am entitled to assume—and I am sure the majority of the Committee will feel—that the War Office was not intending a deliberate breach of faith. What was the other alternative? They were anxious to obtain knowledge as to the extent to which volunteers would be available for Russia.
    Lieut.-Commander KEN WORTHY: It should have been done openly.
    Mr. INSKIP: The hon. and gallant Gentleman said it should have been done openly. If he has more experience he will discover there are many things that have to be done confidentially and not openly, and I am sure that in his capacity as a commanding officer he must have done many things he could not do openly in commanding his ship. But let that suggestion pass. I venture to suggest that this inquiry as to parading for Russia was a reasonable one, and one that no commanding officer would have any difficulty in answering without hurting his men or prejudicing the public interest. It was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman that this had some connection with the policy which we should pursue in Russia. I do not think it is right to discuss that question, but, in passing, I cannot help saying that, with regard to our policy
    1482
    in Russia, I do not think this Committee for a moment would tolerate the suggestion that, having Allies in Russia who fought loyally with us, we are now to desert them when they are attacked by those against whom they would be defenceless but for our assistance.
    The third matter which this circular dealt with was the question of strikebreaking. The right hon. Gentleman opposite referred to it. I should defer to his better judgment as to the meaning of this phrase, but I think he gave the wrong meaning. The phrase "strike-breaking" it was, unfortunately, suggested meant in the minds of those who issued the circular a desire to find out whether the troops would shoot down their brothers the members of trade unions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear !"] I do not think that was the meaning. I do not think hon. Members opposite will credit any of us here with any desire of contemplating that, but I venture further to say that that was not the meaning of the phrase as used in the circular. Strike-breaking is a phrase of which we surely know the meaning. Strike-breaking does not mean to dissipate a mob or assembly of strikers by force of arms. Surely strike-breaking means supplanting those concerned in the service which they are not prepared to carry on. [HON. MEMBERS: "Blacklegs !"] Hon. Members appear to be attempting to prejudge the question in the case of those who are willing to perform these services. They may be blacklegs. But I do want hon. Members to reflect upon these subjects, for when the time comes for them to deal with these questions they may find that they have made their path even more difficult than it need be.
    What is the position of the Crown? Supposing the public services upon which we are all dependent, and others who are dependent upon us are dependent, for life and liberty; supposing, I say, these are not carried on. Suppose the railways are suspended, and the transport of food prevented, and that light and heat and the other services are not carried on. Are we to submit until the intolerable government of the minority is forced upon us? Are we to be helpless in the face of a menace of that sort, or are we to depend upon the servants of the Crown who are prepared to undertake duties which are not their primary duties, but which become their duties because other servants

    1483
    of the Crown are not prepared to fulfil them? Let hon. Members look forward to the time when all of us will be servants of the Crown, when everything will be nationalised. Let them contemplate what will happen then. Is it to be said that because the miners—our mines being nationalised—refuse to carry on their work on account of their wanting some advantages which the Government are not prepared to give them, or that the men who deal with the electric light supplies are not prepared to produce the light, or the men engaged in transport, because they do not get something they want or contemplate, are not prepared to distribute the food? Suppose the time comes when these public servants will not carry out their duty, will we then really have come to the position that we shall not suggest that other public servants shall be called upon to fulfil these duties?
    The King's Government must be carried on somehow or in some way. The test may arise in this House. It may arise in the country as a great constitutional issue. If it ever does, and the country and the electors realise what is the issue, I venture to think they will be prepared to say that the Government must be carried on if it is necessary for the life, liberty, and health of the population, even if the minority arc not content to be baulked of their aim to secure a higher wage or a shorter working day! That is the only issue involved in this question which my right lion. Friend opposite has raised as to whether it was or was not legitimate to inquire whether the troops were prepared to take part in strike-breaking. That is the meaning which I attribute to the phrase. The question certainly arose during hostilities. It was a grave question as to what would happen to the supplies of ammunition or the maintenance of the services of the Army and Navy under circumstances which might have occurred more than once during the War—a great strike! The question then arises—and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will tell the Committee if I am accurate—as to whether the Army and the Navy would be called in to maintain these public services for the benefit, if not of the population as a whole, at any rate of the troops abroad. That is precisely the same question that is asked, only under slightly different circumstances, in this circular, as to whether the fighting forces, the Army, would be prepared to
    1484
    engage in strike-breaking. Surely hon. Gentlemen opposite, being, presumably, the most democratical portion of this Assembly——
    HON. MEMBERS: No, no!
    Mr. INSKIP: I said presumably—in their estimation—the most democratical portion of this Assembly should not quarrel with the attempt to ascertain the opinions of the troops, of the members of the Army. Surely in an age of democracy, instead of the War Office or the commanding officer determining things according to their own choice or ideas, what ought to be done is, that they should be encouraged, if they are asked to ascertain the views or opinions of these men. On every ground I cannot, apart from the question of drafting, imagine any objection to this circular except one, to which in the last word or two I will refer. One inquiry made by the circular is, as given by the right hon. Gentleman, to this effect:
    "Is there any dissatisfaction in the Army as to the division between demobilisable and un-demobilisable men?"
    That inquiry ought to have been addressed to the country at large or to this House. I can answer it. There is very grave dissatisfaction. There is grave dissatisfaction with the way demobilisation is being carried on. The prospects and promotion held out to the country and to the men who served in the Army during the early days of the War are being blighted. I have here a circular given me in the early days of this Parliament which I accepted at its face value, and passed on. Unfortunately, many persons inquiring as to demobilisation of sons, brothers, and husbands, has got this. It says, "Everybody who joined the Service before 1st January, 1916. will be released by the end of April." Relying too rashly upon that assurance it has now come home to roost. Only, unfortunately, I have to bear the brunt of it. I want to pass some of it on to the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon, and call upon him to take measures which will secure the demobilisation of the 1914 and 1915 men, instead of allowing hon. Members to get up at Question Time and chant this ridiculous formula which satisfies them. This is the answer which, if I had been a commanding officer, I should have given: That there is great dissatisfaction at the way in which the demobilisation work was being carried out. I will conclude my observations with this. I hope this circular will not be made the

    1485
    cause of more dismay and discontent than it has been up to the present time. I fully accept what the right hon. Gentleman opposite has said, that in the circumstances the publicity has caused dismay and discontent. Surely it is the duty of this Committee to allay this discontent. Members of the Committee in every quarter of the House, instead of interpreting this circular as badly as it can be interpreted, should, I think, represent it as an essentially honest endeavour of the officers or the War Office to deal with a very difficult situation. At any rate, let us do what the right hon. Gentleman said he would do in connection with the men of the Black Watch on one particular occasion: Assure those who are dismayed and discontented that their dismay is unfounded, that they may hold a better opinion of the War Office, and attribute more honest intentions to those who are responsible at the War Office. By that means I hope that all sections and ranks, and hon. Members in all parts of this House, will unite in overcoming these enormous difficulties which confront us in connection with these questions.
    Mr. DAVISON: First of all, I desire to congratulate the hon. Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Inskip) on his realisation of the fact that the Labour party will in the immediate future govern the destinies of this great country. [Interruption.] I did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman when be was speaking, nor anyone. As I am exceedingly nervous, I hope hon. Members will not interrupt me. I deeply regret the circumstances which compel me to make a few observations of a condemnatory character in regard to this secret order. If hon. Members in the House imagine for a moment that this question has been raised by the Labour party without pres sure from outside, I want to disabuse their minds. I would remind the House that a few days ago, when it became known that a secret order had been issued, that there were three unions in the country which contemplated taking drastic action. This is a telegram from the National Council of one of the oldest and. may I add, one of the most conservative but one of the most powerful trade unions in the country. In it they urge me to press my colleagues in the House to take action on the secret Army Council Order in respect to soldiers published in the "Daily Herald" and in the "Manchester Guardian."
    1486
    I desire to draw the attention of the House to the fact that most trade unionists in this country consider the issue of that order a gratuitous insult to the men of His Majesty's Forces and to the trade unions of this country in view of the magnificent services they have rendered during the War. When this War broke out there was frantic and fervent appeals made to the patriotism of all classes in the country. No section of the community responded more loyally or whole-heartedly than did the trade unionists with whom we are connected. No section of the community has maintained its patriotism in a more intense degree throughout the whole War than the trade unions. I am not claiming for them a monopoly of patriotism, and I am not detracting in the slightest degree from the magnificent services rendered by other sections of the community. But I think one may fairly claim that there was a section during the War whose patriotism was fostered by the knowledge that their banking account was growing by leaps and bounds. That cannot be disputed.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Wages were growing by leaps and bounds too!
    An HON. MEMBER: And the cost of living went up too !
    The CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Such interruptions tend to lead the Debate away from the point.
    Mr. DAVISON: I will take an opportunity of dealing with what the right hon. Gentleman opposite says in the Debate on the Budget. There was at that time eulogies from Press, platform, and pulpit about the services rendered by the trade unionists of this country.
    5.0 P.M.
    I listened to a good many of those speeches, and I think I indulged in some of them myself, in which I led the trade unionists and working classes generally to believe that we were going to create a new heaven and a new earth if only the War was won, and we were going to have what has been described by a most eminent statesman as a state of arcadian beauty and rustic simplicity. The Secretary for War returned from his political exile, and as the Minister of Munitions came to the trade unionists of the country in the first hour of his enthronement and asked them to co-operate with him in

    1487
    carrying out his arduous duty. I do not recall a single instance when the members of the Trade Union Advisory Committee declined to render him the most generous and unstinted assistance and advice that it was possible to give.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Hear, hear!
    Mr. DAVISON: The right hon. Gentleman, however, did not always accept it, and I am sorry that in some respects that he did not. I want to say that it would be quite in accordance with the traditions both of himself and the Department he represents, knowing the Trade Union Advisory Committee is in existence to-day, if he had called it together, and had suggested to them that they should devote the same loyalty and patriotism exercised on that occasion as they could have exercised on the present occasion. But he did not see fit to do that, and he issued a secret Order. Why was there any necessity for a secret order if the right hon. Gentleman knew he could obtain the loyalty and cooperation of the Trade Union Committee with which he had been associated? That is one of the things I have never been able to understand with regard to this secret Order.
    Often, as the right hon. Gentleman will admit, the members of the Trade Union Advisory Committee, recognising that his policy was the correct one, went into the country and faced hostile audiences of their own followers because they believed that this policy was right. The members of that advisory committee arc as much justified to-day in denouncing the policy of the right hon. Gentleman if they believe it to be wrong as they were on that occasion in denouncing his policy because j they believed it to be right. This is the second occasion on which I have spoken in this House, but time after time I have listened to speeches denouncing the pernicious doctrine of Bolshevism. I do not know a single revolutionary character in this country who, by his advocacy, could foster and develop the growth of that pernicious doctrine so much as the issue of this circular. None of us wish to see any Government standing upon a basis of anarchy and revolution. We have attempted by law and order and constitutional government to evade that upon every occasion by giving the soundest possible advice to our followers. I want to suggest to those hon. Members who believe in this policy of the secret order with regard to the Army that you cannot
    1488
    under any circumstances run the British Empire on a policy of spurious ambitions by a military dictator. You cannot maintain constitutional government on the theoretical platitudes or the terminological in exactitudes of kaleidoscopic politicians. You have to face the real facts that confront the country.
    The War has demonstrated without equivocation that human society will be based in the future upon a different foundation. We have to face those facts, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman, if he exercises his great powers and talents, can co-ordinate the different disrupting elements of human society without the use of a secret order. This is essential in the interests of the Labour party as much as in. the interests of the party which the right hon. Gentleman represents. It is essential that these forces shall be brought together, in order that we may reconstruct the shattered fabric of civilisation. I think my right hon. Friend will subscribe to that policy, and I urge him as one of his very humble advisers in the past, to withdraw that Order, and to say that he will no longer receive those reports, because I assure him unless it is done the trade unionists of this country, and he will know to whom I refer in. particular, are agitating that there should be a revolution with regard to the particular Order to which I refer. In conclusion, I want to remind the right hon. Gentleman, in the difficult times which confront us for the moment we have disrupting influences at work, and the Labour party stands for the policy of law, order, and constitutional government, but they are not at the moment being assisted in that policy by reason of the fact of the Order which has been issued. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to assure the House, before the conclusion of this Debate, that the Order will be withdrawn, and that the working classes will be reassured on this matter.
    Major HURST: I think the Mover of this Resolution has quite ignored the circumstances under which the Order was issued. It was issued during a time of great national emergency, when there was a real danger of all the services being held up, and the only issue at that time was between order on the one side and anarchy on the other. It is ludicrous to suggest that this Order was based, as the hon. Member for Sheffield has suggested, on the spurious ambition of a military dictator. The object of the Order and the

    1489
    policy behind it was obviously to protect society from being held up by one section of the community. Hon. Members on the Labour Benches purport to speak with regard to this Order on behalf of the working people, while as a matter of fact they simply represent a small section who have not sufficient discernment to distinguish facts from fancies. There are other people in the country who deserve consideration besides that particular section. The real sufferers from the holding up of the national services of the country would be that particular class which is very often courted by hon. Members of the Labour party when they want their votes. Then they call them middle-class intellectuals, but when they do not want their votes, they call them bloated bourgeoisie. The district I represent includes small employers, workmen, clerks, and one and all, both men and women, would have suffered beyond words by the privations which would have been caused by a suspension of all the great transport services at the beginning of this year. They would have been the real sufferers, and would have borne; the result of this national deadlock. Their interests undoubtedly were that no such deadlock should take place, that order be enforced by all fair means. Those behind this Resolution contemplated red ruin and the breaking up of laws, and imagined themselves dictating to the nation from some trade union office in London. I see something very different—the long, mean streets of our great towns and the white faces of the women. To them, this policy would have meant absolute ruin, as well as to the great bulk of the people, and we have every reason to be grateful to the Government who took the matter in hand, and took every precaution against such a disaster.
    It is better to attack the War Office for the real grievances, like the one in connection with demobilisation. There is the grievance of the extraordinary delay in the payment of gratuities. Let me quote a letter which I have received from France. It is as follows:
    "I can give you no adequate idea of the bitter feelings the men here have for the Government, which was so anxious to enlist them in 1915, and is condemning them to rot in this land for the summer."
    We really want to do away with the grievances of these men in the Army, and the only way is to flood the Army with an influx of young men who are willing to servo and take their places. It is not the
    1490
    way to get those young men to go into the Army if you are going to create the atmosphere of suspicion and distrust which is fostered by the Resolution now before the House, and by speeches made by Members of the Labour party who have supported this Resolution. The real way to end these grievances in the Army and in the Navy is to get these men home, and encourage young men of eighteen to join the Army. That is the real policy hon. Members ought to support if they wish to end the grievances of the Army. I suggest to those who are supporting this Resolution that their duty to the soldier in the field is to say to the boys just attaining eighteen, "Look at the advantages of a life in the Army. You get better pay, more sport, and travel and all sorts of things which did not exist in the pre-war Army." It is one of the finest educations in the world, and it is the real university for the coming generation.
    In the pages of "Lothair," Mr. Disraeli describes in admiring words what university education was at that time. He described the young men of England as excelling in athletic exercises. Ho said:
    "They live all day in the open air; they know no language but their own, and they never read."
    That is precisely the education which is offered to young men who join the Army, with two added attractions. First of all, they get some sort of industrial training for after life, and, secondly, they have the proud privilege of belonging to the unconquerable British Army, which has marched victoriously into Jerusalem, Bagdad, and Cologne. If hon. Members would only spend their time teaching these young men what life in the Army is, instead of fostering this bitterness and distrust, they would be doing a far greater service to the country and to the men in the Army. All these men want to get home: they are wanted here as breadwinners,, and the only way to remedy this is to persuade young men to fill their places. Get rid of all this feeling of antipathy against the Army, and the false suggestion that circulars of this sort are intended to be tyrannical. You are only raising the old bogey of the Army versus the People. That is an old bogey, and I imagine that those who framed that watchword having now obtained different positions have altered their views. The peril at the present time is the peril not of militarism, but of Bolshevism; oppression not by the War Office, but by demagogues and phrase-mongers.
    Major HAYWARD: I rise to remind the Committee that on the Army (Annual) Bill Debate the Secretary for War was good enough to promise an inquiry into the question of Field Punishment No. 1. The right hon. Gentleman promised to ascertain whether some other form of punishment might not be substituted for it, and I shall be grateful to him if, when he -comes to reply this afternoon, he will tell the Committee if he has yet completed this inquiry, and, if so, with what result. As touching the particular Amendment before the Committee, I have been re-reminded that since I came into the House this afternoon that four or five years ago there were circumstances not altogether dissimilar from those with which we are faced to-day. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman in front of me has a far better recollection of the circumstances than I have. I refer to the troubles which arose at the Curragh in 1914. The circumstances of that time were not altogether unlike the circumstances which arose when this circular was issued. There were grave apprehensions of civil strife, and officers of the Army were asked what they would do in certain hypothetical contingencies. The whole of the trouble arose over that circumstance, and in order to prevent any such circumstances occurring in the future a new Army Order was issued which was to the following effect:
    "No officer or soldier shall in future be questioned by his superior officer as to the attitude he would adopt or as to his action in the event of his being required to obey orders dependent upon future or hypothetical contingencies."
    It appears to me if that Order is still in existence the circular which was recently issued is a direct breach of it, certainly in the spirit if not in the letter. I should like to inquire whether that Order is still in existence, and if it has not been withdrawn then I should be glad to have the view of the right hon. Gentleman as to how his circular squares with that Army Order. I do not remember all the circumstances which arose on that occasion, but I believe it was the universal opinion of the House and of the Government of that time that the course taken was most un-wise. It was a suggestion that every man to whom the question was put is entitled to give a qualified service, and that would be absolutely disastrous to all discipline in the Army. There is another point, and it is that such action is bound to cause great irritation in the country. I should be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman
    1492
    will deal with the two points I have mentioned—the first, whether he has yet completed his inquiry with reference to Field Punishment No. 1, and, secondly, whether the Army Order which I have quoted is still in existence, and, if it is, how the Government square the issue of this circular with it?
    Mr. CHARLES WHITE: I want, if I may, to bring to the notice of this Committee the domestic side of matters which have arisen in connection with the Army Estimates. We have been told a good many times in this House that there is no discontent in the Army to-day. I propose to refer, if I may, to one or two causes of discontent not only in the Army, but also in the homes of the men who are still serving. We were told not long ago by the Secretary for War that the men were quite contented under the Military Ser-vice Act. Surely he has been misinformed, or else he is very much more fortunate than private Members of this House, some of whom have received hundreds of letters expressing the feelings of the men on this matter. I may claim to know something on this question inasmuch as my life, since 1914, has been lived in the homes of the men who have gone to fight for us—not officers, but privates. There is the greatest discontent existing to-day, and a large part of it is due to the miserable methods of demobilisation. It is not too much to say that demobilisation has entirely broken down. No satisfaction can be obtained from the War Office, the results are always contradictory, and although answers are given, and arc couched in courteous terms, we have nothing but chaos, and one cannot depend at all on any answer that is received. Hundreds of thousands of then have been sent back to join the ranks of the unemployed, and, I am afraid, in many cases, the unemployable, while men who joined up in 1914 and 1915 are still being kept in the Army, although they have essential industries to go back to in which places arc being kept open for them. I had the privilege the other day of bringing to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War one case typical of hundreds of others. It was that of an engineer who joined up in 1914 and who has for months been employed washing up pots and pans in a canteen. That man was earning £5 a week before he joined up, and his place is still open for him. I have here a letter from the War Office stating that the man is

    1493
    eligible for demobilisation, but explaining that the officer commanding the regiment says he is indispensable to the Army—although he is only engaged in washing pots and pans. This case has been before the right hon. Gentleman, and I have received his answer. I do not know if he is aware of the feeling which exists in the Army, but I had a letter this morning from an educated man—only a private—who says, "Procrastination, deceit, and lying become fine arts." and again, "No playwright or romantic author could rise to the heights of parsimony and shortsightedness which easily obtain under our military administrators."
    With regard to the compassionate grounds on which men may be released, I venture to assert they are reduced to a complete farce by the issue of the Army Council instructions. Let me take the first. It is laid down that a son who has a widowed mother in necessitous circumstances, with two or more children dependent upon her, neither child being-capable of earning anything, and the mother herself being incapable of earning anything, may on these grounds be released. Will hon. Members tell me how many cases could be found on all fours with this? Yet no discretion is allowed in the application of the regulation. Presently I will submit a case which has occurred in my own family during the past few months, but I would first like to, know why discretion is not to be allowed in the application of these regulations, and why they are so strictly enforced? I have a case here in regard to which T received a reply only this morning. In 'this case the father and mother are both cripples. The mother has been confined to her bed for years; the father can only hobble about on two sticks. The son was the support of the home, which was on a small farm. What is the reply I have received in regard to that? It is:
    "Mr. Churchill has asked me to inform you that as the claim does not come within the terms of the enclosed Army Council instructions, it is regretted it is not possible to give special treatment to this case."
    Could there be any more deserving case than one in which the father and mother are both crippled and utterly unable to look after themselves? Yet they are refused the release of their boy because ho does not come under that miserable instruction of the Army Council! Here is another case which I can vouch for, be-cause I am interested in it. It is the case
    1494
    of my own sister, Her husband died a month ago. He was in the Metropolitan Police for twenty-eight years. He has done two years war work and has died largely in consequence of his service with the Colours. The widow is left with one boy who is in the Army and another lad of seventeen who has been mentally deficient ever since he was born. The mother does not want to part with him. She is left with a pension of 10s. a week from the Metropolitan Police and 7s. 4d. separation allowance. The case does not come within the provisions of the Army Council instruction and so her son cannot be released from the Army. These are the cases we try to bring before the War Office in order to get them dealt with on compassionate grounds, and it is because I know the inside of the homes of these people that j am speaking to-night largely from a domestic standpoint, while other hon. Members have dealt rather with the technical side of the question. Here is another compassionate case from Chesterfield. In this it was actually decided that the soldier should be released on the 26th instant. A letter was received to the effect that instructions had been issued for the demobilisation of the man on compassionate grounds, but this morning another letter came to hand and it reads
    "Mr. Churchill asks me to inform you that the claim put forward does not came within the terms of the enclosed Army Council instructions and it is regretted it is not possible to give special treatment to this case."
    What are we to make of these contradictory things'? It causes one to think, and indeed one is entitled to think that these cases do not receive consideration by the Ministers themselves, but that they are dealt with by some soulless official who docs not care for the homes of the lads who have given up everything in order to fight their country's battles. We have been told that the soldiers in India who were due for demobilisation have volunteered to remain. But some of us have received hundreds of letters denying that absolutely. I had one this morning and another yesterday. It may be necessary to keep these men in India, but for heaven's sake let us have the truth and no camouflage ! He says:
    "First of all a great number of men in the Repatriation Camp at Deolali (India) have been sent on here. They are from Mesopotamia and were on their way to England for demobilisation. It has been given out to the Press that these, amongst others, volunteered. It is totally untrue. Not one man in Deolali volunteered to remain in India. They simply saw the statement in the Indian papers. When one man

    1495
    made a complaint about this he was told that he would be put last on the list for demobilisation."
    These are men who know what they are writing about. Here is another:
    "I expect you will know by now that we have been held up at this place. It is a dirty trick to serve us after being in Mesopotamia for two and a half years under the boiling hot sun, and then to dump us down here. You will see they have put us into battalions and we were on squad drill this morning, and then they say that the war is over. They put in the papers here that we have all volunteered to serve in India while we were needed, but I want you to bear in mind that is not so, as I think every man is against it. It has been forced on us whether we want it or not. There is someone to blame, but who it is I do not know. There are about 8,000 troops here that ought to be at home—1914 and 1915 men."
    I am not complaining of the men being kept there, but I am complaining that they are being deceived, and we are being deceived in this House when we are told that they all volunteered. The fact is that there is a great deal of discontent. With regard to Russian troops, we have been told repeatedly that only men who volunteer are being sent to Russia. I can show some letters from men who have been sent there from other theatres of war who had no right to be sent there if the word of the right hon. Gentleman opposite can be depended upon. I do not say for one moment that He is wilfully deceiving the House, but I mean to say someone is wilfully deceiving him, and he ought to make himself acquainted with these matters before he gives us those statements.
    There is another matter, the question of leave to men who have relatives dying or ill. I have here a letter from a man in my Constituency. Two brothers joined up on 6th August, 1914. They fought through the War side by side. One of them was demobilised six weeks ago and died on 10th May. A telegram was sent by the superintendent of police on the 9th to the War Office asking that the brother could come home to see the lad before he died, or at any rate go to his funeral. That was vouched for by the superintendent of police. The telegram was sent on the 9th, and this reply from the War Office came on the 13th:
    "In reply to your wire of 9/5/19, I am directed to inform you that leave of absence is granted to all men in turn as circumstances permit, and it is regretted that a special leave cannot be given to No. 235479."
    Can anything be more despicable than this? It is things of this sort that are breeding discontent in the Army. They
    1496
    are bringing discontent into the Homes of this country, which have surely suffered enough in the past. Let me mention another case. I have all the papers here. I make it a rule to bring all proofs of what I say in the House. A woman loses her husband. She has £42 due to her. The War Office send her a third of it and keep the other two-thirds for the child, who is two years old, to invest in the Orphans' Saving Fund, as they call it, of the War Office at 2½per cent. You, Sir—I cannot afford it—can invest your money at 5 per cent., or probably more. This woman is not allowed to handle the money after her husband died. Where is the justice of all this? At common law, I understand, the first £500 of an intestate husband goes to the widow. In this case the War Office says, "We do as we like with this"; and although it is said her money is invested she has no bank book or anything to show it except a letter with a printed signature on it. I was told by the Financial Secretary that the money had not yet been invested. I am trying to get the money for the woman, and I will take out letters of administration for her so that she may be able to get it. These are the little things that appeal to these people and that some of us are out to rectify if we can.
    There are other things I might mention. I have supported an Amendment whereby men who had been in prison in Germany should not be called up again. We lost our Amendment. The men are still being sent out. I had sent to me the other day a letter from His Majesty to one of these soldiers, in which he says:
    "The Queen joins me in welcoming you on your release from the miseries and hardships which you have endured with so much patience trial the early rescue of our gallant officers and men from the cruelties of their captivity has uppermost in our thoughts. We are thankful that this longed-for day has arrived and that, back in the Old Country you will be able once more to enjoy the happiness of a home and to see good days among those who anxiously look for your return."
    These men are sent out there again, possibly to face the horrors which they have just escaped from, while hundreds of thousands of men who have never seen a shot fired are allowed to come home, demobilised by the senseless system of demobilisation which exists to-day. One cannot quite depend on the information one gets from the War Office. I have a letter here. I applied for the release of a

    1497
    soldier. A letter was sent me to say it was impossible to release him. He must remain with the Army of Occupation. By the same post I had this letter:
    "I am pleased to say my son has got released from the Army and has arrived home alright. Please accept my best thanks for helping me to get him home.
    He had been home a week when they sent me word that he could not be released at all. These are not fallacies or fancies. This is backed up by the evidence of letters received from the War Office.
    I am glad the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Haywood) brought up the question of Field Punishment No. 1. I have a letter from one of the most respected lads in my Constituency. He had an accident with his rifle. He was sent to hospital, and remained there for ninety-nine days. Immediately he got out he was tried by general court-martial and got fifty-six days' field punishment stoppage of pay for the ninety-nine days in hospital and the fifty-six days of punishment —stoppage of £14 4s. 2d. I would believe him before all the officers who are in France to-day. I know him. I know his family. He is a God-fearing man, one of the best-living young men in my Constituency. He said it was a pure accident, and yet he had to suffer for it and also suffer the loss of his pay. As a man of the people I say, if privates must have field punishment, let us inflict it on officers also. I am sometimes rather amused to hear officers talk of the splendid life that is waiting for young men out there. I ask myself every time how is it they are there if this splendid life is opened up for them out there? These are one or two typical cases that I have brought forward. I want to do away with the discontent in the country. J believe it is well recognised in Derbyshire that I got more recruits than any man for the Army in the county, and I made it a condition that if they enlisted I would look after their homes, and I have looked after them. It is because I know them so well that I am able to come here and tell you of the many things which are making discontent amongst the men themselves and in the homes from which they went, which have suffered so much in their absence.
    Mr. G. THORNE: I desire to support the appeal which has just been made. I want to urge on the right hon. Gentleman that what the hon. Member has said does not express only his own individual experience, but I think voices the experience
    1498
    of practically every Member of the House, who is constantly having difficulties of this kind brought before him by constituents. Some of us in the first instance thought the expression "relief on compassionate grounds" had some real application to the actualities of life. But we are getting to doubt whether any individual recognition is made of individual cases. The replies we get are stereotyped in their form, and it looks as though a general answer were given without the individual case being looked into. What my hon. Friend said is my own experience and the experience of very many hon. Members that some of the hardest cases we can imagine are presented to us. We submit them because we regard them as cases for relief on compassionate grounds, and yet the same stereotyped reply comes that they do not come within the provision. We ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us plainly, so that we may make it clear to our constituents and our correspondents, what is the interpretation which the War Office now places upon "relief on compassionate grounds"? We have cases so hard that many of us assume that at once, when we submit them, we shall obtain relief, but we get the same reply, that they do not come within the interpretation which the War Office places on them. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to use this opportunity of giving satisfaction to a great number of people who art; troubled in this way, and to tell us precisely what rules he is actuated by in deciding what discharges should be made under the term "compassionate grounds."
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have risen to support the Amendment of the Leader of the Labour party. The hon. Member (Mr. Inskip) referred to me as probably having received secret circulars when in command of a ship. I have received secret circulars. I will refer to one in contrast particularly with that which the "Daily Herald" performed such a fine service in exposing. When the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Churchill) occupied the position of First Lord of the Admiralty in 1913 I was commanding one of His Majesty's ships. There was considerable labour unrest and there were strikes up and down the country, and we got a secret circular which I am now going to give the Committee the gist of. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !"] It is entirely creditable to the right hon. Gentleman and the Admiralty. It says that the position of

    1499
    their Lordships in regard to industrial disputes was that His Majesty's Forces should not be used one way or the other in connection with them and that if commanding officers of ships were petitioned by local authorities—it arose out of a ship at one of the ports being pressed to assist in unloading a vessel loaded with fish—for assistance in case of industrial disputes they were to refuse assistance, to take no part whatever, and to inform the local authorities that the maintenance of public order depended on the police. I should like to stress the sea change that has come over things in these days. The Admiralty have just recognised trade unionism—let us call it by its proper name—in the Royal Navy, to which I have the honour to belong. The joint committees which have been in existence for many years and which 'ably represent the men of the lower deck, have been taken into consultation with most excellent results by the Admiralty. Welfare committees at the different ports have been approved of. These committees are elected by the men, and once a year, in the autumn preferably, they meet the Admiralty representatives, and discuss matters affecting the welfare of the men. Therefore the Admiralty recognise these joint committees, which in the name of benefit societies have existed in the Navy with most excellent results for years, and I think that is the most statesmanlike act, coming from the Admiralty, which this Government has yet done.
    With regard to strike-breaking, I am extremely glad to see that the Leader of the House is present, and I wish the Prime Minister had been here because this is about the most important Debate we have had this year. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Inskip) that the interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman who spoke first today (Mr. Adamson) put upon the strikebreaking Clause, namely, that it meant the shooting down of fellow trade unionists is incorrect. The strike-breaking intended was not quite so bad as that. Strike-breaking, as anyone who has served in one of His Majesty's Services knows, was meant to employ troops to do the work of trade unionists under their commanding officers and at the word of command. Public order has to be preserved. Fortunately in this country strikes are peaceable. The British working man has a sense of humour and he is sensible, but if there
    1500
    is public disorder and risk to life and property, and if the police cannot keep order, obviously the troops come in. I think that is accepted everywhere. But to expect disciplined men who were enlisted compulsorily, or who volunteered to light our enemy in a time of stress and danger, to be sent with their officers to do the work of men who are striking against certain work, is asking for grievous trouble in the country. If you want Bolshevism, the right hon. Gentleman is going the best way to get it if he backs up this circular. I hope he is going to disown it. If you expect the soldiers to do this sort of thing, it is the way to get Bolshevism and most serious trouble in the country. But how do you expect the commanding officers to know that? The last person who knows the inner mind of the troops is the commanding officer. He sends for the sergeant-major, and the sergeant-major is the last person who will tell him the truth about a matter of this sort. The question is so serious that one is glad to have that touch of humour in it.
    This circular obviously was aimed at the threat of trouble by what is called the triple alliance. I believe the Government claim the right to use the whole power of the State against this triple alliance. Let us see what that means. That alliance consists—I stand open to correction—of 1,100,000 miners. These are the men who volunteered as well as any other section of the community at the beginning of the War. They volunteered in such numbers that they had to be forbidden from volunteering, and they fought most magnificently. There are 600,000 railwaymen in it, and on every station in the country there is a roll of honour of the men who laid down their lives or gained decorations. The transport workers number 350,000, so that you have a little over 2,000,000 men with their families, representing in all 8,000,000 or 9,000,000 people. These are the people concerned in the triple alliance. Are you deliberately going to use the State against them, because that only means that you are using the Army against them? Has it not been made a legal right by this honourable House for workmen to withdraw their labour if they choose? The proper way to break any strike caused by the triple alliance is to call for volunteers amongst the civilian population, and in some ways I am delighted that a middle-class union is being formed by certain hon. Members of this House for that end.

