asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether it was by the authority of the Estates Commissioners that the late Inspector P. J. Byrne pointed out a farm to Mrs. Anne Fitzpatrick, Ballintaggart, Roscrea, on the Kilcote estate, on 16th February last, as intended for her; whether Mrs. Fitzpatrick accepted the farm; and, seeing that the farm in question has been given to a tenant from Wicklow, will the Estates Commissioners provide another holding for this woman?

The late Mr. P. J. Byrne had no authority to offer the lands referred to to Mrs. Anne Fitzpatrick, and the Estates Commissioners are not aware that he did so. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.

asked whether the Congested Districts Board has prepared and circulated the leaflet on mackerel-curing in accordance with the undertaking given to the honourable Member for South Kerry, in view of the near approach of the autumn fishing season.

The leaflet referred to is in course of preparation, and will be circulated in time for next season's curing.

asked the Chief Secretary whether the maps and documents in connection ith the purchase of the E. J. Sugrue estate, Ballinskelligs, have yet been handed over to the Congested Districts Board; and, if not, can he explain the reason of the delay?

The maps and documents in connection with the purchase of this estate have not so far been lodged with the Congested Districts Board. The Board have recently been informed by the agent that he hopes to lodge the maps and documents shortly, but the Board have no further information in the matter.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that Patrick Kehoe, John Street, Wexford, applied for an old age pension on the 20th May last; whether the committee granted him 5s. per week; whether the officer reduced it to 1s. per week, and his decision was upheld by the Local Government Board; and whether, seeing that this man was seventy years of age last February, is destitute, and unable to work, he will see that the full pension is given to him?

This man was allowed a pension of a shilling a week on the ground that his earnings for the preceding twelve months amounted to £29 12s. This calculation was made under Section 2 (b) of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1911, as there was no means of ascertaining definitely what his means would be for the ensuing year. At the time the decision was given he was actually working, and in receipt of twelve shillings a week wages.

asked the Chief Secretary whether, having regard to the fact that military operations cannot be carried on unless sanctioned by the authority of the civil power, any power was vested in Mr. Harrel, as a police official, to constitute himself as the representative of the civil power in requiring military forces of the Crown to proceed to Clontarf, on the 26th July, to intercept the Irish Volunteers in the convoy of arms to Dublin; if Mr. Harrel was invested with such power, under what statutory or common law provision was power conferred upon him; in what other Irish officials is the power vested in their own discretion of requisitioning the services of the military, which appertains in England to the chief civil authority alone; and whether, having regard to recent circumstances, steps will be taken that the power of the requisitioning of troops in anticipation of civil commotion will be vested not in subordinate officials but in the recognised civil authority?

I should have no difficulty in answering this question, but as there is to be an inquiry into all the circumstances, I must decline to do so.

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that a county lunatic asylum with 2,000 patients is left with inadequate medical staff owing to medical men being called up for military service; and whether steps are in contemplation for assisting large institutions in similar difficulties?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The Board of Control inform me that, though they have received no representations on the matter, they have already given it careful consideration. They have every confidence that officers not called out will loyally respond to the demand for any extra work made upon them and that the interests of the patients will not suffer, while temporary measures are being taken to supplement the regular staff.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India have at any time received offers from rulers of Native states of the services of skilled master builders to assist in the designs and erection of the new Delhi; whether such offers have been declined; and, if so, for what reasons?

The Government of India have informed the Secretary of State that no such offers have been received.

asked whether there are now in the employment of the Public Works Department any master builders equal in experience and attainments to those who are now building the great mosque for Her Highness the Begum of Bhopal; and, if so, why the services of such master builders are not used for original work in the construction of public buildings in India?

The point raised in the first question is one of opinion, and does not admit of a definite answer. As regards the second question, the requirements of the Department of Public Works as to the preparation of detailed plans and estimates and the carrying out of work make it impossible to hand over a project to