    1501
    It is the duty of the State to see that volunteer labourers are not interfered with. They may be called blacklegs and scabs, but I do not think anyone suggests actual physical violence towards them. If we cannot get coal or milk or any other commodity, then if public opinion is against the strikers you will get volunteers to work the necessary services, as many volunteers as you want, and it is the duty of the State to protect them; but it is not the duty of the State to use disciplined troops either for working electrical dynamos or driving motor lorries or going down the mines to dig. If the War Office think they can, I hope they will disabuse their minds of the idea before worse follows, because worse will follow. I know as much about discipline as any Member in this House, and I say that this is really playing with fire.
    Let me deal very briefly with the other part of the circular as to men going to Russia. I do accuse the right hon. Gentleman of not keeping the spirit of Ms pledges in this matter. He said that only volunteers would be sent to Russia. There is a letter which is now being dealt with, courteously, as usual, by the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Mr. MacCallum Scott) which can be produced to-morrow if required—I have not the original here—relating to a man of forty-one who is at Salonika now, and is being sent to Russia against his will. There are other cases, many of them. If 1914 men are in Russia now, and are not allowed to be demobilised when they could be demobilised, that is going against the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's pledge. I have drawn the attention of the War Office to certain cases in my Constituency, and I can only bear out what has been said that the feeling about this matter is very bitter. Men come on leave from North Russia, 1914–15 men, who are entitled to be demobilised and who are of low category, but they are ordered to return, instead of being demobilised. We are told by the War Office that transport difficulties prevent these men from being demobilised; yet they can come on leave and their mates come on leave, and they tell us that there is no difficulty of transport at all. Let us be perfectly plain about it. The right hon. Gentleman has been wishful to interfere in the internal affairs of Russia. It is his point of view, which he thinks is necessary, to stamp out what he is pleased to call Bolshevism. He and his friends have been trying to stampede the country with
    1502
    Press campaigns and with White Papers about atrocities, and he has been trying to get to know the pulse of the troops, and to, know whether they would go out to Russia., compulsorily or otherwise. One battalion recruited from my Constituency was sent to North Russia the day after the Armistice, and certain men in that battalion are 1914 men, who want to be demobilised, and are entitled to it, but we are told that they cannot come home because they are in the danger zone. What are they doing? They are advancing as quickly as they can, and the Bolsheviks are running away from them, but they are still advancing. The American troops, I understand, are being withdrawn. An American officer in Paris told a friend of mine the other day that if the Bolsheviks wanted to get to Archangel before the Americans they would have to be quick, because the Americans were going to be withdrawn as soon as the ice broke. I was speaking, to an officer friend of mine the other day, and I asked him if he expected to be demobilised soon, and he said, "Not a bit of it. We are busier than we have ever been. We are working twelve hours a day over this Russian expedition.
    If conscripts from England are not being actually sent to Russia it is not the fault of the right hon. Gentleman. I wish he would make absolutely certain of the release of the 1914–15 men in Russia, and in Salonika, who are being either kept in Russia or sent to Russia against their will. I am sorry to attack the right hon. Gentleman on this question, because it is a matter for the Prime Minister. We have bitten off more than we can chew in regard to these matters. If we have to keep up an Army of 50,000 in Palestine, a large Army in India, if we are setting out to conquer Afghanistan, and if we are to hold Mesopotamia against the will of the people, and also embark on expeditions to Russia, we simply have not the men to do it. Men will not stay in the Army. You must cut your coat according to your cloth. It is no use sending secret circulars to commanding officers; they are being returned in hundreds to the War Office. I do hope the right hon. Gentleman and the Government will disavow all these secret circulars, and that we shall have a promise of better things in the future.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think the worst feature of the circular sent out by the War Office was the grafting upon our Army system and upon our Army discipline of

    1503
    underhand secret service methods. The conception of the English Army officer as a sort of person to report upon the political ideas of the men he commands is a wholly erroneous conception of hon. Gentlemen. To ask them to send in secret reports, not upon the conduct of the officers or men under them in the field but upon their views upon politics and trade unionism, seems to me to be the utmost degradation of the honour of a British officer. It is applying to the British Army the system of the Russian secret police system, and to call upon honourable men to send in reports of that description indicates that the War Office at that time had got into a thoroughly rotten condition. Of course, we have to realise that this circular was sent out at a critical time in February when a strike was on and there was a threatened coal strike, and people without much brain in their heads very easily lost their heads. We realise that this circular was sent out without consulting the right hon. Gentleman, and that it was a very desperate move of people who did not know where they were. They did not know whether strikes might not break out in the mechanical transport service or in any other service. Consequently they sent out these appeals for secret reports. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman need be at all surprised that these circulars which were marked "Secret" should get into the possession of the Press. My only surprise is that they did not get into the possession of the Press earlier. They were sent out broadcast, and you must expect that here and there a commanding officer is a Socialist or in favour of democratic government and Liberal ideas. Therefore these secret circulars would get into the hands of men who thoroughly resented this use being made of them in their capacity as officers of His Majesty's Army. Anyone who sent out a circular like that would be bound to know that directly it got into the hands of the public it would do much more harm than good, even if a British officer did know the political views of the men under him.
    6.0 P.M.
    There is another part of this circular upon which I would lay particular stress. It is the question as to whether or not the men would volunteer to go to Russia. That really is the critical question of the present time. Throughout the country, wherever I have been speaking, one has
    1504
    got wonderfully enthusiastic meetings during these last few months on this Russian question. I have found a strong feeling among the working classes that this attack on the Russian Socialist revolution is a direct class war, an enactment before our faces of the sort of class war that is so ably depicted in that book of Jack London's, "The Iron Heel," and that the British working man should be used in this class war to suppress the aspirations of working men, however irregularly and desperately they may be carried out, seems to them to be the worst possible fate that can be imposed on the British working classes. The feeling against these Russian expeditions is certainly not understood in this House. I do not think that it is half understood in the Press of the country, but it is very deep and very intense at the present time. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman before he throws more of the British people into a war which they do not want, which they think dishonours the British name, that he should really try to understand what our people know about the new Allies he has chosen.
    Who are these Finns with whom we are in co-operation in the attack on Petrograd? The Finnish Government has had a chequered history. When the revolution came in Russia, in March, 1917, Finland at once proclaimed its independence, and there ensued in Finland a social revolution imposed upon the political revolution. You got what was called the Red Terror. The Red Terror was always bad —deplorable—but the Red Terror was put down with the help of German Armies which were landed in Finland, and, in cooperation with the White Guards of Finland, suppressed the revolution. They suppressed it by probably the most shocking series of atrocities that have ever been committed, even during the whole course of this accursed war. The facts have only recently come out. They have been published in the "New Statesman," and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, by a man whose word is to be trusted—indeed, a man who is trusted so much as to be employed by the Government. The terror in Finland is created by those same White Guards whom we are now reckoning as allies in a further attack upon the social revolution. The number of men and women arrested during the first weeks of May, 1918, was about 90,000, and of these from 15,000 to 20,000 were shot out of hand—this is out of a population which is

    1505
    probably under a million and they were shot without trial. Red prisoners were commonly decimated, and often the remainder were again decimated, and then the survivors were searched for "suspects," and any who were declared by any White present to be specially dangerous, were despatched. In that way the following wore executed: At Rebemaki, 5,000; at Labti, 2,000; at Viborg, 4,000; and so on. At Labti 2,000 women were taken out early one morning in the second week of May, a fortnight after the end of the fighting, and were mown down in a batch with machine guns. This is a White Terror about which the Government do not circulate White Papers. The remaining 74,000, at the beginning of June, male and female, were confined during the summer and autumn in prison camps, and were subjected to a regime of almost incredible barbarity. At Ekenes, out of 7,500 prisoners——
    Commander BELLAIRS: Will it be incumbent on any of us to discuss Bolshevik atrocities on the Army Estimates? If so, some of us might like to do so.
    The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): The hon. and gallant Member was giving, as I understand, an illustration of what he says has been happening.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is not an illustration. It is a protest against using our Armies as the allies of people who commit these atrocities. I would not propose for a moment that the British Army should be used as the allies of the Bolsheviks, who also committed atrocities. What I do protest against is, having our honour soiled by connection with people such as these, and a Government which has already, out of7,500 prisoners, got rid of 2,851, that is over one-third, who died in four months. They did not die merely from starvation. They died because they were deprived of water. There was not even the defence that they could not get food enough for these persons. These cases of starvation cannot have been less than 13,000, nor probably more than 18,000. That is your Government in Finland, the Government recognised almost immediately upon the publication of these facts in the. "New Statesman." These are the people that our Fleet is at present supporting.
    I do not think it surprising if you find a. certain reluctance among British soldiers and the British working classes to support
    1506
    an expedition to back these people up in their attack upon another section of the Russian people. I do not believe that when the exact facts of this revolution in Russia come to be published you will find even in the worst records of the worst part of the Bolshevik revolution anything to match the systematic ordered cruelty perpetrated by the White Government in Finland. Then turn to your other Allies. There is General Denikin, who is commanding in South Russia. We are sending out an expedition to Sebastopol to help this new Government. I do not think that Denikin has been recognised yet, but ho will be before long, especially if it is realised that he is carrying on warfare on. these lines. A leading White politician—this is also from the "New Statesman"— puts the number of workmen executed when Denikin occupied Rostov at 23,000. It is safe to say that if the Whites capture a Red town there will be a hundred executions for every one which occurs if a White town is captured by the Rods. At Jekaterinoslav Denikin ordered every Red Russian found in possession of Red literature to be shot forthwith. At Batarsk, in the Don district, every man with a son in the Red Guard was killed. In one place every tenth workman was shot as an example to the rest. The White leaders regard the literal decimation of the working classes as an absolutely necessary preliminary to the establishment of any form of Government in Russia.
    Lieut. - Commander ASTBURY: Why should the hon. Member believe statements of this nature, when he refuses to believe the statements with regard to the Bolsheviks which were published by the Government in a White Paper?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:The statements made in the Government White Paper were statements by an anonymous Englishman who had heard them from an anonymous Russian in Stockholm. This is a statement made by a man whom I know, and whom the Government know.
    Sir C. HENRY: We do not know him.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Yes, you do. He was sent out by the Government specially to make inquiries. Therefore, I think considerably more weight should be given to what ho says.
    Sir C. HENRY: Will the hon. Member give his name?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I will not. I will give it to you privately. The Government know it. I pass from Denikin. We have not recognised him yet, but we have recognised Admiral Koltchak, and in reference to the way in which Koltchak is carrying on his operations it is only fair to say that after all I believe that he is a fairly honest man. But it is the doings of his subordinates. It is to them that we must attribute the cruelties of the hideously uncivilised warfare that is going on in Russia. I saw a British friend who is back from Siberia——
    Commander Sir E. NICHOLL: On a point of Order. In Heaven's name, what has this to do with the Army Estimates?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is giving arguments which are designed to show why the British Army should not be used in Russia. That seems to be in order. The Army Vote must be taken into consideration as well as the argument. The two together would be in order, but the whole basis of this discussion might easily get out of order if confined to the position in Russia.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I must protest against being called to order by an hon. Member who, before he was elected to Parliament, told a story of a German sub-marine which subsequently was denied from the Front Bench. How is Koltchak is army carrying on in Siberia at the present time? I saw a British officer who is back from that country about a fortnight ago. He was not by way of being an advanced political thinker at all, and he pointed out that the Russian generals suffered from certain disadvantages. For instance, he said there is compulsory service in Siberia. The Siberians have no desire for military service. Notifications are sent out to certain classes that they are to appear for Conscription at certain places, and he says that none of them turn up. The result is the troops are sent to the villages to bring the young men into the Army. But unfortunately when these troops get to the villages the young men have all vanished, and naturally the officers in charge of these troops are somewhat exercised at failing to find their quarry, and instead of simply shooting the people who are left they flog them and then hang them. An army recruited on those lines I do not think is likely to be very efficient, but it must be obvious that as long as you have recruiting by force
    1508
    of people who two years ago were dead tired of fighting you are bound to get shocks if you enlist them by force under the direction of subordinates who are capable of any butchering in order to enforce the autocratic rule of military despotism in Siberia.
    I do not want to labour this point about Admiral Koltchak, and I cannot do better than end by reading an extract from a letter which I received last week from the same country. It will indicate the difficulties which are in the way of any recognition of the present de facto rule in Siberia:
    "The fact is that there is a blank sight, more Bolsheviks now than there were ever before in Siberia. This is a fact admitted on all sides in the East. In the next to the last municipal elections the Bolsheviks cast 13,000 out of a total of 24,000 votes. There is military law both here and in Omsk and all along the railway. Omsk itself is legally in what you might describe as a state of siege—nobody allowed out after nine at night and so forth. The Japanese staff are publishing a statement in the legal press recounting forty-eight conflicts with Bolsheviks since the end of December, ranging from skirmishes with parties of raiders to a regular pitched battle for the taking of Blagoveschenk, lasting half a day, in which the Bolshevik ferns were over 1,000. The Japanese lost forty eight killed, including a major.
    The Americans publicly refused to take any part in these affairs, on the ground that these insurgents are not Bolsheviks at all, but peasants dissatisfied with the present regime. This fact was emphasised by a local paper which pointed out that the very villages and counties that had just risen against the Bolsheviks were those now being suppressed as Bolsheviks by the Japanese. There was one classic case of a man by the name of Bezsmerty, which means 'deathless,' who led his village against the Bolsheviks and was condemned to death by them and a price put on his head. Now he led his village against the present regime and was condemned to death and shot as a Bolshevik.
    The Zemstvos have been forbidden to discuss any but economic subjects, after the Council of the Zemstvos of the Maritime Provinces passed a resolution declaring that the present economic chaos and political unrest were due to the unpopular character of the Omsk Government and its reactionary tendencies. The essentials arc these: the present dictatorship of Admiral Koltchak is the result of long intrigues, culminating in a coup d'état, with the aftermath of a series of arrests and the murder of members of the Constituent Assembly. Admiral Koltchak himself is an honest man, but he is surrounded with reactionaries who face him with faits accomplis. His representative in the Far East is General Horvab, and the whole Government is now purely bourgeois. After the coup d'état the S. R. party refused to recognise the Government, as did the Czech National Council here. This Council was dissolved by General Stephanik, Czech Minister for War, who came from Paris to do it, but it does not alter the fact that the coup d'état finished the Czechs once for all with helping

    1509
    these people. They say, 'We are democrats and we do not wish to help reaction in Russia.' I know this because it has appeared time and again in interviews with Czech officers, and talks with the soldiers, and because I have heard it from them myself. They are disgusted with the present Russian regime. This Government does not represent the wishes of the people, and it is an axiom here that if the Allied troops were Withdrawn it would fall at once."
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Upon a point of Order. May I ask whether the hon. Member is in order in reading such a very long extract from a communication about which no one knows anything, in this House, on a Vote of this kind?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I was waiting for the hon. and gallant Member to conclude his extract.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am letting the hon. Gentleman know something about a country, about which he admits that this House knows very little. I read the extract because I thought this House wanted to know the views of an ordinary English officer in that country. We are discussing the question as to whether the British Army ought to be used more largely than it is in supporting those whom I am describing. When we see that people like the Czecho-Slovaks, whom we were all praising, are now themselves not disposed to support any longer this Government and when we find that this Government would fall of itself automatically directly British bayonets and Japanese bayonets are removed from Siberia, we ought to think once or twice before we permit the British Army to engage in expeditions in conjunction with such very doubtful colleagues. The war upon Russia ought to cease. The right hon. Gentleman got a great number of British troops sent out very recently, because there was a scare that Archangel was in danger. Archangel never was in danger, but it served a sufficiently useful excuse for getting large reinforcements sent. They were sent to extricate the garrison. The garrison is coming back, but the new troops are remaining, and not only remaining, but preparing for a spring forward on Petrograd, a further advance into that wilderness of Russia, that chaos of starvation that exists now. I do protest that not only should the Army be withdrawn from Archangel, but from all participation in any further expeditions to Russia, at least, that we should do nothing in that country except in strict co-operation with the American Government. If the Americans do not think their troops should be sent to Russia,
    1510
    or if they think that their troops should not be kept in Russia, undergoing all the hardships of that climate, as well as undergoing the hardships of fighting an unjust cause, then it is not good enough for English troops either. We should clear out of the place, and let them stew in their own juice and fix up their own quarrels. Let us understand this: What is happening in Russia is an expedition or war against that country, an expedition which is not inspired by a desire to put an end to atrocities, but by a desire to put an end to the social revolution.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: We shall, I hope, exclude all elements of heat from these discussions, and indeed, as far as the first question and the most urgent question which has been raised this afternoon, is concerned—I mean the question of the War Office circular—the Committee may congratulate itself upon the temperate and patient course which the Debate has taken, and also I consider upon the manner in which the arguments of both sides were fully stated. This circular is not a document of any political significance. It is a military document drafted by the military authorities, and sent out as part of the military routine. Let us look back upon the circumstances in which this document was drafted. It was at the end of January last, if I rightly recollect. The situation then was extraordinarily difficult. We bad a considerable number of mutinies in the Army, one at least of a very serious character, in which grave loss of life was happily averted by the tact and courage of all concerned. We had a number of strikes and a great many threats of strikes. There was a threatened railway strike, and the actual strike which took place all over the tube railways in London. There was a threatened strike of the electricians, which was averted only at the last moment. There were serious riots in Glasgow, which required the presence of a large number of troops. There was the threatened strike of the Triple Alliance, which was averted by the good sense of all concerned, and notably by the assistance rendered by many hon. Gentlemen sitting on the benches immediately opposite. Those were the circumstances in which this circular was drafted. I say it was the duty of the military authorities to know exactly what (heir troops would do, and also to know what their troops would not do.

    1511
    It is obvious, on the face of it, that no politician had anything to do with the wording of the circular. The veriest tyro in political life would have had his most sensitive feelings aroused had he approached phrase after phrase which figures in this circular. There are expressions in it which were likely to cause misunderstanding and resentment among working men, and particularly among trade unionists. The expression "strike-breaker," for instance, was bound to give offence, and moreover it is not what the military authorities meant. Strike-breaking means using soldiers or sailors to take the place of workmen who are carrying on an industrial dispute with their employers in order to improve their wages, or the conditions of their trade. No one ever thought of doing that. It would be entirely contrary to the law of the land and to the whole custom and practice in this country. The workman has an absolute right to use his bargaining power against his employer either singly or in combination. He has a right to refuse his labour, and Parliament has over many years, by a long series of legislative enactments, accorded him the power and means of conducting a strike in an orderly and effective manner. To use soldiers or sailors, kept up at the general expense of the taxpayer, to take sides with the employer in an ordinary trade dispute, to employ them as what are called "black legs," would be a monstrous invasion of the liberty of the subject, and I do say without hesitation that it would be a very unfair, if not an illegal, order to give to the soldier. But the case is different where vital services affecting the health, life and safety of large cities or great concentrations of people are concerned. These great concentrations of human beings which the modern world has witnessed are possible only so long as the artificial needs which science has placed at our disposal arc operative. Light, water, electric power, transport, the distribution of food, all these are indispensable to the existence of these mighty cities which cover our land. If any of these commodities or facilities are suddenly cut off, the State must intervene and come to the rescue of the population. Lives are in danger. It must come to the rescue by every means in its power. including the use of military and naval
    1512
    forces, so as to avert a general catastrophe. There has not been any-secret about it.
    I quite agree that the whole of this great subject of the relation to the public with the workers and the services which are vital to the public, requires a far greater study at the hand of Parliament and the nation generally than it has hitherto received, but there is no doubt whatever of the obligation of the State, and of the Government, to see that great masses of human beings-living in cities are not suddenly plunged into privation and misery and confusion, through any sudden breakdown of vital needs. But this intervention of the State is not in the interest of private profit or private employers, but solely in the interest of the general public, who must be supplied with these vital necessities. This is what the military authorities meant, and this is what we said quite clearly in Parliament at the time, and this is what we say and mean to-day. There really is no mystery about it of any kind. The word "strike-breaking" is in no way applicable. It is a gross misnomer when applied to the special circumstances operating at the time this circular was drafted.
    Then take the question of whether the troops would parade for service in Russia. Was that a proper question for the military authorities to ask? I say it was a wholly proper question. Are we to ask only the pleasant question, to which you think you will get gratifying replies? Let us face the facts; let us see the real facts and what are the real feelings of the troops. That question is to be asked to which the reply "no" is to be given, as well as those to which a reply in the affirmative is expected. I say it was the business of the military authorities to know exactly what the feeling of the Army was. How do they know what needs they will be called upon to meet? They may at any time be called upon to advise the Government at a most critical moment on a most difficult point.
    As a matter of fact it has never been the policy of the Government to send conscript troops to Russia, never. No circumstances have arisen which warrant it. If the Archangel forces had been in dire peril and if no troops could have been got to go and extricate them, circumstances would then have arisen which would force us to rescue our own flesh and blood. The

    1513
    moment the need arose volunteers came forward proudly at once, and in fact we received more volunteers during the three weeks that volunteering was open for North Russia than for the whole of the rest of the Regular Army put together. So much for that. It has never been the policy of the Government to send conscript troops to Russia.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has it been the policy of the General Staff?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The General Staff have no policy apart from the policy of the Government.
    An HON. MEMBER: Will you give any reason why they are being kept in Russia?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am going to deal with the whole question. It is the pride of the British Staff that they take no part in politics at any time. They execute the policy of the Cabinet and of our Governments, and they place themselves in the position to advise the Minister, but they carry out no policy, but a policy which rests on the authority of Parliamentary majorities. I cannot conceive, however, a more appropriate or more useful question for the military authorities to ask, nor can I conceive a matter in regard to which ignorance would have been more inexcusable. There is the question and a reference made in regard to trade unionists. I share the opinion which has been expressed in various parts of the House of confidence in trade unionism and in admiration for the work it has done in building up the standards of life and the social structure of the working classes throughout the country, and all my political life for many years past I have been, as the Member for Smethwich mentioned, very closely identified with trade union leaders. At the Board of Trade and the Home Office and the Ministry of Munitions I was repeatedly brought into conjunction with them, and certainly I cannot conceive that the Government would ever wish to stigmatise trade unionism in the fashion which was current thirty or forty years ago, or to cut themselves off from the advice and guidance and assistance in all those difficult matters which have so often been given at such great personal risk in many cases by responsible leaders of great masses of the trade union movement. But we must not have trade unionism in the Army. There are a great many trade unionists in the Army. They may be trade unionists as
    1514
    far as they are out of Army life is concerned, but so far as the Army is concerned it is not possible to reproduce the conditions which exist in civil life. Armies depend enormously, as hon. Members opposite know, on the great trades which are the home of trade unionism. Mechanical transport, repairs, artillery, all technical apparatus by which your armies are fed and moved depend on trade in which trade unionism is all-powerful. No one would for one moment say that those men should repudiate their trade union associations. On the other hand they cannot reproduce in the Army Service Corps or the Army Ordnance Corps that freedom of trade union action which is their absolute right when they take off khaki and go into civilian life. I hope I have made all these points quite clear. When I first saw this document it had already been circulated, and the questions were accompanied by the answers. I am going to read summaries of the answers to the House in order that I may show how very useful these blunt questions—indiscreet questions if you like—are, and what very sensible answers they have produced. Again, I say, I am not using my own words: I am using these words as they were given to me when I asked for a summary of the replies. The hon. Member for Hull, who spoke last, said military opinion was valueless on this subject. Let us see.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: C.O.'s opinion?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That is military opinion. Let us see whether sensible answers were given to the questions—plain and blunt questions. The first question was:
    "Will troops in various areas respond to orders for assistance to preserve the public peace."
    The summaries collected over the whole of the area at that date, and it is now about four months' ago, were:
    "Troops may be relied on to assist the civil power to preserve the public peace and to protect persons and property. They resent unofficial strikes and the effort of a section of the community to intimidate the Government and they realise their duty as citizens in repressing disorderly persons."
    An HON. MEMBER: Did you expect to get any other answer?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Let us have it all. This is the place to bring it out. The next question was:
    "(B) Will they assist in strike breaking?"

    1515
    The reply was:
    "All reports deprecate the employment of troops in 'strike breaking,' and the general feeling is that it would not be fair to ask troops to do what they themselves would consider 'blackleg' work."
    The next question was:
    "(C) Will they parade for draft to Overseas, especially to Russia?
    The reply was:
    "'Troops will parade for drafts overseas with the exception of Russia.' About which doubt exists. The chief reasons why service in Russia appears to be unpopular are:

    (1) Suggestions in the Press of unpleasant climatic conditions.

    (2) Ignorance of policy to be adopted about that country.

    (3) Taking part in active warfare against an enemy who is, to them, undefined.

    (4) They do not know what the campaign in Russia is all about, or even if it is a campaign.

    (5) Men fear delay in their demobilisation."

    An HON. MEMBER: May I ask whether those are opinions of commanding officers or of the troops themselves directly asked?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Those inquiries were issued by the Commander-in-Chief of the Home Fortes in order that I should be informed as to the temper of the troops. Those communications were issued rather more widely than had been contemplated, but I see no harm at all in a considerable number of people having been consulted if they are asked perfectly straightly and give perfectly reasonable and sensible answers, and answers with which I think the general sense of the House associates itself, and which is the definite policy of the Government. The next question was:
    "What has been the effect of Army Order XIV. of 1919 on the men?"
    The House will remember that that was the Order as to a system of demobilisation instead of the pivotal system. The reply was:
    "Army Order XIV. gives general satisfaction. It has cleared the air and the troops appreciate the fairness of the principles which underlie it. Doubt exists on a few points and the need for further explanation of Army Orders XIII and XIV. is shown."
    I just put it to my hon. Friends opposite that we do not want to have a quarrel where there is no ground for it, and it takes two to make a quarrel, and no misunderstanding where there is no cause for it. I do not at all adopt the language of the circular, but I do say the language of the circular produced more direct and
    1516
    sensible replies and gave a truer idea of what was the wise policy to take and the sensible policy, than probably some much more cautiously balanced phrases produced from a political source. I really think soldiers are capable of managing their own business in this sort of way. They have been all up against it together, and they get at the truth amongst themselves in a way which is really far better than a more carefully stated and balanced inquiry. Our course has been confined strictly within the limits of the broad good Sense of our loyal soldiers who are also good citizens. I say, show me any case, any instance, however small, where we have departed from the broad limits indicated by these answers we have received. Where has there been any case of strike-breaking? Where have conscript troops been sent to Russia? There may have been a few men in detached details.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Officers have.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Certainly I have exercised the full authority which the Crown has over the holders of the King's Commission in the case of a few officers of technical corps whom we could not otherwise replace, and whose duty it was to go and assist those other men who were volunteers. Show me any case in which we have departed from the broad reasonable replies which have been collected by Army officers and unit commanders throughout the Army, and which have been sent into the War Office?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: You admit there have been a few isolated cases.
    Mr. CHURCHILL:There may be in the millions of people who have been dealt with. I have no doubt there are isolated cases, and I do not suppose you could name an individual hard case of which you could not show me an instance amongst those millions.
    An HON. MEMBER: Will the right. hon. Gentleman be prepared to afford facilities for trade unions to ascertain the views of trade unionists in the Army?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Let me finish my argument. That circular has now lapsed; it is obviously out of date and has no relation to the present situation, and it no longer has validity of any kind.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are not answers coming in?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Answers are not coining in with regard to those questions, but I am receiving reports from week to week as to the temper of the Army, and I propose to hold the military authorities responsible for supplying me, with them. I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend will think it is a most reasonable and sensible course to take, and that nothing could be more foolish than for the authorities to go on in ignorance of the feeling of the troops, and for the military authorities not to know what the general circumstances are. I think it is entirely good. I must say the first time I saw the circular I pricked up my political ears. When I saw the answers I said nothing could be better than these reasonable and useful pieces of information, and everybody who has seen them in the hierarchy of the Military Service has benefited by having those facts put before his eyes. That is all I have got to say about the circular, but I have a word to say about the method of its publication. It is a confidential document, it has been stolen, and it has been published by a newspaper with the deliberate object of causing trouble and mischief at this critical time in the Army and among the workmen. The whole intention of this paper is to provoke an outbreak in the form of a mutiny or general strike, or preferably both together, in the hope that a general smash up and overthrow of society may result. That is the general and cheerful idea. Whether it is discharged soldiers or police or soldiers still retained at the Colours, or workmen who are in the vital services, the object of this paper is perfectly plain. It is to weave them all together and rouse them all at once to make a general overthrow on the Russian model. I am asked, "Why do you not prosecute this revolutionary organ?" My answer is simple. We believe that the structure of British society is sufficiently stable and sufficiently solid to enable us to allow in present circumstances even this unbridled license to continue. We know that the paper has a feeble circulation, we know that the doctrines which it puts forward are exceedingly repulsive to responsible leaders of labour throughout the country, and are not shared by all the great sane, sober, trade union opinion which influences enormously the working classes. We are very anxious to preserve in this country a greater measure of free speech than exists in any other European country at the present time.
    1518
    We are prepared to run some risks, though I do not say we could go on doing so indefinitely. We may be wrong or we may be right. We may be right in general, but we may be wrong in a particular instance. Although the great majority of the nation is perfectly indifferent to, and even unconscious of, such mischievous incitements, the day may come when a local or partial disturbance may lead to serious loss of life. That would be a most lamentable occurrence. In that case, I trust that the instigators of the crimes will take their places by the side of those whom they will have misled. I feel, however, that, judged by every test that can toe applied, no matter from what quarter of the social or political field, the improvement in our affairs, the settling down in these islands, has been so steady and continuous, that we can afford to view coolly these undoubted attempts which are being made to stir up strife. I do not at all wish to prejudice the hands of the Government in the future, but I do draw the attention of the Committee again to the mischief-making which is going on, and I ask that the Government may be supported in putting up with it for a further period if necessary.
    I now turn to the subject which figures so largely in the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for that political storm-centre, Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), namely. the position in Russia. I have not had any opportunity of addressing the House on this subject for some time, and I will venture to give a short review of the military position there. In spite of the fact that in the Ukraine and in the Crimea most deplorable events have taken place, throwing the whole resources of those fertile regions into the hands of the Bolsheviks, and giving them another lease of life, by giving them new provinces to plunder and ruin. In spite of that, the military weakness of Bolshevism has become very apparent since we last debated the Army Estimates in Committee. Wherever they have been faced with determination, they have been repulsed or driven back. The anxieties we felt about Roumania two or three months ago have been greatly lessened. There is no doubt that the Roumanian army, in spite of all its sufferings, is an effective and powerful force, capable of protecting the Roumanian frontier.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: And the Roumanian landlords.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Capable of protecting the Roumanian people. Landlords have a right to live, just as others have. The new and small States from Poland to the Baltic have not succumbed to the Bolshevik invasion, as we feared a few months ago. On the contrary, they are driving it back. On the Esthonian front, in particular, they have inflicted heavy blows, some of which have carried Russian and Esthonian troops within measurable distance of Petrograd itself. Petrograd, of course, is a city of the dead. A few hundred thousand people take the place of the millions who inhabited it before the War, but it is still a place of great political and military consequence. Bands of Finnish volunteers have maintained the frontier, and have entered some districts of Karelia which were in a state of Bolshevik anarchy. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who preceded me made a case about the number of executions which had taken place in Finland. As far as my knowledge goes—and I have read every scrap of information I could obtain from every source—that appears to be absolutely absurd. I have no doubt very hard things have been done there by the White Terror and by the Red Terror. As far as we are concerned, it is our hope that the Red Terror may cease without a White Terror following it.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: What steps are you taking?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I will tell my hon. and gallant Friend the steps we are taking. I am going to make to the Committee as simple and brief an exposure as I possibly can of what we are doing and why we are doing it. Along the whole western front of Europe, from Finland down to Roumania, that wall of weak, newly-formed States and communities, which three months ago seemed about to totter and collapse, is standing firm. That those weak forces of so many different States and peoples, hard pressed for food, ill-equipped with weapons, with no unity of action except that which comes from a sense of common peril, under Governments newly and precariously formed —that this quivering wall should have been able up to the present not only to keep the front, but even, in many cases, to advance it, that they should have been able to do this is a most tell-tale measure of the Bolshevik military weakness. When we think that Lenin and Trotsky are nominally in possession of the main resources
    1520
    of the mighty Russian empire and the central mass of its population, that they have to use every form of terrorism to organise and increase their Army, it is astonishing that we should see the Bolsheviks recoiling before this poor, thin line of little States and weak peoples, still prostrated by the consequences of the German War. The inherent vice of Bolshevism appears to rot simultaneously every part of the social structure of Russia, including even the military tyranny on which alone the Soviet power now depends. The hon. Gentleman referred to the position of General Denikin's Army. Here, again, he made charges which astounded me, and which I am confident have no sort of relation to the actual facts.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Why have not they been contradicted?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have only heard them stated across the floor of the House by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I was not aware that any such figures as that of the slaughter of 20,000 prisoners by General Denikin would obtain credence in any assembly. I am confident that it is not a fact, although I should like to have an opportunity of consulting all the records and authorities. I have read all the telegrams. We have a general on the spot, a competent Cavalry officer. He has been there all the time, communicating all sorts of matters. I am confident that he would have telegraphed at once had anything of that nature occurred. When a few men were shot—a very small number—some time ago, he immediately telegraphed it home. We have hundreds of officers there, and I am confident that if anything of that nature had been going on we should have heard it. I do not think a British officer would stand by and see such butchery. Certainly it would cost them nothing to put it into their reports so that their superiors at home might see it. General Denikin, after great vicissitudes, has effected a remarkable improvement in his position during the last month. He has advanced his whole front, in some places to a distance of eighty miles, and in this he has been aided by rebellions which have broken out among the people who are enjoying what my hon. and gallant Friend would no doubt call the blessings of Bolshevik rule. The effect of British munitions with which we have been supplying him, and with which we propose to continue to supply him, is only now beginning to be felt.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Poison gas!
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Poison gas is used against our troops by the Bolsheviks. I do not understand why, if they use poison gas, they should object to having it used against them. It is a very right and proper thing to employ poison gas against them. The effect of British munitions is only just now beginning to tell, and I am advised that we may look forward with a very reasonable measure of confidence to the immediate future prospects of General Denikin's Army.
    It is in North Russia where we are most particularly interested, because that is practically the only place where fighting is going on, where we have any troops, There has been a great improvement there. When last the Army Estimates were debated, we had a force of dispirited and discontented men in North Russia, cut off from relief or extrication by the ice. We had statements made that not a single man must be allowed to proceed to their aid, and demands were made openly in this House to that effect. Anything more calculated to discourage them I cannot imagine. A helpless population of Russians was penned up there, to whom we were bound to a certain extent in honour. The Russian forces in the neighbourhood were weak and unreliable. The Bolshevik preparations were moving forward with great rapidity. Their steamers were being prepared to come down the river when the ice melted, their concentration was steadily proceeding both as regards guns and men upon our front, and they openly boasted that when the thaw began they would drive us into the White Sea as they had driven the French into the Black. What a change has taken place to-day ! A strong force of volunteers, who left this country in high spirits and good will, has begun to land in Archangel— seasoned fighters of the Great War, the most experienced veteran troops in Europe. Already they have begun to land. A strong flotilla prepared by the Admiralty has ascended the river, and the ice at the mouth has now broken. The know-edge that these troops and flotilla were coming, imparted to the troops, cheered our tired men with the promise of speedy and certain relief. Their spirits and discipline revived together. The enemy attacks were everywhere repulsed. Their gunboats were driven back by the fire. of some 60-pounder guns, for which the ammunition arrived in the nick of time. Meanwhile, the local Russian troops in
    1522
    North Russia have quadrupled in number, and have improved enormously in discipline, fighting quality, and moral. We owe a great deal to Generals Ironside and Maynard, who have solved in unbroken succession a number of the most difficult and harassing problems, and have been through a period of the greatest possible anxiety. They have solved all these problems with an extraordinary measure of success. We owe them a great debt, not only for the military but also for the political qualities which they have displayed in. the astonishingly difficult circum-stances which have confronted them. Lastly, a new factor has come upon the scene in the advance of Admiral Kolt-chak's Northern Army. This advance began in March. Since then, on a front of 700 miles, his lines have gone forward to a maximum distance of 250 miles. That advance has been made with purely Russian troops. The Czechs are on the railway, guarding a section of the Siberian front. The Americans and the Japanese are all spread out along those 5,000 miles of railway, keeping it from being broken up or disorganised by marauding bands. The railway service has been so far improved that five trains a day are now passing each way, instead of only one at the time when I last addressed the House on this matter.
    7.0 P.M.
    Admiral Koltchak's Army are purely Russian, and the reinforcements which are preparing behind for him, and which are considerable, are also purely Russian. In the main these armies are equipped by British munitions and British rifles, and a certain portion of the troops are actually wearing British uniforms. The advance of these armies has already drawn 20,000 Bolsheviks off our front at Archangel and has thus rendered us a real service which may have played a very important part during these critical weeks through which we have just passed. The experience of this war has taught us all how very dangerous it is to speculate about the future, and I deprecate altogether exaggerated hopes being formed. Just as things have turned out so much better than we had any right to expect four months ago, so they may now turn out three months hence very much worse than it seems reasonable to hope now. Within the last three weeks a considerable set-back has occurred on the southern sector of Admiral Koltchak's front.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Hear, hear!
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. and gallant Gentleman really ought to go out to help the Bolsheviks.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: If this is going to be a class war, that is my side.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope there is going to be no class war of that kind carried on in these islands, so that if my hon. and gallant Friend is burning to engage in the struggle, I am afraid he will have to make a sea voyage, and I am quite sure that the Bolsheviks would gain a gallant fighter, but I am not sure that Monsieur Lenin might not have some anxiety as to whether the political discretion of my hon. and gallant Friend would be quite equal to his military ardour. As I say, I deprecate altogether exaggerated hopes being formed. Fighting is still going on in this region, and I speak with great reserve about the future, but this much may be said, that Admiral Koltchak's advance in the northern sector, coupled with the growth and improvement of the Russian local troops at Archangel and Murmansk, offers us the prospect of a far better solution of our own problems than we could ever see before. Whereas a few months ago our only plan was to withdraw our troops, and carry with them as refugees 30,000 or 40,000 inhabitants upon whom the Bolsheviks would have wreaked vengeance, people, that is to say, who have been friendly to us and who had worked for us at the time of the German War—whereas that was the only course which seemed open to us then, there is now good prospect of the whole of North Russia becoming self-supporting within a reasonable time and of purely Russian forces maintaining themselves against the Bolsheviks in that theatre. This will relieve us of the extraordinary difficulties of evacuating so largo a portion of the population and of providing for them afterwards—how are they to be transported, where are they to go, where are they to stay, how are they to be looked after, what are they to do, when are they to go back, how are they to go back—all this was a formidable problem to be confronted with, but one I would rather have seen faced than leave them to their fate. If the course of events which I have indicated should actually come to pass, we shall be afforded an absolutely honourable and satisfactory termination to an enterprise which, though undertaken from
    1524
    sound military reasons during the German War, threatened us with the gravest embarrassments after it had closed. We shall be relieved from a situation which exposed us to an alternative danger, the danger of disaster through staying on with too weak forces, or the danger of dis-honour through going away without winding up our obligations decently. We shall be entirely secured from both these perils. We hope, therefore, that a juncture will be effected in the near future between Admiral Koltchak's armies and the Russian Archangel forces. The enemy troops in between are not powerful, and the distance is not excessive. Already communication has been established between the armies, already the Government of M. Tchaikowski, who, I suppose, comes under the general condemnation of my hon. and gallant Friend——
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: No, your army turned him out.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: On the contrary, the policy which we are pursuing has the enthusiastic support of M. Tchaikowski. He has acknowledged the supremacy of Admiral Koltchak's Government and has worked in the closest co-operation with him.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Do you deny that he was arrested by your Army?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: M. Tchaikowski is a man whose whole life was passed in a struggle against the Czarist régime. He-was exiled and imprisoned again and again; he was the subject of persecution, and he is now fighting a tyranny of an even more odious character. Already the Government of M. Tchaikowski—the North Russian Government—has acknowledged the supremacy of the Omsk Government and has united itself to it, and there is therefore reasonable hope that the whole of this North Russian situation may be placed upon a purely Russian basis before the end of the summer without anything in the nature of a disaster to our troops or the desertion of our friends. I am telling the House exactly what is the position, and I am carefully safeguarding the military situation in. what I say. I consulted my military advisers as to what might be properly said. I think we get along much better if we say frankly what we are doing and let the people understand exactly the limits within which we are acting. Our tired-out conscript troops are therefore being

    1525
    withdrawn. The hon. and gallant Member's friends from Hull will, of course, be withdrawn unless they volunteered to stay on, but if one or two of them have come home on special leave on the terms that they will return, I do not think that that promise ought to be waived, and they must take their chance with the general movement. As I say, our tired-out troops are therefore being withdrawn and their departure is being covered by the fresh volunteers and the new Russian forces, both of whom are awaiting the arrival in this neighbourhood of the right wing of Admiral Koltchak's army. I am not attempting to forecast what the future will bring forth, but I am explaining what is the actual present position and what are the reasonable expectations which we are at present facing. I think the Committee will consider that these developments arc, on the whole, very satisfactory. I know there are some people who would have paid no regard whatever to our obligations to the North Russian Government and to the inhabitants of Archangel, who would have bundled our troops into their ships or let them be driven into them by the Bolsheviks, and sailed away, and left all those who had helped us to their fate, to, as my hon. and gallant Friend has just described to the House, let them stew in their own juice. That is not the British way. We have secured a reputation in this War—indeed we have lived up to an old reputation in which we take much pride—of fulfilling all our obligations soberly but solidly, of being at least as good as our word, of respecting our scraps of paper, and of teaching others to respect them to.
    An HON. MEMBER: Does that apply to Lord Derby's scheme?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: And I am sure that the House and the country would never have pardoned the Government if we had allowed that reputation, which had cost our soldiers a great deal to build up in so many hard-fought fields, to be smirched or sullied by any dishonourable episode or shameful abandonment of duty. The Russian question, while I am upon it, requires, I think, to be dealt with in a more general way and if the House will permit me I will make a more general observation in regard to it. I am often asked a question, Are we at war with the Bolsheviks or not? We are not at war with the Bolsheviks in the same way as we went to war with the Germans, namely, hurling our-
    1526
    selves into the struggle with might and main and using all the resources of our Empire without stint or pause to gain the victory. Our fundamental principle is that Russia must be saved by Russians. Russian manhood must work out its own salvation, Russian courage, Russian exertions must retrieve again the unity, the splendour, and the peace and freedom of the Russian land. All the experience of history shows, and I may say that the most recent experience in the Ukraine shows, the sort of antagonistic reactions which are created when foreign troops are landed in a country and take the lead in. military and political matters there. As Byron said to the Greeks, so we say to the Russians, "In native swords, in native ranks, the only hope of freedom dwells." But, on the other hand we cannot remain-impartial as between the two Bides in Russia. We cannot treat these Russian-forces and leaders who have always beers faithful to the cause of the Allies, who were largely——
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Koltchak!
    Mr. CHURCHILL: He has been fighting without cessation against the Germans. These Russian forces and leaders-were largely called into the field by our appeals and by our exertions during the great struggle, and we cannot treat them any better than we treat those who betrayed us, who left us to shift for ourselves, who prolonged the War for a whole year by letting loose upon cur soldiers in France the avalanche of Germans from the-Eastern Front. We arc bound to take sides, on that ground if on no other. Neither can we remain indifferent to the general aspect of Bolshevism. Bolshevism is not a policy; it is a disease. It is not-a creed; it is a pestilence. It presents all the characteristics of a pestilence. It breaks out with great suddenness; it is violently contagious; it throws people into a frenzy of excitement; it spreads with extraordinary rapidity; the mortality is terrible; so that after a while, like other pestilences, the disease tends to wear itself out. The population of the regions devastated by its first fury are left in a sort of stupor. Then gradually and painfully they begin to recover their sanity; they are feeble; they are shattered; and the light of human reason once again comes back to their eyes. Those regions which have been most afflicted by the fury of this storm are the first to recover, and once having recovered—let my hon. and

    1527
    gallant Friend mark this—they are specially immune from all subsequent attacks.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it cure my right hon and gallant Friend from re-verting to Liberalism?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Thus Bolshevism is dying out in all the original centres of its power, and it is keeping itself alive only by finding new areas to ravage and new populations to devour. The locusts are leaving the ravaged plains of the North, and they are swarming south to eat up the fat lands of the Ukraine. That is the present state. After all, in its first stages, Bolshevism offers a considerable attraction to the worst elements in an uneducated people like the Russian masses, especially a people who have been long and cruelly down-trodden. They are able to stop working; they are able to take possession of whatever they can find; they can enter the houses of the wealthy and of the middle-classes and of the classes who can read and write, and take the food and the liquor and the clothing and the furniture; they can trample down every vestige of authority; and they can go off and enjoy their plunder. But this only carries them on for a certain number of weeks. The plunder is soon eaten up or wasted, and the accumulated wealth of years can be consumed or rendered unavailable in a very short time. The truth is revealed that the property of the rich only meets, for a very few weeks, the needs of the poor. Wealth has to be recreated from year to year by patient, organised, systematised labour. But by the time this is discovered the whole machinery of production has been destroyed. All relations between man and man have been poisoned. The whole organisation of society, and all its scientific apparatus, has been destroyed. Thus, great and terrible suffering attends the closing stages of the disease, but this suffering is the prelude to recovery. It is this recovery that we are endeavouring to aid in Russia. We are, for that purpose, supporting all the anti-Bolshevist forces now in the field, by arms, munitions, and by a certain number of volunteers, especially in the technical services. We are giving these forces all the help we can without violating our fundamental principle, that Russia must be saved by Russians.
    Our responsibility, however, cannot end there; it is not enough for us merely to support the anti-Bolshevist forces; we must
    1528
    be on our guard against another set of dangers. Bolshevism is a great evil, but it has arisen out of great social evils. We do not want these evils to return when Bolshevism has been overcome. We do not want the forces we have aided to succeed only to set up again the old, rotten regime which has brought about the disaster. So far as we can influence events, with the very limited means which are at our disposal—for, after all, we are only giving very limited and indirect assistance; we are not engaging our resources in any serious extent—so far as we can influence events we want to make sure that the new Russia, which is now struggling to rise from the ruins of the Tsarist and Bolshevik tyranny, shall be a genuinely national, democratic, modern State, where the people own the Government and not the Government the people, and where there is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness open to all.
    Therefore, the moment has now come when the five great victorious Powers have felt entitled, as a condition of their further support, and of their formal recognition of the anti-Bolshevist Governments in Russia, to obtain from those Governments clear understandings and undertakings that their victory, for which it is now permissible to hope—I will not put it at more than that—will be immediately followed by the summoning of a Constituent Assembly on a democratic franchise, and that this Assembly shall be the foundation from which the power of the future Russian State will be derived. So let us feel our way, in these difficult times, towards great and free conditions of democratic thought. Let us stand on the basis that the country must be governed through the expression of millions of people, operating through elected institutions. The Bolsheviks obtained power by destroying the infant Constituent Assembly of Russia. We shall do everything in our power to see that when those who are now fighting have succeeded, their first step shall be to summon it together and abide by its decision as to the future system of government in their country. I do not believe there will be any difficulty on this point. The national Russian Government at Omsk is supported by Russian politicians of every party, including the most advanced. It commands the allegiance of men who have given all their lives to fighting Tsarism, who have suffered exile and imprisonment, and in some cases, as that of Sazanoff, have been actually sentenced

    1529
    to death for the terrible proofs they have given of their hatred of the old regime. The policy of this Government in regard to the land question, so far as I have been able to study it, and which is subscribed to formally by General Denikin and his associates—their policy upon the franchise and upon the Constituent Assembly, go every whit as far as anything that has yet been attempted in England, France, or the United States. It is something to get that.
    Mr. N. M'LEAN: We have not gone very far yet in this country.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: We must devote ourselves to carrying our organisation still further; but the first step of the Russians is surely to come up abreast of the level we have reached and to begin to take the practical steps. I certainly share the views of the hon. Member (Mr. Maclean), who interrupted, that our organisation is far from perfect, and that the democratisation of our institutions should proceed. But do not let us accuse of being reactionary men whose political declarations go every whit as far as anything we have been able ourselves to practice. I am confident that the inquiry addressed to that Government from the five Great Powers will be answered in a thoroughly satisfactory manner, and the help that we have been giving to that Government will be continued in the most active way.
    I am much obliged to the House for allowing me to set before them, in such a generous measure, the Russian situation. I am tired of the partial criticisms which I hear from people who do not address themselves to the whole argument. I trust that, whether hon. Members opposite agree with me or not, they will see that we are proceding on a definite plan, within definite limits, and that our aim is not dictated by any desire either to involve the British nation in expeditions into the heart of Russia, or in any way to set up anything which resembles the old Tsarist regime which has been overthrown. I must say one word on the general man-power situation of the Army. We are now at our very greatest strain. Nearly 3,000,000 men have been demobilised from the Army and from the Air Force, and 40,000 or 50,000 are streaming away every week The position in India has caused much anxiety, and needed considerable reinforcements. The situation on the Afghan frontier has already been
    1530
    described, and the House will not fail to appreciate its significance. In Egypt the state of tension still continues. In Turkey, like all other Mahomedan countries, there is the gravest unrest and anxiety as to the future of the Mahomedan world. While the Peace terms are still unknown, and still more after they have been declared, no one can regard that situation as free from military anxiety. The tension in Ireland continues to require a reinforced number of troops. The position on the Rhine is at its highest intensity at the present moment. The Army is all ready. Every leave has been stopped, and all those forces of the Allies there—British, French, and American—are awaiting the order which they may receive when it is known what the decision of the Germans may be. The stores, the salvage, and the guarding of the prisoners are occupying just as many men as they did before. Although the volume has diminished, the number of points where they are stored is still enormous, and the number of prisoners on our hands is still undiminished. We are recruiting men specially at a special bounty, to go out and continue the care of the British graves and continue the exhumation of the 180,000 scattered graves which lie in those vast desert areas of No Man's Land.
    The new volunteer Army that we are creating to take the place of the present compulsory Army when Conscription comes to an end, has now reached a total of 170,000 men; in addition to which there are 25,000 men in the Army of the Rhine who have volunteered to stay on. But that volunteer Army is no use to the War Office at the present time for meeting the difficulties with which we are confronted, because, first of all, a great number of the men are enjoying two or three months' furlough, which was a definite condition of their re-engagement, and, in the second case, the units are a third to a half formed; the battalions and batteries are only partially formed, they are not complete in any way; they are only skeletons; and to-lump them together in order to use them for drafts, or in Mesopotamia, Egypt, or Palestine, would be to delay the process-of the reconstruction of the Regular Army, and so to retard the day when we cart dispense altogether with the services of men held under compulsion. Let hon. Members look over in their minds the six or seven points I have mentioned, and they will see we are pulled out on every side

    1531
    to the utmost extent at the present time. Rut I think that we are at the top of the hill, and that henceforth the task will be easy.
    In every one of these respects which I have mentioned relief will follow the signature of Peace. If Peace is signed—and I earnestly hope it may be signed now —the Rhine Army can be immediately reduced from ten to six divisions, and, as soon as we see that Peace is effectively being carried out, it can be reduced to a still lower pitch. The situation in Egypt, India, and Turkey will, however, require careful watching for some considerable time. But with peace, 40,000 or 50,000 men who are guarding the 200,000 Gorman prisoners, or something like that, which we have on our hands, will be set free, because the prisoners will be sent back to their own country. The condition of the volunteer Army will steadily improve as its units are completed and as the men return from furlough, and we shall be able, not only to send out drafts to relieve men from abroad, but to send out re-formed units of our own volunteer foreign service Army to take the place of the men now doing duty in garrisoning the Empire. Therefore, on the assumption that peace is signed in the month of June, we shall have reached the end of the most difficult portion of our task.
    Mr. FRANCE: May I ask at what rate the men are enlisting now in the volunteer Army?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Well, we got about 5,000 of all kinds last week; that was very good. On the assumption that peace is signed in June, we shall propose to fix a definite day for the release of those 1914 and 1915 men, whom we have always meant to send home, but have never yet, owing to one thing or another, been physically able to release. We propose, on the assumption that peace is signed then, that all the 1914 men will be sent home for release by the end of June.
    An HON. MEMBER: Docs the right hon. Gentleman recollect the War Office promise in a circular that the 1914–15 men would all be demobilised before April, 1919?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am well aware of it. I said, subject to the exigencies of the Service. [A laugh.] You may laugh at that, and I would like to laugh at it, but it would not remove them in the least.
    1532
    The House has seen what has happened in India and Egypt, and it knows the situation, and we have been releasing an enormous number of men, but I am now assigning a definite date, to which we shall endeavour by every means in our power to live up, so that if Peace is signed this month or next, at the end of June all men who joined in 1914 shall be sent home for release.
    An HON. MEMBER: Including Egypt?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, but excluding men from India for the moment.
    Sir F. HALL: What about the 1915 men?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Mesopotamia?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It includes everywhere except India. That I cannot deal with until the autumn, but by the end of July all the 1915 men, excluding India, will be sent home for release. I will then proceed to see what the next step will be. I estimate the reductions which I shall have made within this period in the Army will be 330,000 more men out of 1,270,000 we have got for all purposes now. The improved scale of compassionate release, I admit, looks very hard on paper, but it affects about 25,000 cases, and I am considering whether compassionate cases on other than purely family grounds cannot now come into consideration, at any rate for a limited number. But the position of the Derby men, to which the hon. Gentleman drew my attention, although rather irrelevantly so far as my then argument was concerned, must be considered next. There are 300,000 Derby men now serving, and we hope to release them according to the month in which they joined' up—first, those who joined up in January, and next those who joined up in February, 1916. I cannot undertake to release the whole of this large number of Derby men immediately, but once Peace has been signed, I hope it will be possible gradually to diminish the military forces which we are keeping at our disposal. That will produce, not only a great relief in the strain to which we are subjected, and the sacrifices which are required of the country, but a sensible relief and assistance to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his heavy task of maintaining the finances
    We are passing through a very difficult time, but I think we can get through that very difficult time. We have a lot of trouble, but the time passes along, and

    1533
    our work begins gradually to get discharged. No one desires to reach the end of this difficult period more than I do, to release our war-worn soldiers to their homes, to their industries, to keep what we have won in the War, to see the nations of Europe, friend and foe, joined together in peaceful labour to rebuild the shattered world, and secure to them the new liberties, the wider and more generous associations, which we all hope we have gained in what we have gone through in the struggle of this War, which are dear to the heart of every Member of the Government, and I can assure the House there is no Member of the Government more earnest in the desire to see that consummation than the Minister who is called upon to preside over the difficult problems connected with the War Office.
    Mr. CLYNES: There were two sections of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, dealing with the general question of military policy and dealing with Russia, to which I would like to refer. As to the last subject to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, I am inclined to say that those who have been responsible for the policy which the country has pursued since the Armistice was signed can find little congratulation in the melancholy results to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded, for he painted for us the most gloomy picture of what the situation has been in recent months, and, indeed, as to what the outlook is at the moment. His picture means that there is no certainty, so long as our present policy is continued, of giving to the people over whom we have authority measures for extended self-government, thereby tending gradually to increase their contentment and making it more sure that fewer British soldiers will be required for any purposes either of government or of repression. I join with the right hon. Gentleman in repeating the hope that if Peace terms are signed, the day will not be far distant when large numbers of troops can be released from their military service, and find their way into civil and industrial pursuits again. I have but one remark to make on that long section of the right hon. Gentleman's speech in which he dealt with the Russian situation. I think he correctly described Bolshevism as a disease, and I ask his attention to the fact that he described it as a very contagious disease. To that I would add, that I believe it feeds on discontent, and out of that we might very well draw the con-
    1534
    clusion that in this country, and other lands as well, cures for discontent must, be found, for the disease of Bolshevism may set in with its contagious nature and spread to places and to peoples who are always thought to be immune from it.
    Speaking for those for whom I act, on this side of the House, I am sure I am correct in saying that the right hon. Gentleman's speech, so far as it dealt with the subject which we raised at the beginning of this Debate, has given us neither a satisfactory explanation or an adequate defence of the action of the War Office in the issue of the circular to the various commanding officers. True it is that the right hon. Gentleman very resourcefully exploited all that was in the circular and all that has accrued from it. He regarded it, as I gather, as a document so unguardedly worded as to be almost clumsily phrased, and yet from it he would have us conclude that a great deal of wisdom and knowledge had come from it, and that out of this faulty and mistaken step of the military authorities, information of the highest value has been derived, which might not have reached us had the ordinary political courses been followed. I can assure my right hon. Friend that he has failed to appreciate the extent and the influence of the "Daily Herald" which published this particular circular, for though it might have what he described as a feeble circulation, it evidently does circulate amongst people who are very earnest, very enthusiastic, very vigorous, and who, because of their propaganda and educational work, must not have their influence measured by their mere numbers but rather by the degree of the activities with which they carry on their propaganda work. And if it be true that the "Daily Herald" has but a feeble circulation, I think the national advertisement which the speech of the right hon. Gentleman has given it this afternoon will tend somewhat to increase that circulation, and will be read very joyfully by the supporters of this particular newspaper.
    I would ask the House to turn to the situation which existed in this country at the beginning of the year when the circular was issued. I go back to that because of one or two things that were levelled against hon. Members on this side of the House in relation to general industrial disputes. Trade unionists did not in the early part of this year fail to remember the nation's interests in seeking to advance their own, and on every occa-

    1535
    sion when representatives of the Government, through whatever State Department it might be, cared to consult those men of influence and authority at the head of trade unions, they always counselled men to patience, to Constitutional and to peaceful action, and men in the mines showed that they were prepared to forfeit a good deal of their claims, and to accept any reasonable overtures which the Government was willing to make, in order to prevent a stoppage of work. I grant that there were some few spokesmen—men whose names are not of national weight—who evidently would not have been displeased— [An HON. MEMBER: "Smillie!"]—at seeing any serious outbreak, and a general stoppage of work. I do not think that can be said of Mr. Smillie, and those of us who have any knowledge of his conduct in that crisis know that whilst it was his duty—a duty which he performed admirably—to advance the interests of the men, who too long have been ill-treated as wealth-producers in this country, he was not unmindful of the great consequences that follow a general stoppage of work in the mines, and I am sure was most anxious to avert it, and do his best to do so. I was saying that the general conduct of the rank and file, as shown in the ballot, and the conduct of leaders, as shown in the counsels they addressed to their followers, proved that the trade unionists had regard to the interests of the nation as well as their own interests at that time, and therefore I am entitled to repudiate the imputation levelled at us this afternoon that in our criticism of this document we have sought nothing better than the cultivation of discontent amongst the troops and to foster suspicion and distrust amongst the men in the Army. My right hon. Friend would, I think, give us all credit for some more worthy motive than that, but certainly it has been said that that was our purpose. My own view on that point is that this circular itself manifested some degree of suspicion of what the condition of the Army was. It certainly shows a certain amount of distrust in view of the fact that the troops might be in the position of being called upon to render certain services. It is not we who feel distrust as to what the rank and file of the Army would do if they were called upon to obey certain orders which might be given to them.
    I want to trouble the House about a couple of questions which, I think, are
    1536
    in that circular and as they affect the trade union position. Roughly, the first question was, "Would these soldiers become strike breakers in certain circumstances?" What really did that question mean? Did it mean that the soldiers were to perform the ordinary duties of maintaining law and order or even maintaining the right of the individual workman to work if he wished? Did it mean that? Or did it mean that the soldiers themselves were actually and physically to be engaged in breaking strikes by undertaking work which the civilan employés had left? We are entitled to an answer to that definite question, as to whether the soldiers were expected to become railwaymen, engine-men, miners, transport service man, labourers, and so on. Were the soldiers expected, by the questions of this circular, to tell the Government that, in the event of their civilian comrades being in a state of strike, they would take their place and break the strike? The right hon. Gentleman gave no kind of reply to that in his speech.
    The second question, in substance, was, "What was the attitude of the soldiers likely to be towards trade unions or trade unionism?" That, in these days, is surely a strange kind of inquiry for a great State Department to put to men in the Army. What was the object and purpose of a question of that sort addressed to these men? What is there in the character and conduct of the Labour party towards trade unionism that justify that? Many hundreds of soldiers have retained their membership in their trade union. Even their position as soldiers frequently has had to be safeguarded and protected by the activities of the trade union of which they have remained members. I doubt whether as soldiers these men would have been as well treated as they have been in point of pay, food, clothing, leave terms, and other things had it not been for the services which have been rendered, not merely by the Labour Members or by the trade unions, but by the force of public opinion. So that in some degree trade unions have been able to follow the men into the Army and help to improve- their position there while they were engaged in military service. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to reply to a point of very great substance in no way answered by him earlier. The point has been raised by one of the hon. Members for Durham. It is a point of great substance. By what right do the Army authorities issue a cir-

    1537
    cular of this kind for the purpose of questioning either officers or soldiers engaged in their service? The hon. Member to whom I have referred quoted a new Army Order issued on 27th March, 1914, and read in this House by the then Prime Minister during the course of the discussion that day. This Army Order was issued as a result of what is known as the trouble pending in the Curragh. That Army Order says:
    "No officer or soldier shall in future be questioned by his superior officer as to the attitude he will adopt or as to his action in the event of his being required to obey orders depending upon future or upon hypothetical contingencies—"
    and so on. There was to be no assumption of the possibility of orders addressed to the men not being carried out. The authorities were not to fear or anticipate that in certain circumstances they would fail to do their duty. I submit this very process of explaining to the men before the event does create in their minds the feeling that they have the right themselves to consider whether they should or should not obey orders addressed to them. As I gather from this report, we were led to believe by the Prime Minister that it would mean in future that questions could not be addressed to either officer or soldier in view of the terms of that Order. We are entitled to repeat the question whether that Order has been withdrawn, or whether it is still in force. If it is in force, what are the grounds upon which now the right hon. Gentleman seeks to justify these questions in a much more wholesale, almost general national question, to the men who are serving in very large numbers?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The questions were put to the commanding officers. They were asked their opinion. I do not think the men were questioned. If they were, it was in an unofficial way.
    Mr. CLYNES:Really, I fail to see what value at all can be derived from the issue of these circulars if the action ceases just where it ought to begin. There was surely no doubt in the minds of the military authorities as to what the officers would do—colonels, majors, captains, lieutenants, and so on. Their concern was with regard to the rank and file of the Army, the private soldier. Now we are told that just where the inquiry should begin there was no question put at all. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he cannot have it both ways. Either in-
    1538
    formation which he has received, and which came through in these reports, has come from the rank and file of the Army, or it is valueless. If the soldiers have only been approached or questioned by their superior officers I should think there can be no value whatever in the reports. We are entitled to some further statement as to why these Orders and Regulations have been issued authorising the questions that we are told by this existing Army Order were in no way to be put to any man, whether officer or private.
    I have just one other point. It relates to a question which, I think, has not been adequately treated in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. Most of the time spent so far has been used by various Members to cover the reform of numerous grievances in relation to individual cases, whether liberation from the Army was sought upon various grounds, or it was the case of men strongly anxious to get demobilised. I have had my own share of these rather painful cases, and I have troubled the military authorities with many inquiries. From my own experience, I share the disappointment which others have expressed. Here is quite a typical case. Out of a number of which, personally, I have had to handle, the facts are as follows: This soldier is forty-one years oft age, and has seen over three years' service. His employer wants to get him back to his work. His wife has been seriously ill, and is now quite unable to earn her own living. Her mother has recently died, and she has also lost her sister. All these facts I have certified to the War Office by medical testimony and the other documents which I have here.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: What is his unit?
    Mr. CLYNES: He is serving in Ireland.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: What is his unit?
    Mr. CLYNES:He belongs to the 3rd Battalion of the Royal Welsh Fusiliers. If the right hon. Gentleman is interested in reconsidering the case I shall be glad to supply him with the particulars.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: If he is forty-one years of age, and is not serving in the Army Service Corps, he is entitled to release.
    Mr. CLYNES: I am very glad to hear that, but in that case I cannot understand the letter which I have received to-day.
    "Mr. Churchill has asked mo to inform you that as the claim put forward does not come

    1539
    within the terms of the enclosed Army Council instruction, it is regretted it is not possible to give other treatment in this case."
    An HON. MEMBER: We all get those letters.
    Mr. CLYNES: I am glad to think that there is some hope in the case of this man.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: May I have the particulars?
    Mr. CLYNES: Certainly. I only want to press the point, because these cases are so numerous as to cause very considerable dissatisfaction, and the good name of the Army is somewhat impaired by those who are acting on its behalf in Whitehall, and perhaps in other military offices. These are leaving out of account those great human factors which mean so much in these individual cases. Regulations which, I suppose, are designed to permit individual cases to be dealt with ought to be so drawn and so applied as to enable the personal and the individual circumstances to be fully taken into account before a hard and fast decision is reached. I, therefore, press upon the right hon. Gentleman that the effect of this justifiable anger, which is growing, and which is a very serious blemish upon the reputation of the Army, or those who are responsible for its conduct. I hope if he can give any consideration to the administration of these Regulations that he will do so in order that as many men as possible who have their jobs waiting for them should be got back into them; that there should be as much exchange as the necessities of the nation can possibly permit, so as to keep in the Army the men who are willing to stay there, and release from the Army the men who outside can be doing greater national service.
    8.0. P.M.
    Whereupon the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod having come with a Message, the Chairman left the Chair.
    Mr. SPEAKERresumed the Chair.

  ROYAL ASSENT.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;
  The House went, and, having returned—
  Mr. SPEAKERreported the Royal Assent to—

  1. Public Health (Medical Treatment of Children) (Ireland) Act, 1919.

  2. Education (Scotland) (Superannuation) Act, 1919.

  3. Wages (Temporary Regulation) Extension Act, 1919.

  4. South Shields Gas Act, 1919.

  5. D. H. Evans and Company, Limited, Act, 1919.

  6. Saint George's Church, Oxford, Act, 1919.

  7. Belfast Harbour Act, 1919.

  8. Dover Harbour Act, 1919.

  9. Blyth Harbour Act, 1919.

  10. Bristol Corporation Act, 1919.

  11. Dublin Port and Docks Act, 1919.

  12. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Act, 1919.

  13. Newport Harbour Act, 1919.

  14. Bankers Guarantee Trust (Transfer to Alliance Assurance) Act, 1919.

  SUPPLY.
  Again considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  Question again proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £49,000,000, be granted for the said service."

  WAR OFFICE CIRCULAR.
  Mr. JESSON: With reference to the circular issued by the War Office, I would like to say a word upon the observations of the hon. Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). I approach this matter not only as a trade union official, but as an old soldier. I am very proud of my Army associations, for in my day we had the deepest respect for our officers, and I am sure the majority of the men would have readily followed them practically anywhere. But after the speech of the hon. Member for Hull, I do not think the men in the Army to-day will have very much respect for him as an officer. I know a large number of men who are to-day in the Army and the Navy. My experience of them is that they have a great respect for their officers, and I am sure they would condemn in no unmeasured language such speeches as that of the hon. Member for Hull. Another point is with regard to the speech of the hon. Member

  1541
  for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). That hon. Member took a rather extreme view. I have had the good fortune recently of coming into contact with a large number of people from Russia, people who did very much to upset the Czar regime, and who are now doing all they can to upset the Bolsheviks. The party with which I am associated are giving them all the encouragement and help possible, and I for one am proud that they are doing that because these are people who I am certain are sincerely honest in trying to get real democratic rule, and to upset the Bolsheviks.
  With regard to the circular issued by the War Office, I accept the Government's statement that they take full responsibility for it. But anyone who reads it must see at once that it was written by a novice. That, however, does not get the Government away from the position. The circular has been sent out with the connivance of the- War Office. My information is that the gentleman who drew it up has already been kicked out of the War Office and unloaded on to some other Department. With that one must feel a certain amount of satisfaction. But there is a, point to which I want to direct the attention of the Committee in regard to the issue of this circular, and here I am going to offer a little criticism which to me is very painful, because I am going to criticise some of my own colleagues in the trade union movement. At the particular time when this circular was issued I happened to be on my back suffering from a dose of influenza. But I read very carefully the report of each day's Debate when the Government introduced its Bill setting up the Coal Commission, and I noticed that one medical Member after another rose in his place in the House and warned the Government of what would happen if there was a strike of colliers. I can well understand that if the people of this country had been deprived of coal at that particular time the death-rate from influenza alone would have been something terrible. Therefore the Government had to face a great responsibility. There was a time when my colleagues and myself joined in the issue of a manifesto to the miners asking them to pause before they struck and to think of the consequences which would ensue. I am very glad to know that the miners did accept that advice eventually, but there were certain of their leaders who did not want that advice to be taken and who did all they possibly could to pre-
  1542
  vent its being accepted. Among them, and I say it with deep regret, was Mr. Smillie, who was one of the greatest dangers to the trade union movement——
  Mr. SPENCER:I should like to interrupt my hon. Friend. I have some knowledge of the subject, and I definitely declare that at the federation meetings Mr. Smillie himself advised that there should be no strike.
  Mr. JESSON: Yes, but before that time arrived Mr. Smillie was one of the men who tried to bring about a strike. Other members of the Miners' Federation, however, got to know what the position was likely to be, and obviously the Government dared not allow a strike of that magnitude to take place without doing something, not necessarily to break the strike, but to protect the public from what was going to happen. Undoubtedly, if there had been a stoppage of coal with the natural result of a stoppage of transport the country would have been brought to a standstill, and it would have been the duty of the Government, looking after the public interest, to have taken control of the whole of the coal in the country and to have rationed everybody. Suppose the Government, without attempting to break the strike, had rationed everyone except the miners, what would have happened? The strike would have been broken in a week. The impression amongst a certain class of people—;I think a wrong impression —is that the miners do not give a hang for anyone but themselves. I represent a very poor constituency. There is a large number of people who are living in two and three rooms. Their coal cellar is a bucket, which has to be replenished with coal bought at the rate of nearly £3 a ton. These people are not particularly enthusiastic about the miners' claims. I agree that the miners have had very hard conditions for many years and they are entitled to everything they are asking for, and I want them to have it; but other people are working under very hard conditions also. I want to see a closing up of the ranks of the trade union movement and for all to go forward together and not one to take advantage of the difficulties of others, and from that point of view I believe the Government is going on the right road. I believe we are going to get at a better understanding all along the line. In the meantime we have got to realise that the Miners' Federation is not the only trade union organisation in this country.

  1543
  There are 5,000,000 trade unionists. The miners only number, roughly speaking, 1,000,000, and the other 4,000,000 are entitled to some consideration.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has this anything to do with the Army Estimates?
  Mr. JESSON: I thought we were discussing the circular issued by the Government to find out what the position of the Army was going to be. A member of the Miners' Federation the other night practically threatened what the Miners' Federation had decided to do if the Government did not take a certain line of action. That is open to misconstruction. It seems to me that if the Miners' Federation has a right to threaten the Government if the Government will not do what the Miners' Federation says it ought to do, every other section of the trade union movement has a right to do the same thing, as has every other section of the electors who elected this House of Commons. We are all entitled to our views, but if a minority is going to enforce its will upon the majority by taking drastic action of that kind, it is up to the rest of the country to protect their interests also. I am deeply sorry to have to make an observation of this kind. I have worked for over twenty-five years id the trade union movement, and I believe it is the duty of someone to point out that the Miners' Federation does not rule this country, though they are taking action which looks very much as if they think they do. I think we ought to have some understanding. I am of opinion that if everyone takes the view that the Miners' Federation appears to take at present we are heading straight for anarchy. I cannot forget the action that a number of the miners' officials took during the War. I was one of those who went about the country doing my little bit to try to counteract the effect of their speeches and actions, and we cannot forget the number of lives that have been lost as the result of the action taken by certain members of the Miners' Federation and other organisations. We have the deepest regard for the last speaker, because he is one of the most sane and level-headed men in the trade union movement. That I am certain cannot be said for every one of them. What we want is for the trade union movement, which enormous future before it, to close up its ranks, to get rid of these extreme Bol-
  1544
  shevik ideas, and to assist in the organisation of industry, so as to bring about a. better and happier England.
  Mr. SPENCER: I should not have risen but for the speech to which we have just listened, which was directed not against the circular itself, but against the Miners' Federation of Great Britain. That body has a right to the unmeasured respect even of this House. It contributed as much to the War in material, in energy, and in support, both from the physical and moral point of view, as any other section of the community. There was time when the responsible Ministers of the Crown thought it was not only their duty but their privilege to speak in the highest possible terms of men belonging to the mining community. To-night we have an hon. Member making false and unfounded charges against the leader of the Miners Federation, and in general terms to make an unwarranted charge against the-miners connected with the federation.
  Mr. JESSON: Some!
  Mr. SPENCER: You never said some,, you used the term Miners' Federation generally. The attack you have made upon Robert Smillie, upon the leaders of the Miners' Federation, and upon the miners themselves is unwarranted
  Mr. JESSON: I made no attack upon the whole of the members of the Miners' Federation. I spoke of certain individual leaders—Smillie amongst them.
  Mr. SPENCER: The speech was in. general terms and the hon. Member did not seek to discriminate between any section of that community which has been as earnest in many respects, not only in. its advocacy of the claims of this country but in support of them, as any section of the community. At one time the Miners' Federation have sent 400,000 out of about 800,000, and in the early stages of the War, under the voluntary system, when men were so urgently required, there was not a section of the British community that contributed so loyally and so handsomely in reply to the calls of Great Britain in its direst moment as the Miners' Federation. I deprecate the statements which have been made and repudiate the charges which have been brought against them. Mr. Smillie holds a very important position in the Miners' Federation. They differed widely during the War, but it will not be denied that

  1545
  he is honest to the convictions and principles which ho holds, and even Robert Smillie has as much right to his opinions and convictions as any Member of the House. It docs not follow, if he has opinions and has the courage to express them, that he is always wrong and that he is a traitor to his country.
  Mr. JESSON: I think he is.
  Mr. SPENCER: You may think he is. Mr. Smillie is one of the most courageous, one of the strongest and one of the most straightforward leaders in the Labour movement. That bench always knows where he is. He is not a reed shaken by every wind that blows. He has been a true, honest, sterling leader of the workers of this country for many years, and I say that though he and I have differed upon very important points.
  The speech of the Secretary of State for War might be put down as a triumph of rhetoric, but it was lacking in sympathy, in imagination and in statesmanship. It was lacking in statesmanship because the right hon. Gentleman described Bolshevism as a disease, and he said ho would concentrate the whole of his energies upon stamping it out. But he has no regard to the causes which have been creating it. The function of a statesman is not so much to deal with the effect of a disease as with the causes that give rise to it. What arc the causes which have led to Bolshevism in Europe, and will undoubtedly lead to Bolshevism in this country? Military aggrandisement, economic servitude, and political bondage. Have not these things been rampant in Europe, and in Russia in particular, for years and years? Has not the military system in Europe been dominating in its influences, and, so far as Russia is concerned, has there not been economic servitude, and has there not been political bondage? The right hon. Gentleman thinks the disease of Bolshevism might take root in this country, so he, or his Department, starts out with a circular such as we have been discussing, trying to find out what is the relationship of the Army towards the efforts of the trade unions, and what action they are prepared to take in case of a great strike—an indication to any man's mind that if a great industrial conflict comes, at whatever cost and whatever may be the consequences, it must be crushed out. I ask again, is that statesmanship? A statesman would look into the causes of the disease.
  1546
  He would examine them, and would not waste his energy so much in seeking to cure it as in removing the circumstances which gave rise to it. How do they set about to deal with influenza? While it is raging they take every possible step to stamp it out, but the medical profession would not be worth its name if it allowed its efforts to stop there. The medical profession turns its attention to the principal causes, and seeks to stamp them out. In so far as the right hon. Gentleman has failed to direct his attention to the causes of the disturbance and unrest in this country, he lacks in statesmanship, in sympathy, and in imagination.
  We are passing through very trying times, times which demand of most of us reflection and forethought. We shall not be carried very far by recrimination, and we shall not be carried far by false charges. I know of nothing which, from the political point of view and the industrial point of view, makes a man bad so much as by constantly giving him a bad name. Call a man a Bolshevik, when he has no Bolshevik tendencies, but when a man is agitated for a moment, and his imagination is fired, and, sooner or later, when you have put your stamp upon him, he will be willing to carry it and willing to bear it. Many a man has been carried along in that direction owing to the fact that he has been continually stamped by that name. I believe the British Labour movement at the present time has no Bolshevik tendencies. The right hon. Gentleman, speaking to-night so far as Germany is concerned, told us that it was essential to have 280,000 men on the Rhine. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen have read the report of the soldiers who were sent into Germany to inquire into the economic, political, and military conditions of that country. Two reports have been issued, and the first of those reports is in language not to be misunderstood. Several of the delegations have declared that from the military point of view Germany is absolutely crushed, and that as a military power she is absolutely hopeless. That is the testimony of our own delegation in the report that has been issued. If that is perfectly correct, what need is there for the retention of such a large Army on the Rhine?
  If the foreign policy of Great Britain is going to be the policy of suppressing every people over whom we have influence, then it must inevitably follow that our military

  1547
  policy must run along these lines. The responsibility for the retention of soldiers in Egypt, Mesopotamia and in India, especially in India and Egypt, must rest with the Governments that have refused repeatedly to give a measure of self-government to those great countries. If that is to be the foreign policy that we are to pursue, then instead of there being any hope of our Armies being decreased there will be necessity for a definite increase of those Armies. A change must take place, and it can only take place either from the international point of view or from the national point of view in relationship to labour, and that those who are assuming the responsibility of office should make some effort to understand the minds, the aspirations, and the desires of those over whom they rule. There has been a special doctrine which has been promulgated from the Government Bench, and that is that we must produce, produce, produce. We have been told that there can be no salvation unless the workers of this country put their backs into the work of production, and we have been asked to tell Labour that there can be no salvation for them unless they can continue to produce. There is, undoubtedly, sound economics in a statement of that kind, but I for one, as a responsible leader, do not feel disposed to go to the house tops, and cry to man to produce, and produce more and more, with the knowledge I have that the wheels of industry have spun and spun before the War until they were all clogged by production, and then the labourer was told to stand on one side in periods of trade depression. I am prepared to cry, produce, produce, when the aspirations of labour are responded to and when there is an assurance given to a man that when they have produced they shall get a fair share along with others of that which he has helped to produce.
  Captain COOTE: This question is of great interest to myself as an ex-Service man, and is of general interest to the whole future and well-being of our country. After all, you must not forget that for some considerable time there will be kept in our Army, under force of necessity which I admit we cannot avoid, a very large number of young men. The future of this country depends upon its young men, and it is up to us—to use a military term—to see that those young men, when they return to civil life, should come back
  1548
  none the worse for their enforced absence. Why is it men have hated the Army? I hated it myself when I was in it, and I was in it for long enough. It is not the discipline. Discipline is both necessary and sanitary. It is the fact that Army life is dull. It is dull because it either consists in the repetition of tasks which are meaningless to the private soldier, unless they are explained to him, or else it consists in those yearly votes which many of us would prefer to avoid. How can we solve the problem of making our men interested in the Army in which they serve?
  It is a considerable number of years since the heads of our Army discovered that the private soldier had a brain. The first use they made of that discovery was to teach him how to kill intelligently. But that does not interest him much except in time of war. On the contrary, he becomes bored even with that. You must have something else. I am glad to say that even before I left the Army myself a system of education in its wider aspect had-been started in the Army. It is upon the system which has been established that I wish to say a few words. If I bore the House, at least I shall have the assurance that there are not many Members in it to be bored. The present system is, in my opinion, not a very satisfactory one. You can produce statistics of the numbers of subjects that arc taught, and the numbers of men who go to classes, and so on, but that does not mean to say that you are giving the men any really vital information upon subjects which they ought to know about. To teach a man you must have an efficient teacher. Everybody in this House realises that the ordinary regimental officer cannot in the nature of things make an efficient teacher. Very often he is a public school or university man. I do not wish to go into the question of the system of public school or university education. But I do not think that it fits a regimental officer to instruct his men simply and intelligently. It is not meant for that sort of thing.
  Anybody who has been in a regimental mess during the War will know what the general tone of conversation at the mess was. It was reviews, frivolity, and so forth. I do not want to see the men in the Army a set of pedantic prigs, but I do think that one of the greatest tragedies of this War is the way in which young men were herded together when they were too young to have really thought things out

  1549
  for themselves, and many of them were unfortunately killed before they had time to do anything of the sort. What I would suggest, with all deference, is that there should be some organised system set up so as to train efficient officer instructors for our Army. I am convinced that no system of education which we try to establish in our Army will ever prove a success until something of that sort is done. After all, it is not the discipline which men hate, and it is not that officers take up towards the men an attitude calculated to irritate the men. The majority do not. But as an ordinary regimental officer right through the War, when I was not a private, I remember being distinctly irritated on many occasions by the airs which some officers of superior rank gave themselves. It was extraordinarily irritating when you wore footsore and weary, coming towards the end of a twenty-five mile march, to see some gentleman drive past on a 25 h.p. car looking fresh and clean when you were feeling worn out. It is the unintelligent insistence upon the privilege of officers which does so much to irritate the minds of the men.
  I pass to another subject, which, after all, has some relation to that on which I have ventured to make a few observations. We have heard a great deal to-night about a certain circular, and it seems to me that oven if the issue of that circular was justifiable, its publication is, to say the least of it, unwise, because it gives an example of the official mind at work. The official mind makes for statistics and definite knowledge, which I admit are essential to the Army, and on this particular occasion I do not say that there was any great crime, as some hon. Members have tried to make out, against any section of the community in endeavouring to obtain that information. But, after all, during this War we have had a certain number of foolish mistakes made. I am quite certain I should have made many more myself. I am not one of those who would have proposed to win the War by sitting in an armchair and telling people how it ought to be done, because I could not have done it nor could anyone have done it. But I do think that an enormous amount of good would be done by the introduction of a little more civilian influence in the War Office. After all, the right hon. Gentleman who made such an able and eloquent speech this afternoon cannot do everything. It seems to me that what he has done is proof of what a
  1550
  few more good men like him might do at the War Office. Take the question of demobilisation. Would such a scandal have occurred if common-sense had been employed in that question from the start? I think a great deal of rubbish has been talked about business men and Government. When business men get into a government they are rather liable to remember that they have unlimited capital and to forget that they also have limited liabilities. I feel perfectly certain that an ordinary man who has not been brought up to some narrow and specific purpose comes fresher to his task, and has new and more brilliant ideas than the man who has devoted himself to one certain class from his childhood. It is the principle of our constitutional Government. We always put amateurs in charge of our big Departments, and they do very well.
  A little more correlation is necessary in our system of educating men for the Army itself. Take Sandhurst and Woolwich. They have no correlation. You must have a system which will embrace training schools for officers, for only so can you ensure a genuine all-round stamp of man who will conform not to a plan exactly, but will have a certain universal knowledge which will carry him through to the top. When men go to Sandhurst they go, surely, after training in a public school where they have been in an Army class or some such thing, where their minds have been devoted practically exclusively to mathematics, map-making, and so on. But when they get to Sandhurst they have no opportunities of introduction to that wider learning which I think does some good to those who go to a university. Many are the outcries against the public school and university men, but after all they did their little bit in the War just as much as the Miners' Federation did their bit. I think that if we could get some such system at Sandhurst and Woolwich and other military centres for the training of officers as would give an officer a wider outlook and a more general experience of affairs, it would go very far to improve the general social tone of our Army. By social tone I mean to say that it would make the Army a more contented family instead of a combination of jarring and often discordant units.
  The few remarks I have had the temerity to address to the House have been made because I feel it is a subject to which more attention should be devoted than has been

  1551
  devoted to it in the past. It seems to me that just as in the civil life of the future much more is going to be made of education—because upon the children depends the civil life of this country—so in the Army much more attention will have to be paid to the education of the young men who go there, because the young men are the children of Army life. I do make this appeal with all sincerity to those in authority at the War Office, and I ask them to see whether they cannot introduce a little more amenity, a little more sweet reasonableness besides and apart from great politeness which does not carry any weight. In what I have said I hope I shall not appear to have been teaching my grandmother to suck eggs.
  9.0 P.M.
  Captain LOSEBY: I am very glad the last speaker has glanced away from this wretched circular, but I am afraid I must revert to the subject for one minute, because my Friend the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Jesson) has been slightly misrepresented in the matter. An hon. Member rather cleverly attempted to nail him in an attack upon the Miners' Federation. Of course, my hon. Friend did nothing of the kind. My hon. Friend merely referred to, and ventured to criticise, certain leaders of that federation, and to the opinion he expressed, I have no doubt he adheres. I would like once again to repeat, very simply and very clearly, the remarks of my hon. Friend in regard to the subject. As far as the standpoint of the particular party to which I have the honour to belong is concerned we make no pretence about it. We fully understand the position of the Government. We know there has been a blunder. We know that a stupid official stepped in and made a great blunder. What are the facts? We were threatened with a Triple Alliance which meant revolution. [Cries of "No," from the Labour Benches.] The Triple Alliance as it threatened this country at this time meant revolution, and when hon. Members bring that about in this country let them at any rate remember that they have been warned. That is what it will mean when it is put into full operation, and I say quite deliberately—and I know it will be used against us—that the Government that did not at that particular time take every precaution to find out how the soldiers stood, if such a terrible thing as a revolution came upon this country—a Government that did not take steps to protect
  1552
  innocent people who did not happen to be members of a miners' federation, upon such a Government a most grave responsibility would have been placed, and a responsibility, the neglect of which would never have been forgiven them by the people. An hon. Member has said that had he been a civilian, had he been a politician, he would never have sent out that stupid circular. He did not even mean "strike breaker"; I am perfectly certain of it. It was a term that was used, "How do your soldiers like being used in time of strike?" [An HON. MEMBER: "Strike breaking."] He did not mean strike breaking, and the hon. Member knows he did not mean it in the ordinary sense of the term. I will only say the whole thing is a lot of noise about nothing. Hon. Members opposite made a great deal of capital out of it, but it is not worth a snap of the fingers, and they know it.
  Let me refer to Army topics which arc of such vital interest to all of us. In the next two or three months the Army is going to be made and built up, and according to the method of building its prosperity and future will depend. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to push forward at the earliest possible date as exactly as he can his statement as to pay, clothing, and messing arrangements of the Army. There are young men without incomes anxious to take up the Army as a profession. If the right hon. Gentleman delays too long, those young men will not know whether it is going to be an army for the rich man or for the ordinary intelligent man with ambitions, who wants to make a profession out of it, and if he cannot do so, then we are going to lose some of the most promising men for this great national institution. I have been approached on this question from several quarters. Is the Army going to be such that a young man can enter knowing that he can get right through to the top from, the ranks? I am perfectly convinced that we shall never adequately recruit our voluntary Army unless we give more hope to the ranks than we have given in the past. The old system will not do. I would urge with all the earnestness I can command that unless you are prepared to set aside a certain definite proportion of the commissioned ranks to the ranks, nothing will be effected. For example, to give encouragement you could say that you will take 50 per cent. from Sandhurst, 25 per cent. from the ranks— that is, from

  1553
  amongst the born soldiers capable of rising— and 25 per cent. from the special reserve of Territorials or whatever it may be— of men found late in life, but whose instincts and aspirations are those of the soldier. The old system, I venture to assert, was most unfair to the ranks. What happened? You pitchforked a man, at the age of about thirty-five, because he happened to be one in a thousand, suddenly from one rank into another, and from one life into another, and with different typos of training involved. I suggest that every young man joining the Army should within six months be definitely told and instructed if his chances of a commission were reasonably good, and then within a short period he ought to be definitely trained. I am not a Regular soldier, but I have the most complete admiration for the Regular Army. I had the honour and privilege of serving in a Regular battalion for some time. I am not advocating this policy so much with the idea of improving the commissioned ranks, although I think it would, but because I am in favour of giving hope to and improving the ranks. I have heard opinions expressed in this House in regard to the relations between officers and men which have quite astonished me. I heard the hon. Member for Hull, this afternoon, himself a commissioned officer, talk in a contemptuous way about commanding officers, and I was never more surprised in my life. If people were ignorant and did not know anything about it, I could understand it. Knowing the little I do about the Regular officer's family life— which is the most delightful life in the world in many respects— and knowing the sense of esprit de corps which prevails amongst those officers, I am sure that when they realised that Private Brown or Corporal Jones or Private Smith were aspirants for commissions, 50 per cent. of those officers would vie with one another in assisting those men to become highly efficient officers. Nobody can teach officers but officers. They would teach them esprit de corps, and, more than that, they would assist them to learn those things which would help them to be happy in their commissioned rank. Whatever opposition there may be to this particular scheme that I advocate, I personally anticipate that there will be none from the younger successful ranks of the Regular Army, although I do acknowledge that there is a body in the Army so wedded to tradition, so conscious of the magnificent work that the RegularArmy has done,
  1554
  with such an admiration for their own class— with which I sympathise— that they are afraid to make any kind of innovation which they think might possibly spoil it. They are wrong. The day is past when any class can arrogate to itself any particular privilege. I am one of the last men in the world to advocate a class war, but I am perfectly certain that any such claims that have been made in the past have got to be surrendered, and surrendered at an early date. Some of us have been more fortunate than others, but I think the day is past when we should claim that we are necessarily better than others. Under the present system 'you have born soldiers, magnificent soldiers, with hope killed. I met one last night. He is thirty-three years of age, and has a splendid record, but he simply cannot get through. He was prevented from going to France. He is a non-commissioned officer and an extraordinarily capable man, and his great ambition is to get through to a commission, but he has no hope for another seven years, when he may become a quartermaster. That man should be on the "G" side and not on the "Q" side. To my mind nothing can be more obvious than that we shall have to do more for people of that description than we have done in the past. It is not necessary to labour the point in great detail. It has been seen during the War exactly how it could be done. Sandhurst would send its quota, the young officer battalions would be built up and trained in the actual practical side of soldiering, and at a given period they would go to the officers' school and get their commissions in the ordinary course. Another point which I would most earnestly impress upon the right hon. Gentleman is that the giving of commissioned service from the ranks is in my opinion quite useless unless you allow some proportion, say one-half, of the soldier's service in the ranks to count towards commissioned service. I know it is so in theory, but it is not so in practice at the present time. It is, I respectfully suggest, quite wrong to take a sergeant-major at the age of thirty-four or thirty-five, or whatever it may be, a man of long service and highly experienced, and make him the junior second-lieutenant. If that man under the present system is fit to get a commission, he is in my humble opinion fit to go straight through into the ranks of the senior lieutenants, so that within three months or six months he can get captain's rank. Another great problem

  1555
  which we have to get over is the system of promotion in the Army, and I am perfectly well aware that the same thing applies to almost the whole of the Civil Service. Seniority and not merit counts as regards promotion. In the Army, if you have two people competing for a particular post, and one man has fifteen years and two months' service and is a stupid fellow, while the other has fifteen years' service and is brilliant, under normal circumstances, unless an extraordinary amount of trouble is raised, the stupid man with two months' more service beats the more or less brilliant man. That is nationalisation. The hon. Gentleman speaking for the Secretary of State for War disappointed me more than I can say when he told me that promotion by merit had been tried during the War and proved to be a failure, and that he did not recommend it. What a terrible confession of weakness! Does it surpass the wit of man so to devise that under any scheme of nationalisation we shall not be limited to dull mediocrity, but that we shall have the right man in the right place? I know there are difficulties with regard to favouritism, and a hundred and one other difficulties, but surely it does not surpass the wit of man to defeat them. I could myself put forward a scheme at any rate better than the present dull scheme that breaks the hearts of ambitious men in the Army. Another very pressing grievance, which I know soldiers will be glad to see raised in this House, relates to the same point of seniority as against merit. Throughout the War we had men who had opportunities of really proving their merit. I myself know a young soldier who from the rank of captain reached the rank of brigadier-general. He picked up almost every decoration that was to be won in France. He was a brigadier for twenty-two months, and was recommended to be a Divisional General. The War ends, and he returns to England to take his rank as lieutenant-colonel, and serve beneath other officers who, because of particular disabilities in regard to their intelligence, never left the shores of this country. If the War Office do not take some immediate steps to alter that lamentable state of affairs, if we allow a premium to be put upon want of intelligence and upon stupidity, if we cannot find any scheme of selection possible under this nationalisation scheme, my only comment would be—I know it is not
  1556
  so—that they deserve the criticisms that have been passed upon them. I ventured yesterday to make certain observations in regard to the troubles with soldiers. I ventured to assert that our present troubles arose in spite of an excellent Government. I ventured to assert that there was no inherent vice in that Government, but I did venture to suggest that, there was a certain lack of imagination that was causing all the trouble. With imagination we can have a great and glorious Army, worthy of its magnificent past, and worthy of the future to which this country might rightly look forward, but without it, it is going to be a dull and soul-destroying machine, and at any rate it will be no place for the ordinary young and ambitious man.
  Commander DAWES: I wish to voice the grievance of a particular section of the community who have a particular cause of complaint against the War Office, and that is the Post Office servants who were induced to join the Royal Engineer Signallers on certain terms. The notice under which they joined was the following:
  "Post office servants enlisting as office telegraphists in the Royal Engineers (Regular Army) or Royal Engineers (Special Reserve) Signal Section are allowed full civil pay, in addition to military pay, when called up for service. They are liable for service abroad."
  I suggest that that to the ordinary individual would mean that the Post Office-servants were to receive exactly the same treatment as the ordinary soldier in the Army, plus civil pay. That was the bargain which the Government made with them, but the way they were actually treated was this: They got their civil pay, and they got their Army pay, but when the separation allowance was increased to the ordinary soldier, the Post Office deducted those additional allowances from the men's civil pay. That happened twice, and then the matter was brought up in this House, and, after a good deal of trouble, the Post Office gave way, and these men were given an extra allowance, and, I believe, were paid arrears. But there is another point. Every soldier and every officer receives a war gratuity, but these men are specially excluded from that war gratuity, and what I think makes things worse is that they are bracketed in an Army Order with persons who are suffering from self-inflicted injuries, conscientious objectors, criminals, and other people, and they do not like the company

  1557
  in which they find themselves. That matter has also been raised in this House by way of question and answer, and they have been told that although they are eligible for service gratuity they cannot get the war gratuity, and the reason given is that the service gratuity is a covenanted benefit, whereas the war gratuity is an un-covenanted or purely gratuitous benefit. Service gratuity is £l per year after two years' service, and as these men have merely joined for the duration of the War, I call it almost an insult to them to offer them the service gratuity. Why they should not have the war gratuity when every other soldier receives it I cannot imagine. It is said they have done very well, because they get their civil pay in addition to their military pay. That may be so, but that was the arrangement under which they joined, and I say that if the Army wanted their services, and if they offered them, in the terms of that notice, Army pay, it meant that these men were to get precisely the same pay and precisely the same gratuities as the ordinary soldier who enlisted in the ordinary way. They are special men doing special work, men whom it was impossible to get in any other way than by voluntary enlistment, men some of whom were forty and nearly fifty years of age, who volunteered and have been serving ever since, and I appeal to the Financial Secretary to the War Office to give these men sympathetic consideration. They are only a small class, and therefore I suppose one cannot get up anything like an election cry for them, but they enlisted under certain conditions, and I think these ought to be literally carried out.
  Mr. NEIL M'LEAN: In regard to the speech this afternoon of the Secretary of State for War, I should like to point out that to me, at any rate, his statement in regard to the attitude that we are taking up in Russia was a' disappointing statement, and I am quite certain, from a large number of letters I have received, letters which, I am certain, quite a number of Members of Parliament have also received, that the continuation by the War Office of British troops in Russia, and the assistance that is being given by the War Office in this country to either side of the belligerents in Russia, is a policy which ought not to be continued by the Government of this country. We are told that the reason why we are helping in Russia is because, first of all, Admiral Koltchak and those who are behind him assisted us in the War
  1558
  when Russia was our Ally, and that we must fulfil our obligations to those people. I should like to point out that it was first of all our Allies who broke away and who formed the very first Russian Republic by dethroning the Czar. It was Miliukoff and Kerensky before ever the Bolsheviks-adopted power. They ceased fighting, and if any obligation was broken, the obligation was broken in the first place by the individuals who brought about the first Russian Revolution.
  Captain ELLIOT: Surely it is a historical certainty that neither under Miliukoff or Kerensky did Russia cease fighting!
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): The hon. Member cannot argue the question by interruptions.
  Mr. M'LEAN: I do not know that it is so much a historical certainty as that Kerensky himself and the whole of the Russian people were so turned down with the condition in which they were, and in which they had been left by the Czar's regime, that they could not continue the War, and that they were praying for peace conditions in their own country. That is given as one of the reasons why we must support Admiral Koltchak. Another reason, the reason which is the strongest put forward, not merely by the Government but by most of the newspapers in this country, is that we must crush Bolshevism, because it is a disease, and because the Bolsheviks have been guilty of committing atrocities. I have as great a horror and repugnance of atrocities as any hon. Member in this House, but I should like to point out that it has not been the policy of this Government or of any Government in this country in the past to intervene in a foreign country or to send troops or munitions of war there merely because atrocities were being committed there. I can remember when an ex-Prime Minister of this country came out of his retirement, whither he had gone owing to bad health, and went on a campaign throughout the country appealing to the people to embark on a holy war because of the massacres by the Turks which were taking place in Armenia and Macedonia. He appealed to this country to put an end to them and to sweep Abdul the Damned out of Europe. I can remember, also, that the man who followed him round the country, denouncing the campaign which Mr. Gladstone was conduct-

  1559
  ing, was the then Liberal Prime Minister, Lord Rosebery, who used all his eloquence to persuade the country not to embark in any war, and painted the most horrible pictures of the horrors which that war would bring into the homes of the people of this country. Although the atrocities that were being committed in those countries at that time were atrocities against which every individual revolted, the Liberal Prime Minister had his way and the Turks ruled in Europe and massacred in Europe until the present war broke out. If atrocity is to be the cause of intervention, then we have a cause for intervening already in the new Polish State which we were responsible, in part, for setting up. It is on record in our own newspaper, and in the cablegrams that have come through, that almost one of the very first actions performed by the Polish Government was the massacre of 2,000 Jews in the town of Vilna. Yet no one says that because of those atrocities we ought to send a British Mission to Poland to put the Government out of power which we first of all placed there and to put in their stead some other Government which will give us pledges which we can see they will redeem.
  All the excuses that have been given for keeping our men in Russia, are excuses that will not hold water. The people of this country, the trade unionists of the country at their conferences and at the trade union branch meetings, are passing resolutions demanding the withdrawal of our troops from Russia. Yet those troops remain. Why? What is the cause of it? The real cause is not the cause which the Secretary of State for War gave to-day. The real cause is because there is so much British capital invested in Russia, and because we want to be sure that there is a Government in Russia which will safeguard the capital invested. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!" and "No, no !"] It is estimated that there is to-day invested in Russia £1,600,000,000 of European capital.
  Sir C. HANSON: Not British.
  Mr. M'LEAN: Most of it is British.
  An HON. MEMBER: German.
  Mr. MACLEAN:No, not German. But, if it is German, British shareholders are in the same company. I have their names here. That is the real reason for the conflict in Russia. The money of the
  1560
  capitalists of this country is being invested side by side with the Germans— the Hun whom you have been denouncing for so many years, and whom you have been, fighting for four and a half years— they are investing money in that country and trying to draw dividends from it; that is the real cause of the intervention in Russia. We find volunteers being appealed for to go to Russia, and responding. I have not yet heard or seen in any paper the name of any gentleman amongst those in these records which I have of shares who has volunteered to go out to Russia to fight for his investments. It is the boys who have gone through the War, and who are drawn from the working classes. Hon. Members denounce the Bolsheviks, applaud every statement that is made against them, and shout down everyone from this side of the House who tries to say anything that is looked upon as Bolshevism by them. I find hon. and right hon. Members of this House with money invested in Russia. I find three Gentlemen who sit on the Front Government Bench with money invested in Russia. [An HON. MEMBER: 'Why not?'"] Why not? Then do not let us have it said that we are there for high ideals. Tell us the right reason why you are there: to fight for your investments, as you went to war in South Africa for the goldfields.
  An HON. MEMBER: We could not relieve our soldiers there.
  Mr. M'LEAN: You are sending a relief corps and ships out there. We were told by the Secretary of State for War this afternoon that the ice had already broken up. You are able to send a flotilla of boats up the river, and, if you can do that, you can bring the boys in a flotilla down the river and home. You cannot have it both ways, and say that the river is ice-bound and snow-bound, and yet that you are able to send troops up a river that is passable and navigable. I find the Secretary of State for War making speeches, as is usual. He tells us that the reason that we are in Russia is to keep the Germans from going over into Russia. But there is no fear of that now. Yet they are still there; we are still sending guns; Russian soldiers, even under Admiral Koltchak and General Denikin, we are told, are armed with British weapons, and in some cases clothed in British Army clothing. Munitions of war and guns are sent from this country. Why? Another evidence of the strength

  1561
  of the armament trusts in this country. It is because the investors, shareholders, and directors in the Birmingham Small Arms Company and in Armstrong, Whit-worth and Company have money invested. That has always been the game of the armament companies. They say, "Let us go to war, lot us have scares of war, so that we can unload our stocks upon some country, reap the money from it, and divide the surplus amongst our shareholders."
  The Secretary of State for War spoke of self-determination. Self-determination, he told us, is a word coined by the Bolsheviks. I thought it was our own Prime Minister who got up the self-determination compaign. This is the latest one of Bolshevism, that they are now accused of having coined the term "self-determination." The right hon. Gentleman says that self-determination is one of those ridiculous expressions coined by the Bolsheviks in the early days of their attack upon the prosperity and freedom of the Russian people. Self-determination, now, is a phrase that was coined by the Bolsheviks: a ridiculous expression. Yet we were told that in this War we were fighting for the self-determination of small nations.
  Now it is a ridiculous expression ! When he makes such a statement as this at a public meeting, as he did in Dundee, can we wonder that such a circular as was published by the "Daily Herald" has gone out from the Department of which he is the chief? Ho told us that self-determination does not give any half-wit the right to order any community about. The community in this country has a right to know all that it is being asked to do. Pledge after pledge that has been made by the Government has been broken, not only to the people of the country, but to the soldiers. We were told in April that a number of those boys were to come home. Now it is pushed further on; we shall get them home by June or July— if the exigencies of the Service allow. If Admiral Koltchak or General Denikin fail upon some of the fronts on which their men are fighting, what guarantee have we from the Government to-day through the Secretary of State for War that we will not send larger bodies of troops out to Russia to fight against the Bolsheviks there, and to assist Denikin and Koltchak. As I have said, the right hon. Gentleman himself admitted that the soldiers did not want to go to Russia. The people
  1562
  in this country do not want a war with Russia. We have been told we are not at war with Russia. But we are going to recognise Koltchak and Denikin, if they will give guarantees that, the conditions they will establish in Russia will be similar to the conditions in this country. Why, in the Kevensky Government— not the Bolshevik Government— the land of Russia was made the public property of the people of Russia. We have not got that in this country. Is Admiral Koltchak to give a guarantee that they arc going back to private ownership in Russia just as we have private ownership of land in this country?
  It is the old reactionary game. The-Government of this country does not want to see a Government in Russia that is a Government really of the people. The-Government of Russia—Russia itself—should be allowed to fight out its own battles, and to settle its own quarrels inside its own frontier. We have no right to interfere with the interests or self-government of Russia. Time, and time again, the history of the last twenty-five years in Europe has shown instances in which, if this particular method you haw adopted with regard to Russia had been the policy of this Government, or any other Government in this country, you could have had opportunity after opportunity of intervening in the various Governments in Europe. It is the old question over again—the trail of the financial serpent—men who say they cannot find investments in their own country, invest abroad, and when rebellion, civil war, or revolution springs up in that country, they are scared because they fear the loss of their capital. If they risk their capital abroad, when times of disorder come, they fear they are going to lose it, and they use the interest they undoubtedly have with the Government to have intervention in those countries, to send troops to prevent their capital from being lost. That is the capitalist method of governing a country, and that is the financial method of running the respective countries of Europe at the present time. My view, at any rate, is that we should come out of Russia—bring our boys back from Russia.
  An HON. MEMBER: Desert the people?
  Mr. M'LEAN: The people did not invite you there. We have heard from the Secretary of State for War this afternoon that they went there at the invitation of Admiral Koltchak and General Denikin,

  1563
  not on behalf of the people or at the invitation of the people. [An HON. MEMBER: "It was!"] There was an invitation for volunteers. As I have said already, not one of the men whose names I have here—and I have the names of 1,500 British shareholders in Russia—has volunteered to go to Russia to fight for his investments there. If they want to light for their money, or if their money is worth saving, let them go and fight for it. The opportunity has been given. Let those boys who were sent to Russia before there was any idea of Bolshevik Government, come back from that country, and let the conscripts whom you are sending out, have the right to say they are not going to Russia. It is all of a piece with the military system now established in this country. We went into a war to end all wars. We went into a war to crush Prussian militarism. Yes, and Prussian militarism is the one commodity in the world that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has allowed to come into this country without putting a tax upon it. [An HON. MEMBER: "No preferential tariff there!"] Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who support the Government are evidently under the impression that, because a man, whether he be a Member of Parliament or a trade unionist, stands up for any section of the community outside his own country or for a section of his own countrymen who are being sent out to another country against their will, is necessarily a friend and a supporter of all the disorder and of all the atrocities that may be alleged, or actually committed, by the people whom you are sending those men to put down. Bolshevism is a disease; Bolshevism is a fester, so we are told to-day. What is Bolshevism? Is there an hon. Member in this House who will define Bolshevism? Your newspapers give you different definitions. If a man is the least extreme in his language, he is a Bolshevik. If he is extreme in his views, he is a Bolshevik. Everything and anything that does not agree with the individual who is using the epithet is Bolshevik. That is how you describe Bolshevism to-day; anyone who disagrees with you, who will not agree with whatever you want him to agree to, he is a Bolshevist. That is your definition—at least that is how you carry it through. The workers of this country are Bolshevists. The right hon. Gentleman on the Front Government Bench repeatedly appeal to us as the responsible leaders of Labour
  1564
  who are not Bolshevists, but sober, strong union leaders who will not take the men to extreme lengths. The Leader of the party on the other side of the House told the whole country on the eve of the election that every Labour candidate was a Bolshevist, and that to vote them down was the only guarantee the people of this country had of material security. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members say, "Hear, hear!"
  Major BREESE: Will the hon. Member cite his authority for that statement?
  Mr. M'LEAN: Will I cite my authority? At Camberwell Baths on the eve of the election the Prime Minister made a statement asking the people of this country to vote against the Labour party as the Bolshevist party. A couple of months after that he did not go to hon. Members opposite to whom he had given his coupon to back him up and support him in view of the industrial unrest. He convened a mooting of the trade union leaders, and appealed to them as the saviours of society to form an industrial council. The election was then over, of course. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had all got in. The right hon. Gentleman had no proper use for you in this respect. So I say that from this side of the House that, at any rate, so far as Russia is concerned, any intervention by the Government will be opposed by the heads of the trade union movement in this country. You can describe the trade union movement as a Bolshevist movement if you like. We are not concerned about names. You may hoodwink the unthinking a few times, but sooner or later you will be found out. They know that the real Bolshevists of this country are yourselves because "Bolshevist" in Russia only means the majority. You are the majority. You are the Bolshevists. We are the Mensheviks. So far then as we are concerned intervention must cease. We want no repetition of the secret order or secret circular which has been issued, and that we are now told is withdrawn. We have been told that in similar circumstances the Government will use all the power of the State to maintain the rights of the community against any section.
  An HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear, and "loud laughter!"
  Mr. M'LEAN:The rights of the community against any section! Do we find

  1565
  the Government asking the troops to send in their views as to the Big Five, as to the operations of the Meat Trust in America sending up the price of food to their relatives in this country? Do we find that the troops are being asked to send in their views in regard to the land owners of this country, who are pre venting——
  Mr. D. HERBERT: I understand the hon. Gentleman to suggest that the Government should ask the soldiers of this country their opinion as to the conduct of certain meat trusts, subjects of the United States of America. I want to know if he suggests we should interfere in the affairs of the Americans and America?
  Mr. M'LEAN: My answer to the hon. Member is that we expected that the soldiers would have had a chance of giving an expression of their opinion at the general election. The way in which the voting was "wangled" did not give them the opportunity. We do not find the Government inviting the views or opinions of the soldiers in regard to other sections of the community—in respect to those who hold up the community and refuse land. There must be no repetition of the secret order. There must be no further secret circulars sent out. If there is I as a trade unionist, as a Labour Member, as a Socialist, if a similar circular is sent out and made public, or if the proposition in the circular which was sent out is attempted to be put into force; if a body of troops is sent down to be used, in the language of the Circular, as strike breakers, if they are ordered out against a crowd, if they are ordered to fire—I tell hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, with full knowledge of what it means, with full responsibility for what I say, what I shall do. I shall tell any meeting I address in which soldiers are standing that if orders of that kind arc given to them in facing a crowd of strikers to refuse to shoot their fellow workers who are on strike.
  An HON. MEMBER: The soldiers will do their duty.
  Mr. J. JONES: They certainly will not do that duty.
  Mr. M'LEAN: The duty of a soldier is not to obey blindly any order that may be given to him by a half-witted officer.
  An HON. MEMBER: Shoot the officer.
  Another HON. MEMBER: Why not?
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. M'LEAN: You had an officer found to be insane who actually ordered three prisoners to be shot. We arc against intervention in Russia. We have had sufficient fighting. We want our instruments of production, the majority of which have been turned into implements for the manufacture of war armaments, to be turned back again to peaceful pursuits. You are not able to employ the people of this country who want employment so long as you are having war gambles on practically every part of European soil. You are going to have your industries going full speed ahead when there is peace, and in your own country feeling is satisfied. There is no satisfaction in your country to-day, no feeling of rest and security, because no one knows to which part of the world you arc going to send troops next. We are told that the war on the Continent is finished. We are told the War is ended. The Secretary of State expects that peace will be signed next month. Let us see that it is a peace. Let us see that all people whose brothers, or husbands, or sons are in the Army understand that the War is finished and that there is no fear of casualties from further fighting. We hope peace will be made. We are near June, and the next month will be July, and in those two months we must bring the soldiers back because the rivers will be flowing and the ice is breaking up, and they will be able to come away. Let us bring the soldiers back in June and July to this country and send no further soldiers out, or munitions either to Admiral Koltchak, General Denikin or even to the Bolsheviks, and let them fight it out until all their war material is used up, and then they will have to stop. So far as we are concerned we are not out to take possession of Russia because of the untold wealth there. We are not out to go there because a few hon. Members and capitalists and bankers outside have invested hundreds of millions in Russia. We do not want to lose the lives of our sons, but we want to build up in our own country a system of society that will enable those sons to live comfortably and peacefully, and earn the right that they deserve, the right to a good life.
  Captain ELLIOT: I am almost ashamed to intervene, especially after the very powerful speech which has just been delivered. I have no intention of replying to

  1567
  that speech or of commenting on any statement which the hon. Member opposite has made, except one statement. It seems to me a pity to allow to go unchallenged the statement that Miliukoff and Kerensky withdrew from the War against Germany, and betrayed this country. It seems not only a pity but somewhat of a shame to accuse gentlemen who at any rate did their best to carry out the engagements their country had undertaken with deserting their Western Allies at a time of most desperate peril. We shall never forget in this country that Kerensky launched an offensive on the Southern front when his own position was tottering, and the disastrous result of that offensive was one of the main factors in the outbreak of the Bolshevik revolution, which led to so many things which we all so deeply deplore.
  I do not wish to discuss the Bolshevik revolution, and I only wish to mention in a casual and temporary sort of way something about the future of this country. I am sorry that the President of the Board of Education has gone out of the House, because I merely wished to point out to him that he has in his hands the greatest chance that any President of the Board of Education ever had. I wish to ask him to embark on a campaign which I think would meet with the approval of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and even of that intangible force which rules our destinies—the Treasury. It is not only practical and easily practicable, but of all things it has a merit which should commend it to the country—the merit of cheapness. We have 50,000 of our young men out on the Rhine. At this moment we have the universities flooded out with students, and one of the most encouraging, heartening, and inspiring facts which have resulted from this War—a fact which I have not seen commented upon in the public Press—is that the young men of this country are coming back and flinging themselves into the universities. They have rushed for education, and taken to learning like a thirsty man drinking long draughts of water. As a Scotsman, perhaps I may be considered suspect in this enthusiasm for water, but I beg to assure the House that it is not a meretricious sentence.
  I really think the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War would do well to take into consideration the starting of an educative campaign on a much larger scale than has ever before been embarked
  1568
  upon. We have the very condition which the Labour party has been clamouring for years. We have young men in their formative stages of character being kept free and maintained. They wake up in the morning without having to think where their food is coming from, they wear Army clothes, and their imagination, need be in no way disturbed by these matters.
  Why not seek to give them some idea of the great Empire of which they are a part? The opportunity is being frittered away by hard-working and decent people. We have Young Men's Christian Association people trying to educate our young men all round, but I should like to see the right hon. Gentleman conscript professors and send them out. Any professor would deem it an honour to be sent out. Let him conscript Gilbert Murray and send him out to explain his opinions on Greek. Let him conscript Robert Smillie and send him out to give a course of lectures on his views of citizenship, and let the right hon. Gentleman also follow that course by another series of lectures by a Duke, giving his views of citizenship. We want to wake up the minds of these young men. We want to stir up their imaginations Mr. Robert Smillie is an eminent gentleman with one son in the Army, one in the Navy, one at Princetown, and one in gaol, and he tells us he honours them all. We want to get the young men of whom I am speaking educated. We want to stir them up to a conception of this moving world in which they are taking their part. We want to see the chief administrators of Africa and of Asia sent out to explain to these 50,000 men their views. This is an opportunity of lecturing to great audiences which any professor, any educator, or any agitator would be only too proud to grasp. This is a great chance; do not let it be frittered away. I only wish to ask the Secretary for War if it is not possible for him to take advantage of this chance to embark upon one of those stunts of which we have had too few from his fertile imagination, and to make himself as famous as an educator as he has made himself famous in so many other branches on which he has entered.
  Mr. HOGGE: I am certain the House does not hear enough of my hon. and gallant Friend who has just sat down. If the Secretary of State for War had ever a gleam of intelligence he would at once appoint him as the Director of Intelligence

  1569
  to the Armies on the Rhine, and, in addition to the suggestions he has already made, lectures he could make on anti-vivisection would fill in his leisure time. We have had a very interesting Debate, which reminds me very vividly of other discussions we have had with regard to secret circulars. Over and above the Regulations which were laid down by this House, certain secret circulars were issued giving intimation to the medical men who put men into the Army to put them in on certain fines. I do not mind at any time being up against the Government. I think this Government is thoroughly unsound, and I should like to see it out of office tomorrow. You may not agree with that, but it is an intelligible position. I do not think it is governing the country properly, but for my sake let us have honest government. Do not let us have the Government presenting one face to the House of Commons and another to the men who are in the Army, and that is what secret circulars mean. I do not mind the Secretary of State for War taking responsibility for anything that is done in his office, but let us have it above board. Do not let us have a circular unearthed by a daily newspaper or by an ordinary Member of the House. If they want to play that game, play it honestly. If for the moment they have a majority behind them in this House they are entitled to it, but do not let them hide up the methods they are adopting. With regard to Russia, I think this House and the country do not want to go to war with Russia. They are very alarmed at the position in which we find ourselves, and if the Government desires to be as honest with the House and the country as it is in all other mutters, let it say exactly what are our commitments in Russia, and let us know what it is we are called upon to support, or, on the other hand, what we on this side of the House will oppose.
  I want to raise three very practical questions which are affecting the Army and are contributory causes to a great deal of the discontent which arises at present among men who are demobilised. The right hon. Gentleman said a few weeks ago in this House—I do not blame him, because he has to present the case of the Government—that the subject of war service gratuities could not be reopened. I want him to reopen it, because I feel strongly that this is one of the contributory causes of the discontent that exists among discharged and demobilised men
  1570
  to-day. Take a man who is discharged or demobilised from the Army after an average service in war of four years. That man may have been wounded. If he has been wounded he is in receipt of a disability pension. Having served abroad his war service gratuity is £5 for the first year and 10s. for every subsequent month, so that on the average of four years' service war service gratuity is £23. There will be a deduction for service gratuity which will make a slight difference.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): My hon. Friend is wrong.
  Mr. HOGGE: I do not think I am. Let us put that on one side; it is not worth quarrelling about. We will take it at £23. A man who is wounded, who is wearing three wound stripes and who has fought four years is given £23 on discharge or demobilisation, while a man who is retained in the Army of Occupation, who probably will not have been called upon to fight, and in many cases has not fought in the War because he is of the eighteenth year class is entitled to a bounty of £50 on re-engagement.
  Mr. FORSTER: £50 for four years' engagement.
  Mr. HOGGE: £50 for four years' engagement. Well, I am giving you the war service gratuity for four years. Let us be fair. My right hon. Friend knows that I have attempted to be fair throughout the War. Here you have the case of a man with four years' war service, who has fought and been wounded, and who gets £23, say, without any deduction, while the man who has not been wounded gets £50 bounty when he re-engages for four years.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: If we had not offered that inducement to re-engage on a voluntary basis the hon. Gentleman would have been one of the first to complain.
  Mr. HOGGE: If the right hon. Gentleman had taken proper means of inducing the men he would not have required to conscript men. He would have got his men for the voluntary Army if he had offered the right kind of inducement. We do not want in this country a large body of men who are discontented with their treatment. That is the point to which I want my right hon. Friend to address his mind. A man who has never fought, who is to act as a policeman in the Army of

  1571
  Occupation on the Rhine, not as a soldier, is going to receive twice as much as the man who has served four years and has been wounded.
  I invite my right hon. Friend to consider the point, and to give us some satisfactory answer if he can with regard to it. Take, for example, the case of the boy, who joined the Army in the enthusiasm of his patriotism, at an age below the minimum age recognised by the War Office, and said that he was eighteen years old, when he was below that age, in order to serve his country. When that boy was brought out of the Army, and was then called up later on when he was eighteen, he is not paid his war service gratuity for the years he served under eighteen. My right hon. Friend would not defend that for a moment, and yet you wonder, when hundreds of men come to this House, to protest against the way in which this House treats them, and you say that they have not a good case. My right hon. Friend himself was an officer, in charge of a Scottish battalion during the War. It would be interesting to know if he had got his war service gratuity. He is entitled to 124 days for his first year of service and for sixty-two days for every subsequent year's service, and if he has not drawn his money yet, he will be obliged to me for reminding him, that he has it to his credit, and may draw it at any time he wishes to. Why should we have any distinction between men and officers in the way of war service gratuities? If you take the day's pay of the average private, including rations and allowance, the Financial Secretary would agree that 3s. is not too high a figure.
  Mr. FORSTER: His pay is 3s.
  Mr. HOGGE: Then that proves that I am not putting it too high. If you take 124 days for the first year's service, and sixty-two days for each of the three subsequent years at 3s., that would amount to £47, which is within £3 of the amount that is paid in bounty to the men who reengage. I want to suggest to my hon. Friend—and I think I have some title for recommending something of this kind—that if he, on behalf of the Government, would say to the discharged men, "In view of the fact that men are getting £50 for re-engaging we will give you the same terms of war service gratuity, based on pay and ration allowance," he would arrive at a figure which the average dis-
  1572
  charged man would be prepared to accept. We are up against a fairly serious problem. I do not know how many Members of this House listened to the Debate yesterday on the question of the discharged men. Those who did will agree with me that the Minister of Labour did not meet the case, that he adopted are absolutely non possumus position on behalf of the Government, and that he never met for a moment the case of the man who wants work to-morrow or at the week-end. However many excuses may be made it has to be remembered that there are nearly half a million men who have fought for us and cannot now get work. It is a position which you cannot avoid and for which some remedy has got to be found. With regard to war service gratuity alone the men say that they are not being met generously by the Government. I suggest to the Financial Secretary that it is in his power to allay a great amount of unrest by making the men feel that they are not being treated differently from any other class. That is my first point. My second point is one which interests a large number of soldiers from a sentimental point of view. When the 1914 Star was awarded to the soldier a distinction was made between the man who had actually fought and the man who had served but not fought. To-day, therefore, you find that the man who had actually fought is wearing with his Mons ribbon a rosette, which is not available to the man who did not fight. I approve of that; I think a distinction ought to be drawn. I want to ask this: There is also a 1915 Star, and the 1915 Star ribbon is of the same colour as that of the 1914 Star. A great number of the men who served in 1915 and were eligible for the Star fought and were wounded just the same as the men who were eligible for the 1914 Star, and there are also great numbers of men eligible for the 1915 Star who never fought in 1915. Arc you going to draw a distinction for 1915 between the men who fought and the men who did not fight? What business have you to mark off by a certain ribbon, which is the same for both years, the men who fought and the men who did not fight?
  I want to carry this a little further. There are other medals which have been given for this War. There is the Military, Cross which was given because the D.S.O. could not be given to subalterns. A great many subalterns won the Military Cross with very distinguished bravery in actual

  1573
  fighting, whereas a large number of men who are wearing the Military Cross got it for work for which everybody ought to have the fullest contempt. I know men who are wearing the Military Cross, and whose only service was carrying dispatches across the English Channel, as against many young men who won it for bravery in the field. It is the same with the D.S.O. Many men are wearing the D.S.O. who never smelt powder during the War, and who never saw a shell except in transit between Victoria and some Southern port. I suggest that what the right hon. Gentleman should do is to set up a committee of some kind in the War Office which will distinguish between the kind of honours which arc won. One man wins the Military Cross in the trenches and is entitled to the distinction, and it is given to the chief cook at the base, who provided food for the troops. So, too, with the D.S.O. A man has no business in this War to wear the D.S.O. on his breast for services rendered in the War when the D.S.O. is supposed to be a distinction given for bravery. I make no other comment except that the matter has to go a great deal further than giving a rosette on the 1914 Star, which leaves the 1915 man who fought and was wounded unable by the wearing of that ribbon to indicate to anybody that he took part in this War. My third point, and my last, is as to Reparation allowances, a familiar phrase to my right hon. Friend. I want to remind the House that although we set up a Committee at the beginning of the War to make arrangements by which the wives of men who offered their lives in our service should receive separation allowances, it is not at all certain that in the Army of Occupation the wives of those men are going to receive that separation allowance. I have in front of me, and I will quote it to my hon. Friend, Army Order 124 of 1919, in which there appears this paragraph:
  "The rates of separation and dependant's allowance, including special parent's allowance."
  Hon. Members will recollect that the special parents allowance was an allowance of 5s. a week given to the parents of all boys who joined who could not establish pre-war dependence, and it was an allowance which was not operative until after three and a half years of war had gone by—
  "including special parent's allowance now in force, will be continued in the case of men in respect of whom they were issuable on 10th December, 1918."
  1574
  This is 29th May, 1919. I want to ask my hon. Friend if he can tell us what that all means. Let me put to him quite a simple case. A man who has been serving in the Army, say, for three years, re-engages in the Army of Occupation. Because he reengages in the Army of Occupation he gets a certain amount of leave. He can get up to three months. If that man marries, as he frequently does— [Cries of "No, no!" and laughter]—I am sorry if I have suggested anything approaching bigamy—[laughter]—but if that man marries, shall we say, during his three months' leave prior to rejoining the Army of Occupation, does this House know that that man does not get the separation allowance? If my hon. Friend says that is wrong, I shall be very glad to know it. Army Order 124 of 1919 states that, and states it explicitly. I know, and my hon. Friend knows from the communications I have had with him, that there are many cases in which that is so. Therefore, I want to know from him whether he can state absolutely that any man, single, who rejoins for the Army of Occupation, will, if he marries, get separation allowance for his wife, and whether the married man who joins for the Army of Occupation will get separation allowance for his wife and dependants' allowance for his children? Can my hon. Friend tell us whether the War Office intends to pursue the policy which has been pursued in the Army during this War with regard to the New Army? It is quite true that they have raised the rates of pay and have made other concessions. But can my hon. Friend assure this House that, in addition, separation allowances are to continue as they were before?
  Those are the three points upon which I would respectfully ask my hon Friend to give us some information. Is the War Office prepared to reconsider the amount of the war service gratuity? Is the War Office prepared to come to some reasonable and clear definition with regard to the question of medals? Can my hon. Friend say that the question of separation allowance for wives and dependants is to continue as in the Army that served us during the War I These three questions, I think, affect very largely the domestic life of the people concerned, and in my view, if those questions are satisfactorily answered, it will go much further towards satisfying people and making them content than replies on larger questions of policy.
  Mr. FORSTER: Before I say anything in answer to the three questions of my hon. Friend, I should like to make a couple of observations with regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. M'Lean), who seems to find it impossible to get it out of his head that the British Government can be actuated by anything but sordid motives in their conduct of the campaign in Russia. Frankly, I greatly regret that after the speech which was made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, the opinion which appears, I am afraid, to be ineradicably in the mind of the hon. Member for Govan should have remained unshaken, for I think the Secretary of State for War made it abundantly clear to anybody who would bring to bear anything in the nature of an impartial judgment that the reason why we were still engaged in military operations in Russia was nothing to be ashamed of, was not animated by a sordid motive of any kind, and would be brought to an end as soon as possible. The hon. Member for Govan pressed upon the House the necessity of bringing back from Russia those who, having been taken into the Army under the operation of the Military Service Act, have not yet been demobilised. If he had heard the speech—and I think he did—of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, he must have taken note of what my right hon. Friend said, that he was actually now engaged in arrangements to bring back from the North of Russia all the men who were serving in virtue of the Military Service Act.
  Mr. N. M'LEAN: The Secretary of State also said he was sending out there conscript officers.
  Mr. FORSTER: Not conscripts—volunteers.
  Mr. M'LEAN: He mentioned under the Military Service Act—conscript officers.
  Mr. FORSTER: I think there must be some misunderstanding of what my right hon. Friend said in regard to that. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the forces who are sent out to Russia to enable the Military Service Act soldiers to come back are volunteers to a man.
  Dr. D. MURRAY: Are only the conscripts to be brought back; are not those who volunteered to go last year to come back?
  Mr. FORSTER: If they volunteered to go they will stay there.
  Dr. MURRAY: I mean, not those who volunteered to stay, but volunteered to go.
  Mr. FORSTER: I can assure the hon. Gentleman there are large numbers of men who are volunteering to stay, and those men, of course, will not be brought back. I should like to say one word with reference to the observations that fell from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Ely (Captain Coote) and the hon. and gallant Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot) with regard to the provision for education of the troops in the Army of Occupation and elsewhere. I do not think there has ever been a time when such a large effort, and I hope largely successful effort, has been made to provide educational opportunities for our young soldiers.
  During the last six months, very large efforts have been made to bring opportunities of education within the reach of all the troops. It may be quite true, and I am afraid it is, that those who impart that education are, in many cases, not as thoroughly equipped as either they or those whom they teach would desire. But if we were to wait until we have secured a large body of thoroughly trained and thoroughly competent teachers, I am afraid that those who are now receiving such education we can offer them would long have outgrown their educational age. I was very interested to hear a suggestion of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), that the hon. and gallant Member for Lanarkshire should be invited to take a position of importance in the educational organisation of the Army. I can imagine nothing that would reflect greater credit upon that organisation than acceptance by my hon. and gallant Friend. He, it may not be generally known, is doing research work of especially valuable character in one of the great hospitals, and I think it is doubtful whether, under those circumstances, he would feel justified in going into the world of education. The hon. and gallant Member for Bradford was anxious to know something about the pay and conditions of service of the future armies. May I say, incidentally, how glad I was to hoar the high tribute which he paid to the feeling throughout the Army generally for its officers. It certainly corresponds with everything I have heard from a great many sources, and I was glad to hear his

  1577
  expressions in regard to it. I say frankly that I wish I could tell the House what the pay and conditions of service in future are going to be. I am not in a position to do that; I can only tell the House that all these matters are receiving the careful, anxious, and continual attention of those who are responsible in the War Office. Further than that I cannot carry the matter to-night. I hope that we shall be able to come to some decision about it before very long, and I trust we shall make an announcement very shortly.
  The hon. Member for East Edinburgh asked me three questions. The first was with regard to the war gratuity, as measured in relation to the bounty which we offer to those who are re-engaged to form the Army of Occupation. I should like to say at once that I know very well that this matter has been exercising the minds of the discharged men. Only quite recently, within the last few days, I received a deputation from the National Federation of Disabled and Discharged Sailors and Soldiers, and one of the points that was laid before me was this very question, and they couched their request almost in the identical words that the hon. Member for East Edinburgh used to-night. I told them, and I think the House will expect me to tell the House also, the reason why we gave—why we found ourselves obliged to give—so large a bounty. The reason, frankly, is that, as everybody knows, the whole Army, to use an expression which has become a classic during the War, is "fed up" with military service. Is it not perfectly natural that when men, who have been fighting for the last four years, get the opportunity of coming out of the Army they are going to take it as soon as they can? We had to take steps to secure a large number of men for the Army of Occupation, and we found that it was essential to attract men to give them the high bounties which we have promised. The hon. Gentleman says, "What an invidious comparison! You offer £50 for four years' future service which may not be war service at all, and £23 for War service during which a man may have been wounded and will inevitably suffer all the discomforts of active campaigning." But has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that a great many of the men are getting both? They are getting the war gratuity and the bounty as well.
  Mr. HOGGE: They are not getting it.
  Mr. FORSTER: Because the war gratuity is not being paid until after discharge. Where the man re-engages with out a break in his service, he gets three months' leave, he gets the bounty of £50 for the four years' engagement——
  Mr. HOGGE: In instalments.
  Mr. FORSTER: Is this a new grievance? Is it a grievance that he should get £50 bounty? The hon. Member only a moment ago thought that was too large. Is it a grievance that he is to get it in instalments?
  Mr. HOGGE: This is another point. As the right hon. Gentleman knows——
  The CHAIRMAN: I really think the hon. Member has left a very short time to the Minister.
  Mr. FORSTER: I never mind interruptions because, after all, I am anxious to deal with the hon. Gentleman's points, and the hon. Gentleman, even although we may not always agree on these matters, is very well informed, and he and I have often had very fruitful discussions. I want to suggest to the hon. Member that a great many of these people will be eligible both for the war gratuity for their past service and the bounty for their future service, and I think, when you come to reflect upon the services that they have rendered during the War, and their response to the request that we made for volunteers for the future, you will not grudge what the War Office has been able to offer to them. Let me make this one further observation. I undertook to the deputation that waited upon me the other day that, while I could not hold out any great hope that the amount of the war gratuity would be increased, the whole question should, at any rate, be reconsidered. It is being reconsidered now, but I must guard myself against the danger of arousing any false hopes with regard to the possibility of an increase. The second point that the hon. Gentleman made was with regard to two war decorations—the 1914 and the 1914–15 Star. I cannot do more for the moment than say that the point which has already been considered, will be considered again, and further than that I cannot go. I know perfectly the very strong feeling there is amongst those who are now in the fighting Armies in regard to this matter. I sympathise with it. The third point is the question of separation allowances for the

  1579
  Army of Occupation. It must be remembered that, by the Army Order, where a man was in receipt of a separation allowance on a certain date that the separation allowance is renewed in respect of his services in the future. There are those who joined as boys; The hon. Member opposite knows that quite a considerable number of the soldiers who have volunteered for the future Army are boys; in respect of these boys separation allowance is not payable until they come upon the married strength. They have to sign a statement. This is definitely explained to them, and they understand it. Until the conditions of service of the after-war Army have been finally decided we have no power to go beyond that.
  Mr. HOGGE: This is very important. From 10th December, 1918, are we to
  understand that the man who re-engages in the Army, upon his marriage, will not get separation allowance for his wife?
  Mr. FORSTER: The man who re-engages without breaking his service will get separation allowance and all privileges.
  Mr. HOGGE: If he marry on leave?
  Mr. FORSTER: The man who marries without breaking his service, the man who re-enlists without breaking his leave, will get this.
  Mr. HOGGE: That is quite clear.
  Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £49,000,000, be granted to His Majesty for the said Service."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 47; Noes, 149.

  Division No. 39.]

  AYES.

  [11.0 p.m.

  Adamson, Rt. Han. William

  Hirst, G. H.

  Sitch, C. H.

  Arnold, Sydney

  Hogge, J. M.

  Smith, W. (Wellingborough)

  Bell, James (Ormskirk)

  Jones, J. (Silver-town)

  Spencer, George A.

  Brace, Rt. Hon. William

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Spoor, B. G.

  Bromfield, W.

  Kenworthy, Lieut-Commander

  Swan, J. E. C.

  Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)

  Lunn, William

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

  Cairns, John

  Morgan, Major D. Watts

  Thorne, Col. W. (Plaistow)

  Cape, Tom

  Newbould, A. E.

  Walsh, S. (Ince, Lancs.)

  Carter, W. (Mansfield)

  O'Grady, James

  Waterson, A. E.

  Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)

  Onions, Alfred

  White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Wignall, James

  Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton)

  Williams, J. (Gower, Glam.)

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)

  Young, Robert (Newton, Lancs.)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Rose, Frank H.

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Royce, William Stapleton

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Capt.

  Hartshorn, V.

  Shaw, Tom (Preston)

  A. Smith and Mr. Neil M'Lean.

  Hayday, A.

  Short, A. (Wednesbury)

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, Capt. C.

  Colfox, Major W. P.

  Henderson, Major V. L.

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Martin

  Colvin, Brig-Gen. R. B.

  Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)

  Hood, Joseph

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Cory, J. H. (Cardiff)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

  Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John M.

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

  Barker, Major R.

  Davies, Major David (Montgomery Co.)

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

  Davies, Sir D. S. (Denbigh)

  Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)

  Barnett, Captain Richard W.

  Davies, T. (Cirencester)

  Howard, Major S. G.

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Dawes, J. A.

  Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)

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

  Dockrell, Sir M.

  Hurd, P. A.

  Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)

  Doyle, N Grattan

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Betterton, H. B.

  Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)

  Jesson, C.

  Birchall, Major J. D.

  Eyres-Monsell, Com.

  Jodrell, N. P.

  Borwick, Major G. O.

  Fell, Sir Arthur

  Johnstone, J.

  Bowyer, Capt. G. W. E.

  Forestier-Walker, L.

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

  Breese, Major C. E.

  Forster, Rt. Hon. H. W.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Foxcroft, Captain C.

  King, Com. Douglas

  Brittain, Sir Harry E.

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Law, A. J. (Rochdale)

  Broad, Thomas Tucker

  Ganzoni, Captain F. C.

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

  Brown, T. W. (Down, N.)

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

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

  Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John

  Lister, Sir R. Ashton

  Campbell, J. G. D.

  Goff, Sir R. Park

  Lloyd, George Butler

  Campion, Col. W. R.

  Green, J. F. (Leicester)

  Locker-Lampson G. (Wood Green)

  Casey, T. W.

  Greenwood, Col. Sir Hamar

  Lort-Williams, J.

  Cayzer, Major H. R.

  Gregory, Holman

  Loseby, Captain C. E.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Gretton, Col. John

  Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

  Clyde, James Avon

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Mallalieu, Frederick William

  Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

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

  Malone, Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Hacking, Captain D. H

  Marriott, John Arthur R.

  mason, Robert

  Pulley, Charles Thornton

  Sugden, Lieut. W. H.

  Mitchell, William Lane-

  Purchase, H. G.

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Molson. Major John Elsdale

  Rae, H. Norman

  Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Morltz

  Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.

  Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)

  Moore, Ma.-Gen. Sir Newton J.

  Reid, D. D.

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

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Renwick, G.

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  Morrison, H. (Salisbury)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Vickers, D.

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Robinson, T. (Stretford, Lanes.)

  Waring, Major Walter

  Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)

  Rodger, A. K.

  Whitla, Sir William

  Murray, John (Leeds, W.)

  Roundell, Lt.-Col. R. F.

  Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

  Nall, Major Joseph

  Rowlands, James

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

  Neal, Arthur

  Royden, Sir Thomas

  Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, W.)

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

  Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

  Wilson, Col. Leslie (Reading)

  Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

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

  Worstold, T. Cato

  Oman, C. W. C.

  Seager, Sir William

  Yate, Col. Charles Edward

  Parker, James

  Shaw, Capt. W. T. (Forfar)

  Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)

  Parry, Major Thomas Henry

  Sprot, Col. Sir Alexander

  Younger, Sir George

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

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

  Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

  Stephenson, Col. H. K.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord E.

  Pownall, Lt.-Col. Assheton

  Strauss, Edward Anthony

  Talbot and Captain Guest.

  Pratt, John William

  Sturrock, J. Leng-

  Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now Adjourn," put, and agreed to

  Resolution to be reported upon Mon-lay next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  TRANSPORT (METROPOLITAN AREA).
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to investigate the congestion in the existing means of transport in the Metropolitan area together with the question of fares:
  Committee accordingly nominated of Lieut.-Colonel Archer-Shee, Mr. George Balfour, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Clement Edwards, Mr. Foreman, Mr. Gilbert, Sir Park Goff, Sir Frederick Hall, Mr. Higham, Mr. John Jones, Mr. Kennedy Jones, Mr. Lane-Mitchell, Major Nail, Mr. Newbould, and Lieut.-Colonel Assheton Pownall.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

  ANIMALS (ANÆSTHETICS) BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; read the third time, and passed.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Adjourned accordingly at Eleven minutes after Eleven o'clock.

  INTERNED GERMAN SHIPS.
  INTERNED GERMAN SHIPS.
  HOP CONTROLLER.
  HOP CONTROLLER.
  FOOD SHORTAGE, CENTRAL EUROPE.
  FOOD SHORTAGE, CENTRAL EUROPE.
  CLOTH GOODS (EXPORT).
  CLOTH GOODS (EXPORT).
  PROVISIONAL VALUATIONS (APPEALS).
  PROVISIONAL VALUATIONS (APPEALS).
  HOME BREWING (RESTRICTIONS).
  HOME BREWING (RESTRICTIONS).
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (COMPENSATION REGULATIONS).
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (COMPENSATION REGULATIONS).
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (COMPENSATION CLAIM).
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (COMPENSATION CLAIM).
  GOVERNMENT LABORATORY (TEMPORARY ASSISTANTS).
  GOVERNMENT LABORATORY (TEMPORARY ASSISTANTS).
  DISABLED SOLDIERS (EMPLOYMENT).
  DISABLED SOLDIERS (EMPLOYMENT).
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  CENTRALISED BUYING.
  CENTRALISED BUYING.
  MESSRS. SPILLERS AND BAKERS (PROFITS).
  MESSRS. SPILLERS AND BAKERS (PROFITS).
  CLUBS (BEER RATION).
  CLUBS (BEER RATION).
  NATIONAL SHIPYARDS (CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION).
  NATIONAL SHIPYARDS (CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION).
  BRITISH TRAWLERS LOANED.
  BRITISH TRAWLERS LOANED.
DEMOBILISATION.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
  RATES OF DEMOBILISATION.
  RATES OF DEMOBILISATION.
  DEMOBILISERS
  DEMOBILISERS
  INDENTURED APPRENTICES.
  INDENTURED APPRENTICES.
  CIVIL SERVANT (RE-INSTATEMENT).
  CIVIL SERVANT (RE-INSTATEMENT).
  ARMY OF OCCUPATION (RATIONS).
  ARMY OF OCCUPATION (RATIONS).
  ARMY ORDER ("GRIEVANCES").
  ARMY ORDER ("GRIEVANCES").
  RHINE AEMY (TRAINING).
  RHINE AEMY (TRAINING).
  SOLDIERS AWAITING REPATRIATION.
  SOLDIERS AWAITING REPATRIATION.
  1914–15 STAR.
  1914–15 STAR.
  GENERAL SERVICE MEDALS.
  GENERAL SERVICE MEDALS.
BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.
  EVACUATION OF KUT.
  EVACUATION OF KUT.
  LIST OF NAMES.
  LIST OF NAMES.
  GERMAN RECORDS.
  GERMAN RECORDS.
  ARMY DESEETERS (FORFEITED SERVICES).
  ARMY DESEETERS (FORFEITED SERVICES).
  ARMY MEDAL RIBBONS (SALE).
  ARMY MEDAL RIBBONS (SALE).
  INCOME TAX (RETIRED SERGEANT-MAJOR).
  INCOME TAX (RETIRED SERGEANT-MAJOR).
  HIS MAJESTY'S FORCES (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT).
  HIS MAJESTY'S FORCES (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT).
  REQUISITIONED PROPERTY, SOUTARI.
  REQUISITIONED PROPERTY, SOUTARI.
  AGRICULTURE (EMPLOYMENT OF SOLDIERS).
  AGRICULTURE (EMPLOYMENT OF SOLDIERS).
  ALLIED FORCES, SCUTARI.
  ALLIED FORCES, SCUTARI.
  NON-COMBATANT CORPS (PAY AND GRATUITIES).
  NON-COMBATANT CORPS (PAY AND GRATUITIES).
  MOTOR TYRES (AUCTION SALES, SOUTH AFRICA).
  MOTOR TYRES (AUCTION SALES, SOUTH AFRICA).
  TRANSIT CAMP, PORT SAID.
  TRANSIT CAMP, PORT SAID.
  GERMAN PRISONERS (EMPLOYMENT).
  GERMAN PRISONERS (EMPLOYMENT).
  COMPENSATION CLAIM (W. C. FIELD).
  COMPENSATION CLAIM (W. C. FIELD).
  MILITARY EXPEDITIONS (SUBVENTIONS).
  MILITARY EXPEDITIONS (SUBVENTIONS).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  CASE UNDER INQUIRY.
  CASE UNDER INQUIRY.
  NEW ARMY (GRATUITY).
  NEW ARMY (GRATUITY).
  DECEASED SOLDIER'S GRATUITY.
  DECEASED SOLDIER'S GRATUITY.
  CIVIL LIABILITY GRANTS (REGULATIONS).
  CIVIL LIABILITY GRANTS (REGULATIONS).
  DEMOBILISED OFFICER'S APPLICATION
  DEMOBILISED OFFICER'S APPLICATION
  ARMY STORAGE, CHILWELL. NOTTS.
  ARMY STORAGE, CHILWELL. NOTTS.
  GOVERNMENT MOTOR CARS (USE BY OFFICIALS).
  GOVERNMENT MOTOR CARS (USE BY OFFICIALS).
  GOVERNMENT SURPLUS MOTOR VEHICLES.
  GOVERNMENT SURPLUS MOTOR VEHICLES.
  SUPPLEMENTARY TEACHERS.
  SUPPLEMENTARY TEACHERS.
  INTERNED SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION).
  INTERNED SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION).
  INDIAN ARMY (POSTING OF OFFICERS).
  INDIAN ARMY (POSTING OF OFFICERS).
  POLICE FORCES (PENSION SCALES).
  POLICE FORCES (PENSION SCALES).
  POOR LAW RELIEF (CHILDREN).
  POOR LAW RELIEF (CHILDREN).
  IMPORTED HOPS.
  IMPORTED HOPS.
  BIRMINGHAM TRAMWAYS (RAILS CONTRACT).
  BIRMINGHAM TRAMWAYS (RAILS CONTRACT).
  WIRELESS INSTALLATIONS (MERCHANT VESSELS).
  WIRELESS INSTALLATIONS (MERCHANT VESSELS).
  CONSTANTINOPLE MAILS.
  CONSTANTINOPLE MAILS.
OUT-OF-WORK DONATION.
  CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
  CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
  BOOT AND SHOE TRADE.
  BOOT AND SHOE TRADE.
  EMPLOYERS' STATEMENTS.
  EMPLOYERS' STATEMENTS.
  AGRICULTURE (LABOUR SHORTAGE).
  AGRICULTURE (LABOUR SHORTAGE).
  EX-SERVICEMEN UNEMPLOYED.
  EX-SERVICEMEN UNEMPLOYED.
  ROYAL COMMISSIONS (MEMBERS' ALLOWANCES).
  ROYAL COMMISSIONS (MEMBERS' ALLOWANCES).
  ROYAL COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, CIRENCESTER.
  ROYAL COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, CIRENCESTER.
  SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1911.
  SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1911.
  RURAL TRANSPORT, SCOTLAND.
  RURAL TRANSPORT, SCOTLAND.
  SCOTTISH COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURE.
  SCOTTISH COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURE.
  KEW GARDENS (CONSTABLE).
  KEW GARDENS (CONSTABLE).
  ALLOTMENTS (TENURE).
  ALLOTMENTS (TENURE).
  PASSPORTS.
  PASSPORTS.
  GALICIA (ALLEGED ANTI-JEWISH POGROMS).
  GALICIA (ALLEGED ANTI-JEWISH POGROMS).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

LOCAL ELECTIONS (PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD SHANDON: My Lords, on behalf of Lord Parmoor I beg to present a Bill to enable local authorities to adopt a system of proportional representation.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Shandon.)
On Question Bill read 1a.

STONEY'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill, intituled An Act to dissolve the marriage of Anna Theodosia Hester Stoney, of 69 Adelaide-road. Dublin, in the County of Dublin, with Leigh Sadlier Stoney, a Lieutenant-Colonel (retired) in the 4th Battalion, Royal Irish Fusiliers, her now husband, and to enable her to marry again, and for other purposes: Presented (on Petition), and a copy of the Proceedings in and the Decree of he High Court of Justice in Ireland, King's Bench, Division (Matrimonial): Delivered (on Oath): Bill read 1a.
REIGATE CORPORATION BILL.
CHEPSTOW WATER BILL.
FYLDE WATER BOARD BILL.
MILFORD DOCKS BILL.
Read 2a.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: My Lords, the events of the last few days have drawn the attention of every member of your Lordships' House to the importance of this question, and the moment appears opportune for the Second Reading of this Bill, to which I trust your Lordships will assent, the general principles being, I believe, approved by all. The main
900
object of the Bill is to extend the statutory requirements as to wireless telegraphy installations on merchant ships. It is proposed to require every passenger steamer or every cargo vessel of 1,600 tons gross to have a wireless telegraphy installation, and operators and watchers as may be necessary. The Bill is wanted because the only requirements on the Statute Book as to wireless on merchant ships are those contained in the Merchant Shipping Convention Act, 1914, which Act is not in operation. The Act was passed on the result of an International Conference which prepared an International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, but the war intervened before the Convention could be put into operation.
This Bill is necessary because, even if the Merchant Shipping Convention Act, 1914, were in operation, the wireless requirements for merchant ships would still be inadequate. Under the Convention Act only ships carrying fifty or more persons are required to be fitted with wireless. During the war cargo ships with a smaller number of persons on hoard have been required to be fitted with wireless if of 1,600 tons or over, and experience has shown that wireless is very useful for large cargo ships as well as for passenger steamers. The Bill is wanted because the present requirements have been imposed wider the Defence of the Real in Act, and may not be in force very much longer. The main grounds for putting forward the Bill are: (1), the safety of merchant ships will be increased, wireless being useful not only in the interest of the safety of the ship fitted with it but in order that other ships sending out wireless calls may have a better chance of the wireless call being picked up and help given; (2) the Admiralty want as many ships as possible fitted with wireless so that any measures they wish to take for the safety of shipping, either in peace or in war, may be taken immediately, and this involves all large merchant ships being fitted with wireless; (3) wireless operators have been required on merchant ships in large numbers during the war, and it would be very inconvenient if the present requirements under the Defence of the Realm Act lapsed with no statutory obligation of owners to fit their vessels with wireless. Wireless operators would largely be thrown out of employment, and, should the demand come for wireless operators for merchant ships, they would then be unavailable. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. (Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the. Whole House.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH BILL.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Reasons for Commons disagreement to certain of the Lords Amendments.
[NOTE.—The references are to Bill (44) as first printed for the House of Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
Clause 6, page 4, line 37, after ("appoint") insert ("into Parliamentary Secretary and")
The Commons disagree to this Amendment because they consider that two Parliamentary Secretaries are necessary for the transaction of the business of the Ministry.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 7, page 6, line 16, leave out from ("Sections'') to the end of subsection (5).
The Common disagree to this Amendment because it is consequential on the Amendment made by the Lords in page 4, line 37, to which the Commons have disagreed.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, I beg to move that the Reasons for the Commons disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I have to ask your Lordships now to consider the Reasons for the Commons disagreeing to certain Amendments, and I move that you do not insist on your first Amendment. I tried my utmost on two occasions to make out my case for the second Parliamentary Secretary, and I do not propose to repeat what I said on those occasions. But I should like your Lordships to allow me. to say once more that I recognise clearly the objections which were very forcibly put forward to the multiplicity of posts, and as I then said—although I am not quite certain that I carried very much the belief of your Lordships—I really sympathise with the desire for economy which was endorsed by two majorities. I have only to say that I believe in the truth of what I then said as to the fact, as I considered it,
902
that the exclusion of this second Parliamentary Secretary would not tend to real economy of time and labour. I believe now, as I did then, that he is necessary for the proper devolution of the work of the Ministry, and as regards the efficiency and the expedition of that work; because the area of control and the volume of work will be difficult to estimate. The Minister was engaged for two years and more in constructing this Bill, and I respectfully submit that he should know and be the best judge of what, is the necessary help that he would require. Your Lordships will, of course, readily believe me when I say that I consider it to be most presumptuous of me even to suggest that I should advise you, but I may perhaps remind the House that the proposal was in the first instance carried in the House of Commons without any dissent whatever, and a night or two ago the same proposal was carried by a majority of seven to one. I would venture to express the earnest hope that your Lordships may be satisfied with your sincere and vigorous protest, and not insist on the Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
LORD DOWNHAM: I ask your Lordships to be resolute in the opinion to which you came, after two very full debates, that no case whatever had been made out for two Parliamentary Secretaries in this new office of the Ministry of Health. The noble Viscount in charge of the. Bill has just said that the Minister of Health was engaged for two years in constructing this Bill, and therefore, after two years of deliberation, ought to know whether or not two Parliamentary Secretaries were necessary. I, too, was engaged for two years in constructing this Bill, and the Minister of Health, Dr. Addison, and I came to exactly the same conclusion after two years deliberation—namely, that only one Parliamentary Secretary was necessary. When Dr. Addison presented this Bill to the House of Commons and sent it up to Grand Committee there was no clause in the. Bill enabling the Minister of Health to have two Parliamentary Secretaries. Therefore during the whole of those two years the Minister for Health had come to the conclusion that he did not need more than one Parliamentary Secretary, and it was only by an afterthought that a clause was slipped into the

903
Bill at a later stage by which the Minister for Health should, for his convenience—as it was put, and that was the only argument given—have an extra Parliamentary Secretary.
I think I may say that after three and a half years in the Local Government Board I know that Department "inside out and outside in," and I say that there is no case whatever made out for another Parliamentary Secretary. The Minister for Health can appoint as many Secretaries as he likes so long as he can get leave from the Treasury to finance them. For what is a Parliamentary Secretary needed? The main use of a Parliamentary Secretary is to carry Parliamentary work through the House of Commons are the Committee stages of that House. I know that during the time I was at the Local Government Board we carried through litany more first-rate Acts of Parliament than any other Department, yet it was not necessary to have more than one Parliamentary Secretary.
Let me remind the House that the Government is not only asking for an additional Parliamentary Secretary for the Ministry of Health for England and Wales, but has obtained in a Bill for Scotland another Parliamentary Secretary for that, part of the country. Further, they are about to ask both Houses of Parliament for another Parliamentary Secretary for the Ministry of Health for Ireland. So that we shall have no less than five Parliamentary Secretaries for Health in the House of Commons. I think I may take it from the concession that was made to us the most magnificent concession that was made to us that the first Parliamentary Secretary for Health is to be, in your Lordships' House in the first instance. But how long is the "first instance" going to last? When that period is over, probably in two or three months, there will be five Parliamentary Ministers for Health in the House of Commons, all paid salaries, all having private secretaries who are also paid salaries; and I do say that it is surely time, if the other House will not make any protest., that this House should make some protest against the wasteful and wanton expenditure that is constantly going on.
There is really a serious danger that the Executive may get too strong for the independent members of the House of
904
Commons. It seems to me, if we go on at this rate adding two more Parliamentary Secretaries to the nine already created during the war, that half the members of the House of Commons will soon be in the Executive and the other half will be wishing to be there. Therefore, when we were told that on a division the other night this addition of a Parliamentary Secretary was carried by seven votes to one, I am not surprised. There are a great many very ambitious men in the House of Commons, and it is a tempting thing to them no doubt to wish to climb the ladder by getting their feet on the Parliamentary Secretariat in the first place. It is becoming a real danger in the House of Commons that too many of the able and independent men will all, sooner or later, be having Government official rank. They will be tempted to join the Government and lose their independence in the House of Commons. I believe your Lordships may come to this conclusion—that the country is with you and not with the other House in this matter, and that the country is seriously disturbed at present by the multiplication of officials, not only in the House of Commons but out of the House of Commons. For these reasons I hope that your Lordships will be resolute in the position which you have taken up.
I am aware that sometimes, when your Lordships come into conflict with the other House and insist upon some Amendment that you have carried, you are in danger of losing a Bill. We are all in favour of this Bill for t he Ministry of Health. During its passage through this House it was received with universal sympathy, and I cannot help thinking that the Bill was strengthened by the Amendments which we put in. Surely there is no fear of losing this Bill because we insist on the attitude we have taken up as to a Parliamentary Secretary. I cannot imagine the Government dropping this Bill because your Lordships insist that no case has been made out, for a second Parliamentary Secretary. After all, we are told by the noble, Lord in charge of the Bill that in a very short time all the functions of the Local Government, Board will have to be redistributed among other Departments, and that the Minister of Health is going to part with a great portion of his work which relates to franchise, Poor-law, the oversight and supervision of local loans and of local authorities.

905
When the time comes and those duties are cast on other Departments, will not other Departments come to the other House and this House and say, "Surely if you are going to cast all these duties, say, upon the Home Office which were hitherto discharged by the Local Government Board, are we not entitled also to a new second Parliamentary, Secretary? So I say the game proceeds all along, and fresh demands are going to be created for Parliamentary Secretaries. If we insist upon the attitude we have taken up it is open to the Government at any time, if they really find that a second Parliamentary Secretary is necessary, when they are able to make out a case, to bring in a one-clause Bill making out their case, and, I am sure that we shall accept that Bill creating a second Parliamentary Secretary when we know how the duties are going to be distributed among different Departments and see that a case is really made cut. For my own part, if I can get anybody to divide with me, I shall divide your Lordships' House to insist upon the attitude that we have taken on two occasions after full and deliberate debates.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, it has very often been my lot, when sitting on the Front Bench opposite and also in former days from this side of the House, to deprecate a conflict with the House of Commons on Amendments to Bills which have passed through your Lordships House, and to ask your Lordships not to insist upon the Amendments yon have made. Rut on this occasion, unless some far stronger arguments are forthcoming from the Government Bench than any of those which we have heard or any which were used in another place when your Lordships' Amendments were considered, it seems to me that your Lordships will have no choice but to adhere to the conclusion you have reached.
The noble Lord who has just sat down has used one argument to which it appears to me there is no answer. We have no idea at present of what the Parliamentary needs of this Office in the future will be. It is impossible to state how far it may be necessary for the Minister of Health in the future to have the support of one or of two subordinates to assist him in his Parliamentary work. As Lord Downham has pointed out, nothing will be simpler, if it is found that the burden of Ids work proves to be heavier than that of kindred Offices
906
and is so recognised by the House of Commons and by the public generally, than to introduce a one-clause measure for the appointment of an additional Parliamentary Secretary, which, if the case is a good one, would pass through both Houses without difficulty. It is surely, noble Lords opposite must recognise, a very strong order to assume, before we know what it really is, that the Parliamentary work connected with this Office will be so heavy as to demand this very special treatment.
But then we are given to understand that it is not Parliamentary work for which this official is required. We are told—the Minister chiefly concerned said as notch in another place that this gentleman is required, not for the ordinary duties of an under-Secretary in Parliament, but to act as a staff officer in the outside work, which has now apparently become so large a part of the conduct of Departments. When I spoke last time I said frankly that I considered this conception of the duties of an assistant Minister absolutely wrong. I do not believe it to be the duty of a Parliamentary Secretary to be perpetually working outside Parliament, whether it be in the conducting of private conferences or in the manipulation of public opinion through the medium of the Press. His place is in Parliament to defend the conduct of his Office there, and to assist the Minister in doing so.
This new system of the multiplication of Ministers who when they come into the House are naturally, as Ministers, bound and pledged to support the Government policy whatever it may be, but whose real duties lie outside in an obscure area of work unknown to the public, is in my belief a most unwise departure from the ancient practice. Unless it can be shown—and I do not believe it can—that the creation of this new official is necessary for strictly Parliamentary reasons, I cannot see why your Lordships should depart from the conclusion which, after a great deal of discussion and quite deliberately, you reached the other day.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I think perhaps some reply is due to the noble Marquess and to my noble friend Lord Downham. My noble friend spoke with great vigour, and, as the House

907
will readily recognise, with great experience. At the same time his speech appeared to me to be inspired by a certain animus which rendered him not altogether a fair judge of the situation he was describing. There was quite evident in his mind the impression that this was a case of wasteful expenditure introduced without any sufficient reason by the Government, with a disregard for the public interest, the Government being only anxious to add to the number of-Ministers on whose votes it could rely, and to extend the sphere of official patronage even beyond limits which are already regarded as excessive. If that were so, I should not be standing at this box to defend it. I can truthfully say that a. stronger opponent of the multiplication of offices, or of pluralism, does not exist than myself, and in so far as I have had any influence in the proceedings of the Government during the past four years they have been steadily inspired by that feeling.
But is this altogether a fair description of the situation? My noble friend Lord Downham said that no case whatever had been made out for this proposal. I have had time before coming down here to run my eye through the debates which took place in another place, and also in your Lordships' House, where the matter has twice previously been discussed, and certainly tile impression has been left on my mind, and it. exists in the mind of the House of Commons although the noble Lord decided the majority by which the matter was decided, yet it did decide by a majority of 170 to 25 in the direction Opposite to the noble Lord that this Ministry, when created, will involve an enormous addition to the work which has hitherto been undertaken by the Department in which the noble Lord himself has borne a distinguished part.
A good deal depends upon What you mean by the term "Parliamentary Under-Secretary," and what is the work you expect such an official to do. The noble Marquess has quite fairly seized that point, and he has stated a proposition from which I confess from my own experience, which may not be as great as his, I wholly differ. The proposition laid down by him, and also by Lord Downham, is this—that a Parliamentary Under-Secretary is a gentleman appointed, not to take part in the main in the administrative work of the Office, but solely to make things easy for his Chief in Parliament, to answer Questions
908
and make speeches. However active he may be outside, in the Department he is to be a cipher. I altogether dispute that description of the proper functions and duties of a Parliamentary Under-Secretary. I was one myself. It is now many years ago. When I was Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Foreign Office, under the late Lord Salisbury, it is quite true that my main duties—and they were by no means easy—were to defend the Foreign Office in the House of Commons: but my Departmental duties were at least as heavy. I was head of the Commercial Department in the Foreign Office which had to discharge an immense amount of work, and I know of no case in which a Parliamentary Under-Secretary either confines or is expected to confine his duties merely to I answering Questions and making speeches. He is expected to relieve the Minister of a portion of his work and can any of us shut our eyes to the fact that, in the present position of affairs, the call upon departmental activity, interference, and supervision is increasing every day?
I have been a Minister for only four years in the war, but I can scarcely express to your Lordships the degree of rapidity with which the complexity of public business is increasing, and it will increase all the more rapidly in proportion as Parliament and public opinion are insisting that the Government shall play a further part in the management of our affairs. I, for my part, am prepared to take the opinion of the Minister—in this case Dr. Addison—that the functions which this Ministry will be called upon to discharge cannot be adequately performed if he has only one Parliamentary Under-Secretary.
What is the real test of this matter? Let us brush aside all idea that the Government want to create positions and salaried posts, or to obtain Parliamentary votes upon which they will be able to rely. Let us look at it front the true point of view—that of the efficiency of administration. Is the Ministry justified or not in asking that it shall have two Secretaries instead of one? I have personally only two interests in the matter. One is the efficiency of the work in this new Department, on which so many hopes are based; the other is the due representation in this House of the interests of this new Ministry when it is set up. I do not think my noble friend is quite fair in what he said on that point. Lord Sandhurst, the other day, gave an

909
undertaking on the part of the Government that if these two Under-Secretaries were created one of them should have a seat in your Lordships' House.
LORD DOWNHAM: The expression was that "in the first instance" he should be in the House of Lords.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: That is quite true. And upon that the noble Lord builds the hypothesis that we may have an Under-Secretary here for a few months and then he may go, and that the concession will only be a nominal and valueless one because he will disappear, and we shall have the three Ministers in the House of Commons. If that is the fear entertained, my recollection is that I got up in the debate, after my noble friend had spoken, and emphasised and expanded his remarks with a view of meeting that criticism, and I said that, given that the case for two Under-Secretaries has been established, your Lordships have a perfect right to ask that one of them shall sit in this House. I think yon would make a mistake if you reject an opportunity of having one; and I am prepared myself in so far as my word carries any value, to give an undertaking that one shall sit in this House, and to give that undertaking in a form which as far as possible shall pledge succeeding Governments.
I look forward with anxiety if, when this great Ministry has been created and is beginning to discharge its functions, your Lordships' House, so full of goon of authority, experience, and judgment, has to rely in debates connected with these matters upon the assistance of a noble Lord who is, perhaps, engaged in other duties, and whose connection with the Department is only secondary. I was talking to Dr. Addison this morning, and he said, "Pray believe me not only is such a situation disagreeable to your Lordships; I can quite understand your feelings about the matter. It is equally disagreeable to time Department, because the. Minister in charge of the Department has to take up his own time in coaching the representative of the Ministry in this House.''
I would like now and here to take an opportunity of establishing the proposition that in these cases your Lordships' House has a right to a fair and equal share in the representation of the great Departments of
910
State. It is impossible, of course, to lay down a definite law which shall apply to every ease, for practice has long since shown that there are certain offices which are always filled by members of another place; and I ask your Lordships, accepting the pledge which I give, and which is a pledge that if these two Under-Secretaries are appointed one shall sit in this House, and that that shall be a pledge which, as far as it is possible to make it, shall be incumbent upon succeeding Governments—I ask your Lordships in your own interests not to throw away the opportunity that is thus offered.
It is quite true, as the noble Lord, Lord Downham, said, that your Lordships can persist, if you please. What are the two alternatives? The Bill may be lost, or very likely my noble friend is correct in saying that the Ministry in the House of Commons, or the House of Commons itself, with not lo lose the Bilk for a matter of this sort. But that does not cover the whole ground. I wonder if it is really worth our while—you have the power to do so, and perhaps are going to exercise it to have a fight with the House of Commons over a matter of this sort, it is easy to brush aside a majority of 145, but after all it is a fact, and if the House of Commons, having heard the case, has decided by that majority that it thinks the Minister has Made out a. case, ask your Lordships if it is worth your while to persist in your attitude at the cost of a quarrel out of which we can gain very little credit., and which will possibly go some way to embitter the relations with another place in the future. Therefore I venture to hope, although I am conscious that I have been pleading a cause to a House which has not hitherto been altogether favourable to my views, that your Lordships may reconsider the matter, accept the pledge I have given, I hope in a sufficiently definite form—if it is not in a very definite form, I am willing to make it so—and not persist in the attitude which you have already twice taken up.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not complain of the speech of my noble friend. He has spoken with very great respect of your Lordships, and has shown how conscious he is of the very serious grievance which your Lordships have against the distribution of offices in the Government, which deprives this House of the proper organs of Government

911
with whom it can properly deaf in public business. We are very grateful to recognise that, and I do not think that I ever heard the grievance recognised in such terms before. We shall remember them for future reference. I just parenthetically remark of these kindly pledges as regards your Lordships' House that there was no trace of them in another place. When two Under-Secretaries were advocated in another place two nights ago no one would have dreamed that either of them was going to sit in your Lordships' house. I think the House of Commons would have been very much surprised if that information had been given.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: May I say that I make the pledge with the knowledge and approval of the Prime Minister and of the Leader of the House of Commons?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not question that the noble Earl does. But may I remark, in parenthesis, that it is rather a death-bed repentance so for as the Government are concerned, We really are engaged upon this matter on broader grounds. The noble Earl spoke of the majority in another place. I am not going to repeat what Lord Downham said about the enormous number of officials who formed part of that majority, although that must be taken into consideration, but what we have to remember is this, that the present Parliament is in a very special position. I am sure my noble friend the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition will forgive my saying that there is no real Opposition in the House of Commons at the present time. The Opposition that there is, although led by men of distinction, is of such dimensions as not to be of a very important character, and therefore I think it will be seen that yon cannot treat the present House of Commons—although we treat it, of course, with profound respect—as we should treat an ordinary House of Commons.
There is really no opportunity in that House for the other side to the Government case being properly represented in the Division Lobby. No doubt there are some orators who make it good case, but when it comes to a Division the House is so enormously on one side that you really cannot rely upon the view which your Lordships' House has expressed being properly represented. Therefore there is
912
a very great responsibility thrown upon the Lords, when we know, as we do in this case, that we have the country behind us, that we are really representing public opinion, and that public opinion, for the reasons which I have stated. I cannot find its true expression in the House of Commons with the greatest respect, yet we feel the responsibility that there is upon us, and therefore we do not feel it possible upon a question of principle of this kind to give way so far as we are concerned.
I do not for a moment believe that there is going to be any difficulty in working the Ministry of Health because we do not give it another Under-Secretary. I do not want to repeat What has been said in previous debates, nor what Lord Downham has said this afternoon, but I would remind your Lordships in one sentence that the Local Government Board has been relieved, and is going to be relieved, of a great many of its functions, so that. although other functions are added, in the sum there is not much difference front what existed in former times. If in former times one Under-Secretary was enough, why in all conscience is not one enough now? That is the view which has been heard on previous occasions, and it is the view which we submit at the present time, and we believe that this multiplication of office, is a great and growing mischief. We believe that to a limited extent, but to some extent, it saps the independence of the House of Commons, and we believe that the country is determined if it can to reduce the number of officials and the number of salaries which those officials absorb. For these reasons, with great respect I ask your Lordships to adhere to your view.
LORD BUCKMISTER: My Lords, may I be pardoned if I say a few words in support of the view of the noble Marquess? I listened, as I am sure all of your Lordships listened, with the closest attention to the noble Earl the Leader of the House. I think he recognised, as we did, that he was advocating a cause which lacked popularity, and that he was doing his very best to make a case which upon the merits did not bear close investigation. One thing I was very glad to hear from his lips, and that was that if this is agreed to, one of the two Under-Secretaries should

913
permanently sit, in this House. I assume, of course, by that that he means it should be a term of the Bill, but the reason why it gratified me to hear it was this—that from the moment he said that, there must be removed from your Lordships' action upon this question any possible complaint that might be raised as to feelings of jealousy between this House and another place in regard to the distribution of offices.
If this Amendment is persisted in it is not because this House will regard itself as unfairly treated in the distribution of offices. It is for another, and, as I think, far more important reason. The real question is this. Has any sufficient case been made out to justify the unusual course of creating two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries in the constitution of a new Ministry, and it was for an answer to that question that I listened with attention to the noble Earl. But to that he gave no reply at all. All he said was that he was satisfied, after a conversation with Mr. Addison, that such was the case. The truth is that Mr. Addison cannot possibly know until the Ministry begins to work whether he will require this assistance or whether he will not, and the objection that is being taken to it is not that when it is found that an Office is over-crowded another person should not be appointed to discharge the duty, but that with the work as a whole unknown—and it must at best be nothing but problematical yon should start upon the assumption that two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries are required.
The noble Earl pointed out that the duties of a Parliamentary Under-Secretary were many and important. Nobody denies that, but the great part of the duties are undoubtedly duties that can be performed by somebody who is not in Parliament. The duty of a Parliamentary Under-Secretary is as a rule to stand between the Minister and the House of Commons. Why do you want two for that? The idea that there is work behind for them to do, and that one Parliamentary Under-Secretary might himself be unable to discharge it, can readily be met, if occasion requires, by appointing other people to do this work, but not necessarily by appointing a Member of Parliament to do it. The thing that strikes me about it is that it is difficult to see why two people are needed in the House of Commons, or one
914
in the House of Commons and one here, to discharge duties connected with this new Office, and to that difficulty I have found no solution in what the noble Earl has said.
I hope that the noble Earl will permit tile to add that I listened with great sympathy to the statement that he made about his efforts, which we all realise have been sincere to limit, the growing crowd of officials in Government Departments. I listened with sympathy because no more forlorn adventure has ever been headed by any one, not oven by the noble Earl in the course of his long and distinguished career, He has been struggling in vain against this increasing multiplication of Offices, and at this moment all we are going to do is to try and strengthen his hands. This is the moment, it seems to me, when the House can assert that the one thing, as far as it lies in its power, to do is to secure that the minimum of public money shall be spent upon public Offices, and that the government shall set in every detail and in every respect an example of strict and rigid economy, by the observance of which alone the future of this country can be secured.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: My Lords, I hope that this House will remain tenacious in the matter of principle. For my part, I should not like this House to abandon the position it has taken up because it has received the offer that one of these Under-Secretaries should be a member of this House instead of both Under-Secretaries being members of the other House. My position is that I think there ought to be only two officers representing this Department in Parliament, and that one of those should always be in this House. Any other arrangement is an innovation. It is a recent innovation. It is a bad innovation. It is an innovation which tends to undermine and to neutralise Ministerial responsibility, which prevents the proper fear of the House being put into the Ministerial action.
I said it was a new innovation. I bear in mind, in the years not long before the war, that when a certain Party had a very large majority in the House of Commons it thought that it was safe in deputing everything to Under-Secretaries. There occurred a week in the House of Commons during which the head of a great Department disappeared from the House. We

915
none of us knew where he had gone. His Under-Secretary, Of course, sat in this House at that time, for we had not then got into the bad practice of modern times, so the Minister could not answer in the House of Commons through his Under-Secretary. His questions, therefore, were answered by a popular Lord of the Treasury or holder of some similar kind of office. Unfortunately for the absent Minister, in one of the illustrated periodicals there appeared a photograph whirl; showed this distinguish head of a Department engaged during the week in the congenial task of killing pheasants. I may be wrong, but I think that the head of a Department when he sits in either House of Parliament ought to answer the Questions of that Department. It was the old practice, and it was the best practice. If he has need to be assisted by an Under-Secretary on account of the work of the Department, by all means let him be so. He will be none the less well assisted by one Under-Secretary because that Under-Secretary is a representative of this House. But when it is proposed to create two Under-Secretaries, as in the present case, we should bear in mind that we have already, given the Minister large consultative assistance by creating a whole constellation of Consultative Committees. In view of this it is very doubtful whet her any great responsibility can ever be exercised even by the new Under-Secretaries. I hope, therefore, that we shall not be diverted from the position that we have taken up, even after the promise which, with full loyalty to the traditions of this House, the noble Earl has made that one of the two Under-Secretaries shall sit in this House.
LORD ISLINGTON: My Lords, before the House goes to a Division I would like to put very briefly the reasons that influence me in recording my vote. I shall certainly vote for the maintenance of the decision come to by this House the other day. I do so on two grounds. First, because I believe that this House will be discharging a great public duty in diminishing as far as it is able this growing tendency for an inflated bureaucracy. It will also although it is but a drop in the ocean be discharging its duty in diminishing as far as it can this stream of extravagant expenditure which has become a very serious aspect of our public life.
I listened with interest to the speech of my noble friend who leads this House,
916
and I am bound to confess that with all the persuasive power he possesses on ordinary occasions, I could not gather front any remarks that he made to-day that he produced any very convincing arguments in favour of the proposal for two Under-Secretaries for this new and untried Department. If his argument meant anything it was an argument, and a very forcible one from his point of view, for the allocation of a second Under-Secretary for all great Departments of State. That is a proposition from which I differ strongly, and I would like to state my reasons very briefly for making that statement.
This Ministry which is now being created by Act of Parliament is merely machinery. It is hoped that in days and years to come it will expand itself in all kinds of directions for social ameliorations. Its duties may become very numerous, and may be so divergent that then two officials of the character of a Parliamentary Under-Secretary may be justified, but I would venture to say, as other noble Lords have said, that that day has not now come, and can only come after years of experience. It cannot be until then that one can consider any justification for two subordinate spokesmen in this new Department.
Let me briefly, if I may, examine the position of a Parliamentary Under-Secretary in one of the great Departments of State. I have occupied that position just recently, and for some time past, and I am speaking before many noble Lords who have also occupied that position. It must be remembered that a Parliamentary Under-Secretary is very rarely appointed by virtue of any intrinsic knowledge of the Department which he enters. He is appointed as a promotion for Parliamentary work. Again an examination would show that in recent years the life of a Parliamentary Under-Secretary is a very transitory and a very brief one. I do not believe I am exaggerating when I say that a fair computation of the average life of a Parliamentary Under-Secretary in a Department of State during the past few years is probably between two and two and a-half years. Therefore it is obvious, looked at from the point of view of efficiency to the Department, that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, through no fault of his own, possesses little practical executive experience and, with that little practical experience, he possesses, as many gentlemen who have occupied the position

917
well know, very little power in the Office. During most of the time he holds office he is really merely the complacent spokesman of the Minister: and the Minister, mind you, in his turn is very largely influenced by the decision of the experienced and skilled officials in his Department. The influences that. those officials bring to hear are naturally based on long and continuous experience as against the very transitory experience of an Under-Secretary. The real value and effectiveness of an Under-Secretary is very largely confined to the manner in which he is able to interpret the opinions of his chief as advised within his Department.
And in saying this I do pot in any way desire unduly to disparage the office of a Parliamentary Under-Secretary, but, merely to answer I he arguments advanced by the noble Earl, that two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries in a new and undeveloped Department must be created in order to assure its immediate efficiency. I merely ask this question of your Lordships. Is Parliament, in the interests of the country and the taxpayer, justified in duplicating in this new Department the office of a Parliamentary Under-Secretary? I am bound to say emphatically I do not think that Parliament is so justified. It is, I think, incumbent on your Lordships' House to cheek this ill-considered and really unnecessary extravagance. A few years ago the functions and the powers of this House were very materially curtailed. The power of veto has been removed from this House, but this House still retains the power of revision. I would urge upon your Lordships that we are very dangerously approximating to the position when we find ourselves unable to carry out those circumscribed duties that still pertain to us, namely those of revision. It is absolutely within our rights as a House to revise measures that are sent to us from another place. If, in that revision, we come into direct conflict with public and democratic opinion then, as a House constituted as we are, we are taking a serious responsibility upon our shoulders.
But I venture to say that in this case, in maintaining our decision of the other day, although running in conflict with another place we are, I believe, coming to a decision in complete accordance with public opinion, and the more public opinion is enlightened upon this position the more
918
public opinion will realise that we are deciding in accordance with their interests. This House should insist on the omission of this provision, which will cost the country £1,500 a year, Which neither by precedent nor experience can be shown to be of the slightest use, at the present time at any rate, to this measure. Therefore, this is a peculiar, occasion when, with perfect right and in accordance with the full democratic sentiment of the country, we should assert our revisory powers.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I should like to say, with great respect. that I cannot see how the noble Earl the Leader of the House can pledge the Government, and it is quite certain that it is not within the power of any man to pledge any succeeding Government. I have never been an Under-Secretary myself. I have worked in a Department among the rank and file, and I can say with great confidence that the general view in Government Departments is that Under-Secretaries do not actually help on the work of the Department. I know there are great and brilliant exceptions, of which the most conspicuous—I say it in all sincerity was that of the noble Earl the Leader of the House when he was at the Foreign Office. But that is not usually the case, and it is quite certain that a second Under-Secretary in any Department would be regarded by the members of that Department as an unmitigated nuisance.
I think it is to the point to ask to whom this second appointment has been promised. If it is not your Lordships' opinion it is certainly the opinion outside that this appointment has been promised to somebody, otherwise the Government would not be so insistent upon creating the office. We know that it was an after-thought; it was not put in the Bill as originally drafted, it was not thought of during the two years that the Bill was under consideration. Before this discussion closes hope we shall have an answer to that question: it would certainly be a matter of interest to your Lordships and to the general public. But I do hope that your Lordships' will insist, and I am perfectly certain that if you do you will have public opinion behind you. And it seems to me equally certain that if we do not we may as well give up our last remaining shred of claim to be regarded as a Second Chamber.
On Question, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment,
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment insisted upon accordingly.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I move that the Lords insist on the next Amendment. It is consequential.
Moved, That this House doth insist upon the said Amendment.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

LAW AGENTS APPRENTICESHIP (WAR SERVICES) (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 27; Not-Contents, 97.

CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor)

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Hylton, L.

Curzon of Kedleston, E. (L. President.)

Finlay, V.

Inverforth, L.

Peel, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Sutherland, D.

Newton, L.

Annesley, L

Ranksborough, L.

Bradford, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Clwyd, L.

Shandon, L.

Jersey, E.

Dewar, L.

Sinha, L.

Lytton, E.

Dinevor, L.

Somerleyton, [Teller]

Vane, E.(M. Londonderry.)

Glenarthur, L.

Stanmore, L.[Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Bedford. D.

Hood, V.

Glenconner, L.

Northumberland, D.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Granard, L. (E. Granard)

Somerset, D.

Grenfell, L.

Portman, V.

Hothfield, L.

Bath, M.

Inverclyde, L.

Bristol, M.

Bangor, L. Bp.

Islington, L.

Crewe, M.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Aberconway, L

Lambourne, L.

Lincolnshire, M.

Aldenham, L.

Lawrence, L.

Salisbury, M.

Ampthill, L.

Ludlow, L.

Armaghdale, L.

Monckton, L (V. Galway.)

Ancaster, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Bathurst, E.

Askwith, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L,

Beauchamp, E.

Avebury, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Denbigh, E.

Balfour, L.

Penryhn, L.

Doncaster, E. (D.Buccleuch and Queensbury)

Barrymore, L.

Playfair, L.

Beresford of Metemmeh, L.

Pontypridd, L.

Grey, E.

Blyth, L.

Revelstoke, L.

Howe, E.

Boston, L.

Rotherham, L.

Lindsay, E.

Brodriek, L. (V. Midleton)

Roundway, L.

Lindsey, E.

Buckmaster, L.

St. Levan, L.

Lucan, E.

Carnock, L.

Sanderson, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Charnwood, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Manvers, E.

Cheylesmore, L.

Southwark, L.

Mayo, E.

Denman. L. [Teller.]

Strachie, L.

Onslow, E.

Desborough, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Russell, E.

Downham, L.

Sudeley, L.

Stanhope, E.

Ebury, L.

Swaythling, L.

Strafford, E.

Emmott, L.

Sydenham, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Erskine, L.

Treowen, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Weardale, L.

Allendale, V.

Faringdon, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L. [Teller.]

Esther, V.

Forester, L.

Haldane, V.

Forteviot, L.

Wolverton, L.

Harcourt, V.

Gainford, L.

Wrenbury, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURE (LEATHER MEASUREMENT) BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHEME (CROSSLEY AND PORTER ORPHAN HOME AND SCHOOL) CONFIRMATION BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

THE CASE OF MISS DOUGLAS-PENNANT
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE rose to move, "That in view of the allegations made both in public and privately against. Miss Violet Douglas-Pennant, this House is of opinion that a Judicial inquiry should be held forthwith to examine the circumstances leading to her dismissal from the Royal Air Force."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the summary dismissal of Miss Violet Douglas-Pennant front the Royal Air Force has created considerable interest in the country mid has been the subject of important debates in both Houses of Parliament. Your Lordships, I am sure, are not surprised that this should be the case, for Miss Douglas-Pennant is known to a good many your Lordships and widely known throughout the country. She has sixteen years of public service to her credit, of which seven were spent in the extremely important work of an insurance Commissioner for Wales. Yet the facts prove—and I hope I shall be able to make them clear to your Lordships—that a lady with that, record behind her has been summarily dismissed from the Royal Air Force, not on reports, either written or verbal, of the superior officers under Whom she served, not on complaints made by her subordinates, but for reasons which, when they are definite at all are frequently contradictory and in flat defiance of the Regulations of the Royal Air Force itself.
I cannot conceive why His Majesty's Government should object to an inquiry in this case. It is quite obvious that these events occurred before any of those who are now responsible to Parliament for the work of the Royal Air Force occupied their present positions. They occurred principally under the last Government, and the only real charge that I have to make against His Majesty's present Government is that pledges have been given that an inquiry should be held if certain conditions are fulfilled—conditions which I maintain have been fulfilled—and yet that inquiry has not been held; and further that it is ridiculous, after events such as these, that any conditions at all should have been attached to the holding of an inquiry. What are the facts? On April 22 last year Miss Douglas-Pennant was invited to become the Commandant of the Women's Royal Air Force. She had heard that her predecessor had been unable to carry on the work owing to the great difficulties
922
which she there had to contend with in regard to having no assistance from other people in the office, and so she said she would only take up that responsible position if she were satisfied, after inquiring into the circumstances, that, she could usefully do good work.
She therefore came to the office of the Royal Air Force and there spent a month going into the whole work which she would have to do. She found that. a Colonel Bersey was in charge of the personnel, both men and women, in the Royal Air Force; that, there was no record of the positions either of women's camps or of hostels; that there was not, even a registry of letters; and that there was no nominal roll of officers of the Women's Royal Air Force. As a result she informed Sir Godfrey Paine. the Master-General of Personnel, that site Wag unable to take up the position of Commandant. Sir Godfrey Paine then stated that it had already been decided that the Commandant of the Women's Royal Air Force should be directly under him; that she must report to him personally; that she was to see him every day; and that he, in fact, would be her superior officer. The position then was that Colonel Bersey became the channel through which Miss Douglas-Pennant was provided with pay, clothing, rations, recruits, and quarters for the women of the Royal Air Force; but, in all other ways, Miss Douglas-Pennant came directly under t he Master-General of Personnel.
A few words as to Colonel Bersey. As I understand, Colonel Bersey is several years younger than myself. He was a second-lieutenant in the Royal Air Force. Whether it was because of the dangerous nature of his work at the Air Ministry or because of the efficient way in which he ran his office, in which there was no registry, no record of camps and no nominal roll of officers, this individual was jumped up from a second lieutenant to colonel in one day. The date of his promotion I think will appeal to your Lordships. It was April 1 last year. It soon become apparent, that the decision by which the Commandant was to be directly under the Master-General of Personnel had given great offence to various officers in the Department, and they determined to make her position impossible. It is quite obvious, from the position in which Colonel

923
Bersey was placed, that it was very easy for him to do so. Miss Douglas-Pennant had great difficulty in discovering where these camps and hostels were and how many officers there were, but eventually she did find out that the 16,000 women in the Royal Air Force were scattered throughout 500 camps, and that, despite their being so dispersed, there were only seventy-three women officers in the Air Force to look after the whole of them.
It is hardly surprising under these conditions that the position of the women of the Royal Air Force and of many of the camps was extremely unsatisfactory. It was also obvious that the first thing to be done was very largely to increase the supply of officers. At the time that Miss Douglas-Pennant took over I understand that there was only one hostel for the accommodation of twenty-five officers, and therefore she could only train officers in batches of twenty-five. Several places were offered to her which were obviously impossible, and it was only because she was well known to, and popular with, the officers of the London County Council that they courteously placed at her disposal quarters in which she was able to train batches of 200 officers at a time. The first batch of officers had completed their training and were about to take up appointments shortly before Miss Douglas-Pennant was dismissed. It will be clear that until the supply of officers was largely increased, there was not much chance of improving the conditions of the women of the Royal Air Force. But these officers objected to Miss Douglas-Pennant's appointment for other reasons. Candidates were accepted for the Women's Royal Air Force on the written recommendation of any officer. I put it to your Lordships that nothing could be more unsuitable than that women should be accepted on the written recommendation of any young officer. Miss Douglas-Pennant naturally objected. There was a further reason. Five ladies had been offered important positions in the Royal Air Force. Miss Douglas-Pennant interviewed them and discovered that they had had no previous training for these responsible posts. She stated she was unable to recommend that they should be given these appointments until they had had some training, but that she was prepared to give them subordinate posts, and, if found suitable, they should be promoted. That recommendation went before Lord
924
Weir, and of course e upheld it. It was obviously correct.
But those five ladies were well known in the office. They were friends of several people in the office. One of them was a sister of one of the officers, and a a result this decision caused great offence. The consequence of these five ladies not being given these appointments was this. Immediately afterwards three of Miss Douglas-Pennant's subordinate officers tendered their resignation. Miss Douglas-Pennant recommended to Lord Weir that their services should be retained, but Lord Weir overruled that decision and insisted that two of them should be allowed to resign, and that the third should be kept in the Service.
There begun at once a regular conspiracy against Miss Douglas-pennant. I could give you a good many instances, but will only give two. Complaints were received in the middle of July that the condition of the kitchens at Regent's Park Camp, No. 2 Stores Depôt, were very unsatisfactory. Miss Douglas-Pennant went into the case with Colonel Bersey, and Major Elwell was instructed to take certain action to put these matters right. She impressed upon Major Elwell that under no circumstances should the work be stopped. Imagine her amazement on receiving shortly afterwards a. message over the telephone from Colonel Carden, commanding the Depot. to say that he had received a message, purporting to come directly from Miss Douglas-Pennant, to the effect that the whole of these cooks should be withdrawn, and that in consequence the cadets serving there would be without any food. Miss Douglas-Pennant interviewed Major Elwell, and asked him why he had given a message of that character, which was exactly contrary to what she had told him to do. Tie replied that he did so under the direct instructions of Colonel Bersey.
Now I come to the second ease. On July 17 Dame Katherine Furse, the head of the Royal Naval Service (and a friend of one of the officers who had tendered her resignation) demanded, and obtained, an interview with General Paine. As your Lordships know, it is very unusual for an officer of one Department to go to the head of another Department without first seeing the opposite member of the Department, visited. In the presence of Miss Douglas-Pennant Dame Katherine Furse stated that Miss Douglas-Pennant had appointed

925
to a high position a lady whom Dame Katherine Furse had dismissed and turned down from the Royal Naval Service. The facts were that this lady was transferred from the Royal Naval Service to the Royal Air Force, with a strong recommendation in her favour from Dame Katherine Furce. Dame Katherine Furse stuck to her statement until the husband of this lady threatened legal proceedings, and then she withdrew her statement, and gave as her reason for having made it that it was "due to an inaccurate recollection at the moment." That was the sort of thing going on all round, and in the White Paper now on time Table of the House your Lordships will find that Miss Douglas Pennant makes many other charges of that character.
I come now to the question of her dismissal, because that is really the important point. Through the courtesy of my noble friend opposite I understand that he is going to ask your Lordships to postpone a decision on this subject on the ground that the White Paper has only just been laid, that, you have had no opportunity of studying it, and that it is not fair that you should give a decision until you have read it. The Government took that course in the case of the Slough Inquiry, and your Lordships, I think rightly, refused to accept a reason of that kind and insisted that the Inquiry should be held. I hope that your Lordships will insist in this case also. My Motion has been on the Paper of your Lordships' House for fourteen days, and the last letter from Miss Pennant which appears in this correspondence is dated May 2. I suggest that there has been ample time for His Majesty's Government to make up their mind as to whether these Papers should be published or not. As a matter of fact, Miss Douglas-Pennant did not twelve a copy of this correspondence until after two o'clock yesterday afternoon, when for the first time she had a chance of seeing the correspondence which is now grab before your Lordships. The correspondence is incomplete, but she agrees to its being published, and I am therefore able to refer to it. I wish to be quite fair to your Lordships and also to my noble friend opposite, and I think he. will agree that what I have stated so far is in no way controverted by what appears in this White Paper, and I hope he will interrupt me if I make any statement which is disproved by the correspondence.
On August 16 Miss Douglas-Pennant came to the conclusion that it was quite impossible for her to do any really good work at the Royal Air Force. Site found that the channel through which she got clothing and recruits (Colonel Bersey) made it impossible for her to make progress, and she tendered her resignation to Sir Godfrey Paine. He absolutely refused to hear of her resignation, and stated that he had every confidence in her capability; and the following day he showed her a letter which he had sent to Colonel Bersey, relieving him of Iris appointment and appointing another officer in his place. Miss Douglas-Pennant and this other officer attended before him on that day and he said, "Now these things have got to go ahead. If there is no real progress in a month from now you will all have to go." He laughed. Miss Douglas-Pennant said. "If I do nothing wrong shall I have to go? He said. "Whichever of you is to blame will go." A great deal has been made out of that in this correspondence, and I challenge my noble friend to say that this was more than a chaffing caution or was intended as a real threat.
Only eleven days after—time new officer was appointed, and things began to go ahead very fast—General Brancker summoned Miss Douglas-pennant to his office and informed her that she was dismissed, and would have to leave the following day. "Not" as he stated. "because you are inefficient, as you are very efficient, but as you ale grossly unpopular with everyone who has ever come in contact with you." It is a new policy in this country if great public servants are going to be dismissed because they are said to be unpopular. My Lords, it is not even true. What statements can my noble friend produce in the Papers now laid upon the Table to prove that Miss Douglas-Pennant was in fact unpopular in her office? There are the letters of a Miss Andrew, who was one of the three lady officers who tendered their resignations when Miss Douglas-Pennant refused to promote the five ladies whom she considered had not had sufficient training for the posts for which they were recommended. Why were not the letters from the other two officers also published? I will tell your Lordships the reason. Because the letters from these other two officers show that the reason for their resignation was so trivial that it was quite obviously a question of pique because their friends had not been appointed, and the

927
only letters of the three which are put into this paper are the letters of the one whom the officials at the Air Office felt would hear strongly against Miss Douglas-Pennant.
Miss Douglas-Pennant has absolutely been flooded with letters from both those who served with her in the Air Force, and those who did public service with her outside, stating how glad they were to work with her, what a privilege it had been, and how they had enjoyed working hand in hand with her at the Air Ministry or elsewhere. There is a further proof which I can give to your Lordships of Miss Douglas-Pennant's popularity. When the first batch of officers who had been trained Wider her direction; at the Air Ministry heard that she had been dismissed they one and all stated that they would go. It was only because Miss Douglas-Pennant said, "I am still Commandant of the Royal Air Force; I forbid you to resign, and if you do so I shall treat it as mutiny," that the action which had been contemplated was prevented.
Then, my Lords, as to the question of dismissal. As I have pointed out, Miss Douglas-Pennant was dismissed summarily on August 28. What are the regulations under which women of the Royal Air Force May he dismissed? They are these
"Provided your service may be terminated forthwith on ground of misconduct, false answer on enrolment. or breach of conditions on receipt of notice given by the Air Council, or, in the event of your services being no longer required, they may be terminated by one month's notice in writing being given to you."
Now, when was the notice in writing given? The notice in writing was given for the first time on September 2, five days after she had been dismissed by General Brancker. Therefore we are reduced to the other alternative, that her services were terminated either on account of misconduct, false answer on enrolment, or breach of conditions.
It is hardly surprising, in view of the way in which Miss Douglas-Pennant was treated, that rumours are beginning to spread, making attacks against her private character. Only yesterday a rumour to that effect reached me from the City, and I must tell your Lordships that a Mr. Tyson Wilson, who is a Whip of the Labour Party, has stated to several witnesses that charges had been made against Miss Douglas-Pennant of so serious a character
928
that, if they were published, she would never hold up her head again; that her public career was not at all as good as was stated, and that he recommended those he was talking to not to have anything to do with her or they also would sillier. Mr. Tyson Wilson has now denied the statement, but it has hem made in the presence of several witnesses, every one of whom is prepared to state that it was made. Can your Lordships be surprised that a wrong view has been taken? An officer of the Royal Air Force can only be dismissed on the ground of misconduct or on the ground of false enrolment, and yet Miss Douglas-Pennant was summarily dismissed and received no notice in writing until five days after she had been dismissed.
I will turn again to the correspondence. If your Lordships will refer to the letter from Lord Weir at the foot of page 13, you will see that he writes as follows—
"There is one point which might be made clearer in view of the discussion in the House of Lords. General Brancker had practically nothing to do with Miss Pennant's supersession other than as my instrument in informing her of our decision to replace her. His opinion was not asked as he had only just taken up his position, and any belief that General Brancker brought about the supersession is unfounded."
General Brancker was one of the only two officers under whom Miss Douglas-Pennant served. The other was General Paine. Now General Paine, as I think my noble friend will agree, has a reputation for being extremely outspoken and yet he never on any occasion intimated to Miss Douglas-Pennant that he considered her inefficient or thought that she was not doing good work. As a matter of fact, he did exactly the opposite. He stated that he was thoroughly satisfied with her, and on 16th August absolutely refused to allow her to resign. When this decision was come to by Lord Weir. Sir Godfrey Paine was abroad. The letter refers in the next paragraph to Sir Godfrey Paine having given this warning, but, at I have already told your Lordships and I have had it direct front Miss Douglas-Pennant, neither she nor the other officer considered this more than a hint that they were to do their best, which of course they did.
Then why was she dismissed? The only evidence in this correspondence from subordinates is front Miss Andrew. On whose information then did Lord Weir come to time conclusion that it was right

929
that Miss Douglas-Pennant should go? It is clear from the letter on page 9, from Lord Weir to the Prime Minister, which says—
"I meanwhile had occasion again to consider the position of the Women's Royal Air Force, matters being brought to a head by an intimation which I received from Sir Auckland Geddes, then Minister of National Service, that owing to the state of disorganisation of the Force, he could no longer undertake the responsibility of allocating women to it."
I think this House will be amazed to hear that Miss Douglas-Pennant has never met Sir Auckland Geddes and did not then, at any rate, know where the position of the Ministry of National Service was, and that in fact the Ministry of National Service had nothing to do with the finding of recruits for the Women's Royal Air Force. It was not responsible for it. Actually that decision was come to before Miss Douglas-Pennant had anything to do with the Force. The officers for the Royal Air Force were got through the professional classes bureau of the Ministry of Labour. Recruitments for the other ranks were very largely stopped because it would have been extraordinarily unwise to add still further women to the Royal Air Force until there was a sufficiency of officers to look after them.
It was arranged that the campaign for the recruitment of the other ranks of the Royal Air Force should begin in October, and an officer was transferred from the Ministry of Labour to set the campaign on foot. I ask your Lordships to refer to another paragraph in the same letter on page 9. Towards the bottom you will see that it states—
"I welcomed Mr. Harmsworth's appointment to enable you to form your own judgment on the case, and all the facts and relevant papers at our disposal have been laid before him."
What is the result of that inquiry? It has not been put into the Paper that is before your Lordships' House. I will tell your Lordships why. Mr. Cecil Harmsworth wrote to Miss Douglas-Pennant these words—
"I am strongly recommending that a judicial inquiry should be held."
He wrote again just before the General Election to say that he was very sorry he was being called away to his constituency before the arrangements for the inquiry were complete. These letters are in Miss Pennant's possession. He even went
930
so far as to approach her and ask what sort of reparation would satisfy her for the way in which she had been treated. That is the only inquiry which has been held into Miss Douglas-Pennant's case.
Eventually the Prime Minister came round to Lord Weir's view, very possibly on the paragraph which I have quoted to your Lordships, saying that the Minister of National Service was unable to promote further women to the Royal Air Force. I have already pointed out that that was an entirely incorrect statement. Sir Auckland Geddes had nothing whatever to do with it. I come to this further stage. The noble Marquess opposite, on February 27, gave this pledge in your-Lordship' House—
"I am given to understand that there is an idea in Miss Violet Douglas-Pennant's mind and in the minds of those noble Lords who are taking up this case that she has been the victim of malice, the victim of a conspiracy. I am entitled to say on behalf of tile Government that the Secretary of State will leave no stone unturned to probe that allegation to its very uttermost limits, and if Miss Violet Douglas-Pennant can bring forward a prima facie case in which she will state the names of individuals who are associated in this reprehensible action, give us dates and details, give us facts, an inquiry will most certainly be held, and all these facts brought to light and to the satisfaction not only of Miss Violet Douglas-Pennant and those noble Lords who are supporting her but to the satisfaction of the whole of your Lordships' House and the other House of Parliament,"
Miss Pennant's case has been submitted to a Committee composed of members of both Houses of Parliament, and they unanimously came to the conclusion that she had in fact made out a prima facie case which justified an inquiry being held. Why in the world should Miss Pennant have to satisfy that condition?
You have had here an officer dismissed from the Service—not from her appointment but from the Service—absolutely contrary to the Regulations and not on the recommendation of any of her senior officers. A recommendation was made, which again is not in this Paper before your Lordships' House, by a Minister who had nothing whatever to do with her work. If that is to be the way in which the Public Service of this country is going to be run in future, then I feel sure your Lordships would agree that the position of any public servant in this country is not worth an hour's purchase. The great Public Service of this country, of which we are so justly proud, will be destroyed, and the

931
whole situation in regard to the Government of this country inevitably be changed.
I am afraid that I have occupied your Lordships' time too long, but I have ventured to show you that grave injustice has been inflicted on Miss Douglas-Pennant, and that every conceivable Regulation and Instruction has been over-ridden. For that reason alone I maintain that a judicial inquiry should be held. But I also put it on even higher ground. If your Lordships will not insist that the Public Service should be maintained under the Regulations which are in force, then, as I have already stated, the Public Service of this country must inevitably be destroyed and great damage and harm will be done to that very fine service. For those reasons I ask your Lordships to support me in my Motion. I beg to move.
Moved, That in view of the allegations made both in public and privately against Miss Violet Douglas-Pennant, this House is of opinion that a Judicial inquiry should be held forthwith to examine the circumstances leading to her dismissal from the Royal Air Force.—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD BERESFORD: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend in his Motion for an inquiry. As far as I understand it, without entering into the details which the noble Lord has put before your Lordships, Miss Douglas-Pennant does not state that the authority was wrong to dismiss her, but she finds fault with the system and demands an inquiry. The reason I trouble your Lordships on this question is this. It would be fatal if this House, or any body of the community, were ever to try to make out that authority has not the right to discharge and to appoint. That would be fatal to the Public Service.
I am troubling your Lordships on this occasion because my case is very similar. I represented to the Admiralty when I was Commander-in-Chief that the trade routes were not protected, and that a number of other things were wanting, such as a war staff, and that our food supply was insecure. I did not agree with the views of the Admiralty, in fact, I said that the Admiralty did not appear to understand anything about war. The Admiralty put me on the beach. They made me haul down my flag, and discharged me from the Service. I never complained. I think the Admiralty were right. They could not have a Commander-in-Chief who differed from
932
them entirely. Events proved that I was right and that the Admiralty was wrong, but that has nothing to do with the principle. The authority must have the right to appoint and discharge officials in all cases. I asked for an inquiry, and that is what Miss Pennant is asking for, and I got it. The inquiry went on, I think, for four months, and it proved that I was correct in my statement. I did not complain of my dismissal. The inquiry did a great deal of good. As a result of it we got several reforms which were much needed. We got a War Staff, although that did not come for about two years. If there is something wrong in the procedure of the Department in which a person is serving, that person is quite right in taking the line which Miss Douglas-Pennant took, but in common fairness and justice and love of the fair-play which exists in this country, when a public servant does that and asks for an inquiry it should be granted.
I am certain that your Lordships are more or less shocked and horrified by the material which my noble friend has produced before you. Miss Pennant may be right or she may be wrong, but in the interests of the Public Service she should have a Judicial Inquiry. There has been too much secrecy about. This secrecy all means suspicion. This inquiry has been evaded over and over again by the Government. Why is it being evaded? Because they do not want the inquiry. I hope your Lordships will insist and make the Government grant the inquiry. It is only fair to Miss Pennant and fair to the Public Service that they should do so. I hope your Lordships will forgive me for having mentioned my own case. I only did so because I think it is similar to that of Miss Pennant. The Admiralty gave me a n inquiry, and I hope your Lordships will insist on Miss Pennant getting an inquiry, more particularly after what the noble Lord has brought forward. On his statement the Government have broken their contract with Miss Pennant. She was to have a month's warning or notice before she was discharged, but they did not give her a month's notice until she had been discharged five days. If that is the way we are going to run the Public Service where shall we get? I hope the noble Lord will go to a Division, and I certainly shall support him in his demand for a judicial inquiry in this case.
LORD CLWYD: My Lords, I would not venture to intervene in the debate at such an early stage of my experience in this House, had it not been for the fact that I have not only known Miss Douglas-Pennant for a great number of years but I have had a great deal of close experience of her service in connection with many honourable and important movements in Wales, and because I know that this case has aroused in Wales a widespread and deep interest. It is not necessary to go into the details or the grounds upon which the Motion for an Inquiry has been placed before your Lordships by the noble Earl opposite. But I should like to say that I think that the fact that Miss Douglas-Pennant has occupied the important position of a Welsh National Insurance Commissioner and has done great public service not only in Wales but throughout the country for many years ought to be a weighty factor in our conclusion on the question as to whether a judicial inquiry should or should not be granted. I feel that it is not only a point of vital importance to the public career of Miss Douglas-Pennant, but it is of still more importance, I believe, to the real interests of the public service of this nation. As one who has had, I think, special opportunities of seeing the public service of Miss Douglas-Pennant in Wales and elsewhere and of knowing her character I hope that your Lordships will on this occasion press the Government to grant this inquiry which, in any event, is only fair play to her and in the interests of the Public Service.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, the subject to which we are addressing ourselves this afternoon is not a new one. It has been before your Lordships before, and since then there has been a certain amount of controversy in regard to it outside; this House in the Press, and I feel really that the reason of this controversy is based to a very large extent on imperfect knowledge of the case. It is quite true that there has been a veritable campaign organised in the Press and various accusations have been hurled promiscuously about, and allegations made not of a very fair character, which I feel have not been substantiated or supported by any proof. The Government in this connection have been repeatedly accused of concealment, deception, and even corruption. I re-
934
pudiate every one of those accusations most vehemently, and with regard to the point of concealment, speaking for myself and for those with whom I am associated, I would say that there is no desire whatever for concealment. I should be only too glad, to put before your Lordships the case I as we see it and to bring to your notice every single fact that I have in my possession or that is in the possession of the Air Ministry.
This question is what may be termed a legacy. It has been handed on to the present Administration by a previous Administration. But when I say that, I have no desire to divest the Government of any responsibility in the matter, and my endeavour this afternoon will be to show your Lordships the case as we view it and as, I venture to say, I view it myself. We know perfectly well the principle of continuity, but I can assure you that I am no slavish votary of that policy; and if I felt that we were on a wrong line in this case I should be the first to tell my chief, and I should not be standing at this box now with the intention of showing your Lordships what I believe to be the case, and of endeavouring to persuade you that the course which the noble Earl has suggested is one which, for all reasons, and especially for the interests of the public service, should not be followed. I do not think that I need give any expression of my own personal attitude in this case. I had occasion before of speaking to your Lordships with regard to this matter, and I think I made my position clear that I had no personal feelings whatsoever in the matter, that my sole endeavour was to bring out the real facts of this case, and to put before your Lordships exactly what had occurred and what the Government feel is their duty at this moment.
The noble Earl who has introduced this matter did so in a very temperate and very able speech, and I should like to express my gratitude to him for the manner in which he has treated me in the matter. He has hidden nothing from me. He has told me the points that, he was bringing forward, and I can assure your Lordships that I know perfectly well he is acting in absolute sincerity, and that he believes that the case which he has put forward is such as to call upon your Lordships to insist on granting a judicial inquiry. What is the outline of the story? The story is of a capable individual—because the fact

935
that Miss Douglas-Pennant is a lady does not come into this question at all; she has been taking the work of a man, and that is the point before us at this moment—a capable individual who was called upon to undertake a very critical task, and she was placed in that position because of her previous record, to which the noble Earl has testified and to which we are all willing and anxious to testify. She encounters in her work immense difficulty and that is not only confined to one office in the Government. She tells us, in her statements, which are in this correspondence before your Lordships, of all the difficulties which were placed in her way—of all the obstacles with which she was confronted. Time goes by, and at a certain stage her chief, the Secretary of State, decides that in the interests of the Service, in the interests of the Air Force, he should make a change, and that some one should take her place. That is the history, the bare outline of the case.
The noble Lord who seconded this Motion is one to whom I should be most unwilling to offer any opposition when I recognise the great authority with which he speaks as an officer in the Naval Service. But I must say that I venture to disagree with a great many of the propositions which he put forward, and, with great respect, I will tell him exactly why I am in disagreement with him. He speaks of an inquiry which he was able to obtain. I wonder how many similar inquiries there have been, and I wonder also if he is aware that there are many individuals now who have been superseded, who have been transferred, who are labouring under a grievance, who believe they have been badly treated, who believe that they have been treated with the grossest injustice; yet does he suggest that each one of those individuals should come forward and claim an inquiry into the reasons why he has been transferred or superseded?
LORD BERESFORD: I certainly suggest that he should be given an inquiry if he demands it.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The noble and gallant Lord lays the country open to a multitude of inquiries if once the principle is established that anyone who has a grievance should be able to claim
936
and to obtain an inquiry into that girevance. May I go on with the story which I am endeavouring to put before your Lordships? The noble Earl in his speech hardly addressed himself to the real point which, I believe, is the one to which we should address ourselves—namely, the question that a judicial inquiry should be held forthwith to examine the circumstances leading to the dismissal of Miss Douglas-Pennant from the Royal Air Force. That is a questioning of the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State; and if that inquiry in admitted it is a suggestion that the Secretary of State was either moved by corrupt influences or that he was a man who by his intellectual capacity was not fitted for the position in which he was placed. I do not understand that either of those charges is pressed.
Let me now go forward with the case as it has occurred. Miss Douglas-Pennant entered on her duties in April, and it it is very obvious from this correspondence—which I regret has not been in your Lord ships' hands before—that Lord Weir was personally interested in the case of Miss Douglas-Pennant, and did his utmost to support her and to make her position a success. There is a case here in which Lord Weir writes a letter to Miss Andrew, where he says—
"I am satisfied, however, that a genuine attempt is being made to overcome the difficulties of the inception of the W.R.A.F., and that it would have been certainly unfair at the time when the resignations of yourself and your colleagues were tendered, less than a month after the appointment of the Commandant, to have expected results to have manifested themselves. It is my anticipation, however, that real progress will shortly be shown."
That is one letter in which Lord Weir shows that he is anxious that Miss Douglas-Pennant should have every chance of overcoming those difficulties and of removing those obstacles which he knew and which we all recognised were uppermost at that moment.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: What is the date of that letter?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: July 19, 1918. Now, I think it is common ground that the organisation of the Women's Royal Air Force left a great deal to be desired, but I do not know that this is a reason for the indictment of the Secretary of State. It was common to all organisations. We know perfectly well the situa

937
tion in which this country was placed at that moment. Organisations and Departments were called into being practically at a moment's notice, and it was impossible to ensure that an organisation of an efficient character could suddenly be brought into being.
I will go on and refer now to another letter. It is one written by Lord Weir to Dame Katherine Furse, dated July 20, 1918. He says—
"I have been with some care into the question of the resignations of Mrs. Beatty and her colleagues, and I think I am aware of the general reasons which led up to them, and I cannot help feeling that, in view of the very recent appointment of Miss Pennant as Commandant, they were unduly precipitate, and that I should not be justified in any other course than in supporting the action which has been taken by their superior officers."
What I want to show is that Lord Weir was particularly anxious that Miss Douglas-Pennant in her position as Commandant should be successful; and when we are indicted for various expressions of opinion supporting Miss Douglas-Pennant I say that it is really showing that the position is not accurately appreciated. While these things are going on it is the duty and the desire of everyone that heads of Departments and subordinate officials should have every chance of making their Department a success, and that they should get every assistance to achieve that object. That seems to me to explain the words which Sir Godfrey Paine used. He was anxious to make Miss Douglas-Pennant's work a success, but he realised the difficulties with which she was confronted.
Things go on, and I will now draw your Lordships' attention to the reason which actuated Lord Weir in superseding Miss Douglas-Pennant. He receives information from Sir Auckland Geddes, and he states this very clearly in the letter which he wrote to the Prime Minister on December 4, in which these words occur—
"I meanwhile had occasion again to consider the position of the Women's Royal Air Force, matters being brought to a head by an intimation which I received from Sir Auckland Geddes, then Minister of National Service, that owing to the State of disorganisation of the Force, he could no longer undertake the responsibility of allocating women to it."
Before I deal with that I must refer to a suggestion made by the noble Earl. He put forward the proposition that Sir Auckland Geddes had nothing whatever to do with the Women's Royal Air Force.
938
I have before me a note with reference to a War Cabinet decision (No. 287 (1) of November 28, 1917). By this War Cabinet decision the Minister of National Service was made responsible for controlling the recruiting of all women for work of national importance. That seems to me to establish that Sir Auckland Geddes, as Minister of National Service, was in the main the responsible authority for the recruiting of women for the Women's Royal Air Force.
I will now venture to take your Lordships back to the situation in which Lord Weir received this intimation from Sir Auckland Geddes. It was in August, 1918, when the fortunes of this country were in the balance. I put that concisely, but your Lordships will appreciate exactly what I mean by it. It was at a time when quick decisions had to be taken. A Secretary of State is a man whom you have proved and whom you believe to be suitable for the post, and you give him these great responsibilities so that he can take decisions on his own, and that is why you believe that those decisions will in all probability be the right ones. Lord Weir was at that time responsible for the Women's Royal Air Force being kept up. He was responsible for that mainly because women in this country were taking the places of men who were urgently wanted at the Front in France; and he received an intimation from the man who in the last resort was responsible for the recruitment of women for the Royal Air Force, in words which I think your Lordships will agree are striking, that—
"owing to the state of disorganisation of the Force he could no longer undertake the responsibility of allocating women to it."
I know that we now look upon these things, when we hope and think peace is in front of us, in a far different frame of mind than was the case when the war was upon us and none could say accurately what the result was going to be; and the fact that a quick decision was taken is a matter which I think you will appreciate.
In that connection I should like to make one remark about the manner in which Miss Douglas-Pennant was superseded. Lord Weir makes no attempt to escape any censure or blame for the manner in which that was done. It appears in one of these letters in which Legal Weir endeavours to show that he agrees that the month's trial was not formally complied with. It

939
is quite true that Miss Douglas-Pennant received from General Brancker, on the orders of Lord Weir, the instructions which superseded her. She received them, I think, on September 28, which was a fortnight after the time that Sir Godfrey Paine had spoken to her. I do not desire to minimise the point in any way. I feel that Miss Douglas-Pennant was certainly not treated with that consideration to which she w as entitled and which she ought undoubtedly to have received. But that, in my view, is the sole pound of grievance; and while it is a ground of grievance, it cannot be said that it is a ground for inquiry.
Now there is a point to which I would venture to allude, spoken of by Lord Stanhope. It is with regard to Miss Douglas-Pennant's position in the Women's Royal Air Force. It is contended that she was a member of the Women's Royal Air Force. Miss Douglas-Pennant was nothing of the kind. She was never enrolled in the Royal Air Force or paid from Royal Air Force funds. She was, in words which your Lordships will appreciate, "loaned" from the Welsh Insurance Commission, and in that connection I would draw your Lordships' attention to the letter which was written by Mr. McAnally, the Secretary to the Air Ministry, to Miss Douglas-Pennant on September 2, 1918. Mr. McAnally wrote as follows—
"I am commanded by the Air Council to refer to the request contained in your letter of the 29th ultimo, addressed to Major-General Brancker, and in reply to furnish you with the enclosed copy of a letter which has been sent to the Secretary of the National Health Insurance Commission of Wales. At the same time I am to confirm what was said to you by the Secretary of State for the Royal Air Force at your interview this morning, when he intimated to you that he had convinced himself by the most careful inquiry that, although you had worked most wholeheartedly and untiringly to bring the W.R.A.F. on to a proper footing, the results desired were, nevertheless, not being obtained. That being so, the Council have conceived it to be their duty to appoint a new Commandant—"
I ask your Lordships to appreciate those words—
"Although you have worked most wholeheartedly and untiringly to bring the W.R.A.F. on to a proper footing, the results desired were, nevertheless, not being obtained. That being so, the Council had conceived it to be their duty to appoint a new Commandant. They have acted in this way because there was no other practical method, in the public interest, of dealing with the situation with which they were confronted, and I am to ask you to accept this decision in this
940
sense and, at the same time, their assurance that they are fully conscious of the difficulties with which you have had to contend."
That is the letter which the Air Ministry sent to Miss Douglas-Pennant in suggesting her return to the National Health Insurance Commission—in a word, her transference from one Government Office to another institution; and this is the letter which was enclosed to the National Health Insurance Commission of Wales—
"Sir,—With reference to previous correspondence relative to the services of the Hon. Violet Douglas-Pennant being placed at the temporary disposal of the Air Council, I am now commanded to inform you that the Council find it necessary to introduce certain changes in the organisation of the W.R.A.F. Although the Council do not fail to appreciate the loyal and untiring service which Miss Pennant has given during her term of office, they feel that the introduction of the contemplated changes will be facilitated if a new Commandant is appointed, and they have decided that she shall be released from her present position and thus be in a position to resume her work on your Commission. In informing you of the arrangements made, I am to request that you will thank the National Health Insurance Commission of Wales for their courtesy in placing the services of Miss Douglas-Pennant at their disposal."
I can only say that I have studied this correspondence, I have made a scrutiny of all the correspondence I can find. I have seen everybody whom I could possibly think could be connected with this case, and I say at once that I cannot see the grounds on which an inquiry is demanded, which questions, as I maintain it does, the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State to transfer Miss Violet Douglas-Pennant from the position which she occupied to the position which she had left to come to the Air Force.
There are several points made by the noble Earl to which I would address myself. He speaks of the report by Mr. Harmsworth, which is known as the Harmsworth Report. What is the situation with regard to that Report? Mr. Harmsworth at the time was the Prime Minister's Private Secretary and in that capacity he was authorised by the Prime Minister to inquire into this case and to furnish him with a report of what he believed to be the facts. That was the capacity in which Mr. Harmsworth addressed himself to the task. The Secretary of State in another place has made this statement which I will venture to quote to your Lordships—
"I have read the Report, and I do not myself see any reason from the point of view of the Government—"

941
That is with regard to the publication of the Harmsworth Report—
"It is a private and confidential Report made to the Prime Minister, and I cannot say anything without an opportunity of finding out what the Prime Minister says. That Report recommended that there should be a judicial inquiry, but the Prime Minister, after hearing what Lord Weir had to say about it in his letter of December 4—"
which is before your Lordships in the White Paper—
"decided that it was not right or necessary to press the inquiry, and he accepted the views put forward by the Secretary of State for the Royal Air Force. That is the position, but, without making any pledge on the subject, I should be quite ready to inquire of the Prime Minister whether he would allow a document essentially of a private nature, only written to oblige him personally in the course of his public work, to be published."
That is the situation as regards the Harms-worth Report.
I saw Mr. Harmsworth himself. I had a long conversation with him in regard to this matter. He told me that he had interviewed Miss Douglas-Pennant, and that she brought forward the case which the noble Earl has brought forward and which is comprised in the statements appearing in the White Paper. Mr. Harms-worth said, "That is not a matter for me; this is a matter for another authority "; and on this line I understand he recommended that these matters should be examined and contemplated by a judicial inquiry. I go further with regard to that Report. Mr. Harmsworth went down in a practically unofficial capacity; he interviewed various people and obtained opinions from them, without the smallest idea in their minds that what they told him was going to be the subject of a White Paper to be laid on the Table of this House or in another place. I do feel, in the public interest, that you will make inquiries of this kind impossible if there is no possibility of any confidential report being made by one individual to another. I think I have, more or less, dealt with the points as they have arisen.
I should like to elaborate the reasons which the Government are convinced should be adduced for the purpose of showing that an inquiry of this kind is absolutely contrary to the public service. The noble Lord opposite says it is in the interests of the public service, but I venture, most respectfully, to disagree with him in that
942
opinion. Miss Douglas-Pennant has brought forward various cases in the White Paper showing the immense difficulties she had to contend with. She tells us that there was a conspiracy afoot to frustrate her efforts. In her first statement she says it, was a small knot of people inside the Air Ministry, and later she goes on to accuse a large concourse of individuals who, she says, were in league together for the purpose of frustrating her work at the Air Ministry. I will ask your Lordships to place yourselves in the position of the Secretary of State. Miss Douglas-Pennant was asked to come from the Welsh Insurance Commission for the purpose of removing the difficulties and obstacles, but after the Secretary of State had satisfied himself by examination, and after he had had this peremptory intimation from Sir Auckland Geddes, that Miss Douglas-Pennant (although he was fully aware of the qualities she possessed) did not possess those qualities which were necessary for overcoming these difficulties, in his jurisdiction as Secretary of State; a responsible Minister, he had no other course to follow but to take the line he did and appoint some one else in her position.
The proof, if I may say so, is that affairs in the Air Ministry began to mend themselves from that moment, and I think we can claim that the Women's Royal Air Force is now in an efficient condition. It is, of course, quite open for anyone to say that Miss Douglas-Pennant laid the foundations for that improvement, and I am not going to controvert that for one moment. But the Secretary of State had to make up his mind. It was a time of immense difficulties; he had to come to a decision rapidly, and he felt that for the efficiency of the Service it would be better for some one to take Miss Douglas-Pennant's place. That is the whole case. If I am accused of any concealment I hope your Lordships will tell me where I have been guilty of concealment upon a single point. I am anxious to bring the whole of the information, as I have it, before your Lordships. I have endeavoured to obtain the whole facts by the scrutiny of documents, and I hope that the information which I have been able to place before you will make your realise that this is not a case for a judicial inquiry into the dismissal of a public servant, who could not claim efficiency in the Department in which she was placed and which has subsequently

943
been managed in an efficient and satisfactory manner.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I have not the privilege of even the most remote acquaintance with Miss Douglas-Pennant. I know but little beyond the information contained in this White Paper which has been circulated, but I think even the most cursory examination of the documents in the White Paper ought to satisfy any unprejudiced people that there is a serious matter in issue between Miss Douglas-Pennant and the Air Ministry which cannot be satisfied by any official answer, however fully and candidly it may be given by a member of your Lordships' House who firmly belives he has been able to ascertain all the relevant and material facts. I feel sure your Lordships must have recognised, as I did, the anxiety of the noble Marquess to do, if he possibly could, full justice to Miss Douglas-Pennant, and at the same time give your Lordships all the information that was in his possession. But I cannot help thinking that there must have been present to your minds during the course of his speech the constantly recurring question, "Why is not Lord Weir here to answer this matter himself?"
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD BUCKMASTER: There is no charge made against the noble Marquess in any of these letters.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Lord Weir is in America.
LORD BUCKMASTER: That is a complete answer. I should like to know if there is any chance of his coming back soon, because in a case of this kind it is of the utmost consequence that we should have, if possible, information from the person who is himself involved in the dispute, and who by first-hand knowledge must know far more than it is possible for the noble Marquess to ascertain, with all his diligent anxiety to arrive at the truth. I agree with something that the noble Marquess said; and it is this—that in a case of this kind it is necessary to proceed with caution, and that an inquiry cannot be granted in every case in which there is a dispute between persons who have ceased to be in the service of a Government Department and their official Chief. I think that is obvious. The latter must
944
be masters in their own house, and it is impossible that you can have unending controversy as between them and officials whom they may think it their duty to remove.
But this case does not stand on an ordinary basis. I do not know if your Lordships have read what Miss Douglas-Pennant has put in print—I suppose the Government have printed it, and Miss Douglas-Pennant put it in writing. I have read it for the first time this afternoon. I call your Lordships' attention to it on page 15. This is what Miss Douglas-Pennant says—
"I accuse Brig.-General Livingston, Lt.-Colonel Bersey, and Mrs. Beatty (W.R.N.S.) of taking steps within the W.R.A.F. to bring about my dismissal from the post of Commandant, their reason for doing so being that I would not be a party to the jobbery and inefficiency which prevailed in the W.R.A.F. whilst it was under the control of Brig.-General Livingston and the direct management of Lt.-Colonel Bersey."
She repeats it on page 16—
"Having then attempted to carry on the work of the W.R.A.F. upon right principles and in the best interests of the Force, I became the object of a bitter attack, and I saw plainly that every effort was being made to get rid of me before Major-General Paine became aware of the chaos and disorganisation and intrigue which prevailed. I was warned from the outside and by a member of the staff that an intrigue was on foot to get rid of me because I was too just and straight."
It is perfectly impossible for any one to attempt to pass any judgment whatever upon such a statement, but it is at least important to see that it is made by a person who, when she was dismissed from the Force, as stated by Lord Weir in his letter on page 8, was a person in connection with whom "there was nothing which reflected in any way on your capacity or efficiency, but you appeared to be confronted with a combination of circumstances which would take too long to clear away, and the only solution therefore was a change." I will comment on that later, but for a moment I want to say that this lady, so far from being of a wild hysterical character, suffering from delusions, is there said to be a woman of capacity and efficiency. In her own record of service which appears on page 19 she says—
"On the other hand, I had a sixteen years' record of public work—seven years of which had been spent in the Government service, during which time I held one of the highest and most responsible posts as a National Health Insurance Commissioner. I had never had the slightest friction or difficulty working with others."

945
Therefore, my Lords, one starts with this, that here is a lady of admitted skill and character, a lady who is not prima facie a person likely to be led astray into making wild and cruel and reckless statements about other people, and it is her firm conviction that she has evidence to show that the reason why she was dismissed from the service was that she was attempting to expose jobbery and mismanagement. It is that issue which she desires to have investigated and explained.
Is it possible in a case like this to, I was going to say ride off, but I will say to escape the issue, by saying that in all these eases it is impossible to have an inquiry? I agree it is not, but there are not, as is suggested by the noble Marquess, a very large number of people all over the country suffering from the belief that they have been made the victims of injustice so great and so severe as this lady appears to think she is suffering from. Then it is said that Lord Weir acted in a moment of great national emergency, and that you must not question too closely what he did. I agree as to that. But the point is that Lord Weir is alleged to have been induced to act in this manner by people who wanted to prevent her from pursuing her work.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: No charge of that kind is made.
LORD BUCKMASTER: You cannot read this Paper without seeing that that is what is suggested. She claims that she was attempting to render this Government service more clean and more efficient. When Lord Weir got rid of her it is admitted that she was efficient and capable, but it is said that she was "confronted by circumstances which would take too long to clear away." Why did he not attempt to get rid of the circumstances? How can you possibly get over circumstances which it would take too long to clear away by getting rid of the person who knows all about them and putting in her place somebody who does not? There is an uncomfortable and uneasy feeling left in one's mind that here is a grave question which in the public interest ought to be inquired into—not only in the interests of Miss Douglas-Pennant, who is nothing but a name in this matter—a question far bigger and graver than that, namely, the question of the pure and clean administration of the public service. That is the matter
946
which Miss Douglas-Pennant asks should be inquired into.
This matter has really got to a pitch in which I respectfully submit to the Government that they cannot, in common justice to this lady, let it stop where it is, because as is usual in these matters the thing proceeds to swell and grow from day to day. The Morning Post published the other day certain correspondence. The lady herself, so far as I know did not publish it. It is simply published over the name of Mrs. Broadhurst, following a reply from Miss Douglas-Pennant. It is there stated that—
"On Wednesday last, April 30th, Mr. Tyson Wilson, the Whip of the Labour Party, in an interview at the House of Commons, informed us that he knew, on the authority of the Secretary of the Ministry concerned, that complaints made against your administration previous to your dismissal had been drastically investigated. Also that you yourself had been given the fullest opportunity of hearing and answering such complaints, and had been unable to do so. Further that the charges so dealt with were such that no responsible official of any Department could do otherwise than, after investigation of their truth, decide on a summary dismissal."
That is where the case now stands. This lady placed her services at the disposal of the Government, and I believe there is no reason to doubt the truth of what was said by Lord Weir at the moment of her dismissal—namely, that she was efficient and zealous and capable in the work she did, and she ends by having statements made that there were charges against her character which she was unable to reply to. I should think any woman who came before your Lordships' House in such circumstances and asked that the matter should be cleared up would be met with a ready assent, and I find it difficult to see why it is that after perhaps the only impartial inquiry, made by Mr. Cecil Harmsworth, which concluded with a recommendation to the Prime Minister that this course should be taken—why it is that that course should now be denied.
The only answer given by Lord Weir is that to be found in the letter of Lord Weir to the Prime Minister on December 4. It is an unconvincing answer, and it is impossible to overlook the fact that it is suggested that there had been friction between her and the National Service Department, who would not send her recruits, when her case is that she had not had any communication with them at any time, and if it had been the case it would have been right to communicate with her

947
before she was dismissed and to point out the defects in her system which were complained of, and to see if it was not possible to have them remedied. No one desires to prejudge what the result of an inquiry would be. It is possible that this lady is mistaken—ladies have been mistaken before this—but a Government Department may have done a great wrong. They have done great wrongs before this, and the question is one which in the public interest should be investigated. The only way in which it can be investigated is by a public inquiry; and I do not care what kind of inquiry it is provided it is public.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: May I be allowed to correct a mis-statement. I have just heard that Lord Weir has been obliged to postpone his departure.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I am very grateful to the noble Marquess, and possibly he will now be able to answer my question.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Before your Lordships proceed to a Division, may I say a word or two? I approach this question from a point of view which has not been touched by any speaker in the debate. I came down this afternoon with no intention whatever of voting on either side. I knew little about the case, but when I arrived, like all your Lordships, these Papers were put into my hands. We have none of us had time to read them, though we have been doing our best to turn them over since four o'clock. In these Papers I find a number of very extreme charges—I use the word with all respect—made by Miss Pennant against other individuals. These statements may be true, and they may be false, but here they are in a public document. At first sight many of them seem to me to be statements that, if they had been made in public, and not in a public document and therefore protected by privilege, might very naturally be the basis of proceedings in the ordinary legal way.
I feel so strongly, after seeing these charges made, that I am going to vote with my noble friend for an inquiry, but I do so, my Lords, probably disagreeing with him in the motive. I know no more of this case than I have learned from reading the debates carefully, and from following this afternoon's debate very closely, and I am not at all sure that Miss Pennant will get all the benefit from the inquiry that
948
her supporters think she will get. That is merely a matter of personal opinion. Your Lordships will see in the last long document that very strong statements are made against, I think, two ladies—against Mrs. Chalmers Watson, who was the first head of the Women's Army Corps, familiarly known as the W.A.A.C.'s, and against Dame Katherine curse, who is now head of the Women's Navy Service, which has been an astonishing success and in which there has been no trouble such as we are discussing this afternoon.
Charges like this ought to be answered. There is nothing in these Papers showing that either of these ladies has had any opportunity of answering the charges, and I feel that they should have an opportunity of answering them when they are published under the authority of a public document. Therefore in voting for my noble friend I wish to make it quite clear that my vote is not one for Miss Pennant, but is a vote for an inquiry into the whole case from whatever point of view you regard it. I believe that the new situation which has arisen this afternoon by the publication of these Papers makes some inquiry necessary. I do not care what the inquiry is, but I shall vote for there being one.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I have the misfortune to differ from my noble and learned friend, and I tear from a considerable number of your Lordships, and I do not think it respectful not to offer a word of what I consider necessary caution. It is essential that one should not disregard the consideration pressed upon your Lordships by the noble Marquess—that he cannot distinguish this case from many other cases which have arisen in the course of this war. The noble and learned Lord said that it very seldom happens, in a case of persons whose services have been dispensed with, that they make such charges or such complaints as are made by this lady.
What was this lady's position? She was transferred from one branch of the Public Service to another branch. She undertook obligations and she became amenable to the rules—the well-known rules—of discipline in the Service. How many Generals in the course of this war, without inquiry, without the possibility of inquiry, have been summarily and in the middle of the war removed from their command? The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Beres

949
ford, said that in his opinion, in every such case, if an inquiry is asked for, an inquiry should be given. Such counsel is absolutely erratic. I do not know whether the noble and gallant Lord is aware that the number of officers of General rank, including Brigadiers, is almost in the neighbourhood of hundreds, who, in the judgment of their superior officers, ought to be summarily removed and were summarily removed, whose whole careers were probably ruined by that. removal, and not one of whom does not most bitterly feel that he ought to have an inquiry, and that if he had been given an inquiry the result of it would have been in his favour. Your Lordships are surely aware that in one or two of the best known incidents in the whole history of the war—I desire naturally to mention no names—officers of the highest distinction have been removed as the result of the conclusions reached by their superiors and by the Cabinet, have demanded urgently and repeatedly that they should receive inquiries, and inquiries have been refused. Is that refusal a justifiable refusal or is it not? That is the real question that your Lordships have to answer to-night.
This is not an individual case; it is a case which falls under a general rule or does not fall under a general rule. Can a decision which has been a decision like that of the Admiralty or War Office be justified in refusing an inquiry to an officer whose services are dispensed with even if that officer makes grave complaints against those in whose hands it lies to take the decision that dismissed him? I am of opinion that not only can such a rule be justified, hut I am of opinion that but for such a rule the war could never have been carried on. Furthermore, I am of opinion that if this rule is denied we should spend the next two or three years in conducting inquiries.
I happen to have been engaged in two inquiries of this kind. One was connected with the origin of the Empire Battalion, and one was connected with a painful case which will be in your Lordships' recollection, in which allegations were made about the circumstances in which a commission had been given to a young officer. I speak from memory, but I believe each of those inquiries lasted for a period of something like three weeks. They cost, if my recollection is right, many thousands of pounds
950
each. If you are once to say that every officer of General rank whose career has been sacrificed is entitled to come to this House, as this lady has come, by powerful and influential friends, and put his individual case (and let one of my noble friends recall the facts discursively spread over a period of many years) and if he is to be allowed to say "I have been ruined by the allegation of a Brigadier or a General on the General Staff or by the Army Council and I demand an inquiry"—if such a principle were to be agreed to we should spend the next two or three years in dealing with and deciding by judicial inquiries the grievances of those who made these complaints.
I would urge another consideration which seems to be not without importance. Are these inquiries to be reserved only for persons of high positions—for soldiers or sailors of exalted rank? Is it to be laid down by a decision of your Lordships' House that subalterns and captains and commanding officers of battalions are to be placed in an inferior position to that of other persons whose social influence or whose rank in the service may happen to be higher? Of course, no one would venture to advance such a contention. Is the principle to be assented to that any officer who has held a commission in the course of this war, and who brings forward first of all the fact that he has been dismissed, and who adds to the fact that he has been dismissed "I was dismissed by my commanding officer unfairly and from malice or through corruption," is to be entitled to an inquiry? If any one of your Lordships can distinguish that case from this now under consideration I confess that I shall be very glad to hear that distinction clearly made. I confess that from the noble and learned Lord, I was astonished to hear such an argument.
We are told about some paragraph, which I confess I have not seen, appearing in a journal in which apparently Mr. Tyson Wilson, about whom we were told by another noble Lord that he is the Whip of the Labour Party, had made some statement reflecting upon this lady, and therefore suggesting—I gather that was the argument of the noble Lord—that your Lordships ought to direct an inquiry in order that it may be decided that the reflection of Mr. Tyson Wilson upon this lady is not well-founded. The short

951
answer to that is what was stated by the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope—I accept it as from him—that Mr. Tyson Wilson denies that he ever made this statement at all. On the other hand, it is alleged by three witnesses, according again to the noble Earl, who is my sole informant on this point, that Mr. Tyson Wilson is not telling the truth. If your Lordships are to get Judges to decide whether Mr. Tyson Wilson used these words which he says he did not use and which three witnesses say he did use, then I say I have never heard such a ground put forward for an inquiry, and it astonishes me that any one of the great experience and erudition of my noble and learned friend should think that such an argument ever deserved or was likely to have the slightest respect at your Lordships' hands.
The plain truth—and let us try at least to understand this—is that this lady was diverted, as I have said, from one branch of the Public Service to another. Lord Weir formed the same conclusion—and I suppose no one would be disposed to suspect that he did not honestly do it, or that he had any prejudice of any kind towards this lady—he formed the same conclusion which over and over again Commanding Officers in authority in the course of this war have done about their subordinates. Having formed that conclusion, he suggests plainly in a letter which has been read to your Lordships the reasons and the only reasons which led him to that conclusion.
What is the case which is made in answer? Miss Douglas-Pennant was invited to set out the case on which she relied as justifying the inquiry which had been most contingently promised by the noble Marquess who, when the first debate on this subject took place, spoke on behalf of the Government. I do not know whether your Lordships have yet had time to read the confidential Memorandum which is to be found on page 10 of this bundle of correspondence. I read it very carefully indeed, and I am astonished that anybody who has read this document—the first document which shows the case which Miss Douglas-Pennant thinks herself called upon to make—could ask your Lordships to take the serious step—alone in the case of this lady, when it has been denied to everybody else—of an inquiry. These were the kind of statements which she thought it worth while to
952
make. The first is on page 11 of the White Paper—
"From the outset I found that I was treated by practically every one as an unwelcome intruder; and it was easy to see that this attitude was brought about by my having stipulated for direct access, having regard to the serious condition of things when I first looked into them. For instance, I learned that the Probationary Officers had been warned that I was a dreadful woman who had spies everywhere, and who was simply out to lord it over every one and to treat the officers in the most unfair and cruel manner."
And at the end of the next paragraph she says—
"A day or two after I had informed the five Probationary Officers that I could not recommend the appointments in question, I was interviewed by another officer, a Mrs. Stephenson, who complained that I had not posted her high enough, that she intended to inform Lord Northcliffe, and the Press generally what was going on, and that there were four highly-placed Generals and others in the Air Ministry who meant to get rid of me, unless I did what was wanted, concluding with the remark: 'Mark my words, you will be outside looking for a job if you do not do what you ought in this matter. You will be outside in another week or two—see if you are not.'"
Is it really suggested that matters of this kind in the most important letter of the series are to be sent before a Judicial Committee?
In my judgment it is the first letter which is the most important letter in Miss Douglas-Pennant's correspondence. The last letter is written when the Secretary of State for War has written to Miss Douglas-Pennant and said that her letter is lacking in explicitness and that unless she brings forward some charges of corruption or malice against named individuals he will not grant an inquiry. But that is the first letter, and it is after two other long letters that Miss Douglas-Pennant has produced these charges which were read by my noble and learned friend who spoke last, and about which I say that the only reasonable inference is that if she had it in her mind at the time she wrote her first letter that this was her real case it is incredible that she would not have put the grave passage read by my noble and learned friend in that letter, which contained the long series of tittle-tattle which I have read. She left it to the last letter of all, which is only produced, at the point of the bayonet, when the Secretary of State had absolutely refused to grant an inquiry.
I will add one further observation. A noble Lord, speaking with deep feeling from those benches, said that he wished to

953
make it quite clear what the feeling was in Wales upon this point. I do not doubt the feeling in Wales. It is not difficult if one conducts a public agitation in certain ways to excite feeling in Wales or elsewhere, but it is very material to discover how this particular enthusiasm and indignation in Wales were excited, and I would invite my noble friend to consider the protest meeting that was held at Bangor on April 17, 1919. I state provisionally that I am quoting from the North Wales Chronicle, and I should be glad to discover whether the report is erroneous. Butt I state guardedly that the North Wales Chronicle attributes to the right rev. Prelate, the Bishop of St. Asaph, the following observations, which are said to be have been made at that meeting—
"The only possible explanation of the refusal of an inquiry is that the Government fear a scandal. One newspaper stated that some of the officers who sheltered in the Royal Air Force from the danger of contact with the enemy wish to have their mistresses maintained by the State in sham appointments of £300 and £400 a year. I do not think a Government which refuses an inquiry into such an allegation will last very long in this country."
It is true that the right rev. Prelate added—
"I am a well-wisher of the Government."
But I think he was rather passing to a different branch of his argument. It is, indeed, easy to understand indignation in Wales if allegations of this shocking character are made by persons of the highest responsibility, if excited public meetings are informed that this lady was removed from the Royal Air Service because she exposed the irregularities of officers who were establishing irregular connections with women who ware serving. And I greatly hope that the noble Lord when he next visits that interesting and beautiful town will make himself very forward in explaining that, although Miss Douglas-Pennant has written three extraordinarily long letters, she has never inserted that particular charge. And it would therefore be a little unreasonable if that were to be used as a means of exciting the just indignation of the moral population of Wales.
I have finished what I have to say on this question. I have not the honour of knowing Miss Douglas-Pennant, but I do not find that she, though somewhat sensitive in her own affairs, is quite as sensitive when she is dealing with others. I have
954
made it my business very carefully to inquire how many officers, male and female, were associated with this lady in important positions, and the proportion of those who were associated with her at all who have abstained from this conspiracy is quite extraordinary. There is no one who has not done something from the beginning, from Sir Auckland Geddes downwards—Sir Auckland Geddes who may be considered to be at any rate a person of admitted integrity (I have heard other suggestions against the Geddes family but nothing against their integrity), and we find Miss Douglas-Pennant beginning at the top and making the allegation that Sir Auckland Geddes, in order to obtain the appointment for his own sister has brought pressure to bear on Lord Weir and Major-General Brancker to dismiss her as soon as Sir Godfrey Paine, who alone knew anything about my work, was overseas."
As I differ profoundly from the noble and learned Lord as to the avenue through which only in rare case should ladies in the position of Miss Douglas-Pennant be able to win through to an inquiry, let me say at once that one of the avenues through which I would allow an inquiry would not be the making of reckless charges against persons in high positions without adducing one syllable of evidence in the letter in support of them. The one thing she was asked to adduce by the noble Marquess and by the Secretary of State was prima facie evidence. The accusations are shocking. "I charge Dame K. Furse"—a lady whose name is respected wherever it is known, whose contributions in the war have been as great as those of any lady I have ever known—" I charge Dame K. Furse, a friend of Mrs. Beatty and of Sir Auckland Geddes, with having brought pressure to bear through Sir A. Geddes on Lord Weir and Major-General Brancker to dismiss me." What does that mean? It means that a lady of the character of which I have spoken has gone to Sir Auckland Geddes (a Privy Councillor and a member of His Majesty's Government) and has said to him, "Will you go to Lord Weir" (also a Privy Councillor and a Secretary of State) "and will you persuade him to get rid of Miss Pennant"—and then the insinuation is plainly made that the reason Sir Auckland Geddes lent himself to this vile conspiracy was in order that the shameful job of placing Sir Auckland Geddes's sister in the position which Miss

955
Pennant had vacated might be perpetrated. Allegations, however reckless, are not proofs. The mere making of statements which attack and assail the character of every man and every woman who did not agree with Miss Pennant—and, indeed, the number was very considerable—the mere process of attempting to besmirch the reputation of every man and of every woman from whom she differed at that time, does not, believe me, entitle this lady to the inquiry for which she asks. I do not think, nor, indeed, do I expect, that your Lordships will accept any advice that I may respectfully offer to you at this moment. Your Lordships will, as I well know, go your own way.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: But I at least could not reconcile it to the view I hold that this course, in which I see nothing but disaster and failure, should be adopted without a clear warning (I hope respectfully conveyed from me) that your Lordships will be opening a wide door to many cases incomparably more deserving of inquiry.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BANGOR(who was indistinctly heard): My Lords, if there is any place where Miss Douglas-Pennant might be expected to have a meeting of indignation about the way in which she has been treated, I surely think it ought to be in her native city. I was very glad to hear it said that in fairness to every one there ought now to be an investigation, and I am sure that Miss Douglas-Pennant will court full inquiry into everything she has done.
I think the noble and learned Lord was endeavouring to turn us away from the main point, He talked of a highly-placed lady getting justice here, which would have been denied if she had not had so many friends in this House. I think this House has always been the inner temple of justice. A month or six weeks ago I was reading Prayers here, and while the House was sitting. judicially I listened to a case being tried. The person concerned was not a lady of high position but a poor charwoman bringing an action against the City of Glasgow, one of the most powerful corporations in the Kingdom. In my opinion it does not matter whether it is the case of a lady in a high social position or a woman in a low social position, the House
956
of Lords will always give a ready hearing and mete out justice. That is the main point. When a lady like Miss Douglas-Pennant is placed in this unfortunate position, little whispers are heard, and it is said that there is much more behind the case. In conclusion I should like to draw attention to the fact that while it is said that Miss Douglas-Pennant was dismissed by General Brancker on Lord Weir's order in August, yet Lord Weir says that he gave the order in September.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not intend to detain the House for more than two or three minutes, but I wish to say why I should feel compelled to vote for this motion. It is rather difficult to keep a thoroughly judicial spirit when one listens to a speech like that delivered by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I regretted the tone of that speech, especially coming from him. After all, everything the noble and learned Lord said was the speech of an advocate and not the speech, if I may say so, of a judge—and we are obliged to approach this subject as judges. All that he said, in which I dare say there was a great deal of truth, seemed to me all the more reason why an inquiry is necessary. If this lady has been guilty of making unfounded charges by all means let those unfounded charges be inquired into. But the real difficulty of the debate in your Lordships' House to-night is the absence—the astounding absence—of the only noble Lord who could have given us first-hand information on the matter. Where is Lord Weir? Why is he not in his place to defend his administration?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It is the second time.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: This is not the first time this subject has been before your Lordships. We had a debate upon it some months ago, and Lord Weir was not then in his place. What conclusion are your Lordships to draw from the fact that the noble Lord—who was the Secretary of State who came to this decision, and who is responsible for the action which was taken—is not present in his place to explain to your Lordships the

957
reason for his action? He has thrown that responsibility upon my noble friend, Lord Londonderry. I think that my noble friend, if he will allow me to say so, did his work this evening extraordinarily well, showing the good spirit and the attitude of mind which we were quite certain he would show. But what right was there to throw such a responsibility upon my noble friend? Lord Weir was the responsible man, and he should have been here to defend the course he took. That is the first reason why I feel compelled to vote for an inquiry.
The second reason is that the Private Secretary of the Prime Minister, who was directed by the Prime Minister to make an inquiry and who made it, is not allowed, apparently, to have his Report presented to Parliament. Why is that? Why should that Report be withheld from us? Why are we not to know what the Report on this inquiry of Mr. Cecil Harmsworth will be? This second is one which, if I may say so, broadly distinguishes this case from the generality of cases to which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack referred. Will the noble and learned Lord get up from the Woolsack and say that every Brigadier-General who is superseded will have the Prime Minister's Private Secretary directed to make an inquiry into his case? Will be say that in every such case the Prime Minister's Private Secretary has come to the conclusion that there ought to be a judicial inquiry, and has told the
Prime Minister so? Of course, that by itself differentiates the case from all ordinary ones. These are two very strong reasons.
I will give only one final reason. The noble Marquess, speaking on behalf of the Government on the last occasion, told your Lordships—and, I am sure, told us in absolute good faith—that if Miss Douglas-Pennant produced a prima facie case for an inquiry the Government would be most anxious to grant it. Has she not produced a prima facie case? Who can deny that she has done so? I do not say that she has proved her case, but here was an absolute pledge from the Government that if a prima facie case was produced an inquiry would be granted. These reasons seem to me conclusive and I do not see how your Lordships can come to any conclusion but to vote for the Motion. May I add that that does not mean that those who vote for the Motion find in favour of Miss Douglas-Pennant.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Of course not. She may be absolutely wrong. All that we find is that there should be an inquiry.
On Question, That the Motion be agreed to—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 69; Not-Contents, 20.

CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D.

Knollys, V.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Grenfell, L.

Crewe, M.

Bangor, L. Bp.

Inverclyde, L.

Lincolnshire, M.

Islington, L.

Salisbury, M.

Aberconway, L.

Lawrence, L.

Bathurst, E.

Askwith, L.

Monckton, L.(V. Galway.)

Beauchamp, E.

Ampthill, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Eldon, E.

Avebury, L.

Monson, L.

Grey, E.

Beresford of Metemmeh, L. [Teller.]

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Lindsay, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Blyth, L.

Pontypridd, L.

Manvers, E.

Buckmaster, L.

Roundway, L.

Mayo, E.

Charnwood, L.

St. Levan, L.

Selborne, E.

Chaworth, L.(E. Meath.)

Sanderson, L.

Stanhope, E.[Teller.]

Clwyd, L.

Sandys, L.

Strafford, E.

Dewar, L.

Shute, L.(V. Barrington.)

Ebury, L.

Strachie, L.

Allendale, V.

Erskine, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Chaplin, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Sudeley, L.

Esher, V.

Forbes, L.

Sydenham, L,

Finlay, V.

Forester, L.

Treowen, L.

Hood, V.

Gainford, L.

Weardale, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Glenconner, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Wolverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L.(L. Chancellor.)

Jersey, K.

Armaghdale, L.

Curzon of Kedleston, E. (L. President.)

Vane, E.(M. Londonderry).

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Faringdon, L.

Bristol, M.

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Hylton, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Sandhurst, V.(L. Chamberlain.)

Newton, L.

Peel, V.

Rathcreedan, L.

Bradford, E.

Somerleyton, L.[Teller.]

Chesterfield, E.

Annesley, L.

Stanmore, L.[Teller.]

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

POLAND.
LORD TREOWEN LORD TREOWEN had the following Questions on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government—
Whether the intention conveyed in the speech of the Lord President of the Council of the 13th March to send out a British Red Cross unit to Poland has been abandoned, and whether this is due to a refusal on the part of the Treasury to provide the necessary financial aid.
Whether the supplies and medical stores given to Poland by the British Red Cross Society are being distributed through the medium of the American Red Cross Mission, and whether the Government is aware that this method of distribution has produced an effect in Poland detrimental to the interests of this country.
Whether any further information as to the condition of Poland, derived from the reports of Sir Esme Howard, can now be given; and whether the Government will consider the advisability of taking such action as will give expression in Poland to the sympathy felt throughout the Empire towards reconstituted Poland and its suffering population.
Whether any representative of this country has yet been accredited to the Polish Government.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it would be in accordance with the wishes of your Lordships at this late hour, and in view of the business which has already been done, that I should put my Questions with the least possible addition of words. My object in putting them on the Paper was to give the noble Earl, who made such a
960
sympathetic reply to a similar Question on March 13, an opportunity for making another statement in regard to the country of Poland, which excites so widespread an interest here. I have the greatest confidence in the sympathy of the noble Earl who leads the House and in his intentions towards Poland. His good intentions, however, may be over-borne by sinister influences; and we know that such sinister influences are at work in regard to this unfortunate country. I will add no more.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for having put his Questions with so much conciseness, and not having at this late period of the evening either indulged himself, or tempted me to indulge, in any lengthy remarks on this subject. He may rest assured that the sympathy to which he referred in my former remarks is not by any means abated, and that the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards that suffering and unhappy country is now what it was then—namely, one of continous and anxious sympathy.
As regards the Questions on the Paper, I will answer them seriatim. In reply to the first, on April 9 last the Foreign Office did inform the Treasury that it was in their opinion desirable that a Red Cross unit should be sent at once to Poland, that the British Red Cross Society, to whom application had been made, were unable to provide a unit themselves, and that the total estimated cost was £200,000. We asked the Treasury to sanction the expenditure of that sum. A week later the Treasury suggested, in reply, that our application ought to be made to the British Secretary of the Supreme Economic Council sitting in Paris, since that body is authorised, without reference to the Government here, or indeed to the other Allied Governments, to make grants out of a sum placed at their disposal, which includes as much as £12,500,000 given by ourselves for the

961
relief of the populations in the devastated areas. We made this request to Paris, and we pressed them for an early reply. A reply eventually came, that having considered the matter they did not feel justified it, allotting any part of the limited funds at their disposal, a good deal of which had been expended, in the relief suggested with regard to Poland. I think it ought to be remembered in that connection that this body to which I refer already had at an earlier date voted £100,000 for the purchase of stores in Poland. I do not know whether these are the stores to which the noble Lord referred. I think that can hardly be the case, because he speaks of stores which were given to Poland by the British Red Cross Society.
LORD TREOWEN: I was referring to the stores placed at the disposal of the Polish Government frown the surplus stores of the British Red Cross.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Then there are evidently two sets of stores. As regards the latter—namely, the stores given by the British 'RA Cross Society—we have no evidence that, they are being distributed through the medium of the American Red Cross Mission, Our information was that for some time they were held up by the Germans and were therefore incapable of being allotted, but only two days ago a telegram came to say that they had been released, and they are now, I imagine, available for distribution.
As regards the third paragraph—namely, whether I have any further information as to the condition of Poland arising out of the reports of Sir Esme Howard—I presume that the noble Lord has in his mind reports upon the economic rather than the political condition of Poland. Sir Esme Howard was sent not from the Foreign Office here but from Paris, and his reports on the matter—he returned, I may say, two months ago—have been Made to and are in the hands of those bodies at Paris to which I referred. I should like on that point to say in a single sentence what I am sure the noble Lord will not misunderstand—that the real case for relief in Poland is an economic case, and that it is on those grounds that the people of Poland and the Government of Poland are justified in appealing to the Allied Governments and are most likely to receive assistance from them.
In my previous remarks, I uttered a word
962
of respectful warning to the Polish Government and to the leaders of Polish opinion, inviting them to concentrate upon this aspect of the case rather than indulge in military adventures, which would be only to their detriment. It is very necessary that I should repeat that warning now. Certain parties in Poland are at the present moment engaged in military attempts in Eastern Galicia which can only be fraught with danger to their cause—attempts to take the decision of the case out of the hands of the Paris Conference, and decide by a violent recourse to arms what ought to be settled by peaceful arbitration and decision at Paris. That warning I shall be very glad if my noble friend will communicate to any of his friends. Meanwhile as regards the economic situation, which I cannot pretend is good, we are doing and shall continue to do all that lies in our power to help that country.
The last Question is as to whether any representative of this country has yet been accredited to the Polish Government. I can answer that in the affirmative. Sir Percy Wyndham has been appointed His Majesty's Commissioner in Poland, and he has been in Warsaw since the beginning of this month.
LORD TREOWEN: I am much obliged to the noble Earl for the information he has given me. I should naturally have liked, and many of those interested in Poland would have been glad, if it had been possible for him to touch on the political situation in Poland, which we all realise is very critical. However, I fully understand his reticence on that subject.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Third Report from the Select Committee.
The Committee reported—

1. WAR BONUS.
The Committee again considered the application to the House of Lords Offices of the new War Bonus sanctioned by the Treasury, and approved its application to the Salaries of the Staff of the House of Lords.

2. ADDITIONAL ACCOMMODATION FOR CROWN OFFICE.
The Lord Great Chamberlain explained to the Committee his proposed arrangements for giving additional rooms to meet the pressing requirements of the Clerk of the Crown and Permanen Secretary to the Lord Chancellor. He proposed:—
1. To assign the two rooms on the ground floor looking on to Old Palace Yard, now occupied by the Resident Engineer, to the Clerk of the Crown.
2. To assign the rooms on the third floor, now occupied by the Housekeeper (with the addition of a large room, very kindly placed at his disposal by the Clerk of the Parliaments) to the Resident Engineer.
3. To assign the four rooms on the third floor now occupied by the Resident Engineer to the Housekeeper.

3. ACCOMMODATION IN THE HOUSE FOR THE WIDOWS OF LIFE PEERS.
The Lord Chairman brought before the notice of the Committee the question of the admission of Widows of Life Peers to the Gallery of the House.
The present practice is based on a resolution of the Offices Committee in 1894 to the effect that:—
"The regulations for the admission of wives and unmarried daughters of Peers to the Galleries of the House should extend to the wives and daughters of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary during the lifetime of such Lord."
The Committee agreed that this resolution should be amended so as to extend to widows of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, and to read as follows:—
"The regulations for the admission of wives and unmarried daughters of Peers to the Galleries of the House should extend to the wives and daughters of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary during the lifetime of such Lord, and after the death of such Lord the regulations for the admission of wires of Peers shall extend to his widow so long as she remains unmarried.
The, Italics show the addition made by the Committee.

4. APPOINTMENT.
The Clerk of the Parliaments inform d the Committee that he had appointed Captain Arthur O'Neill Cubitt Chichester, Surrey Yeomanry, to fill a vacancy in the Parliament Office.
5. ESTIMATE.
The Estimate for the House of Lords Offices for the year 1919–20 was laid before the Committee by the Clerk of the Parliaments and approved.

6. FEE FUND.
The Account of the Fee Fund of the House of Lords for the year ended 31st March, 1919, was laid before the Committee by the Clerk of the Parliaments.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, in moving that this Report be adopted I ask your Lordships to agree to the Report with the exception of paragraphs 2 and 6, with the object of referring them back to the Committee. In regard to paragraph 2,
964
there is a recommendation made to the Committee by the Lord Great Chamberlain that in view of unexpected developments since the Report was printed this portion of the Report should be referred back. I entirely concur, and I am sure the House will follow his recommendation. The Clerk of the Parliaments has asked me to suggest to your Lordships that Paragraph 6 should also be referred back for very cogent reasons with which I need not trouble your Lordships at this hour.
Moved. That the House agree to the said Report with the exception of paragraphs 2 and 6, and that those paragraphs be referred back to the Committee.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following fourteen Bills received the Royal Assent—

Public Health (Medical Treatment of Children) (Ireland).K

Education (Scotland) (Superannuation).

Wages (Temporary Regulation) Extension.

South Shields Gas.

D. H. Evans and Company.

St. George's Church, Oxford.

Belfast Harbour.

Dover Harbour.

Blyth Harbour.

Bristol Corporation.

Dublin Port and Docks.

Mersey Docks and Harbour.

Newport Harbour Commissioners.

Bankers' Guarantee Trust (Transfer).

[From Minutes of May 28:]

BANKERS' GUARANTEE TRUST (TRANSFER) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
NORTHAMPTON GAS BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.

STATEMENT OF RATES BILL.
To be read 2a, on Tuesday next (The Lord Sydenham).
House adjourned at ten minutes past eight o'clock.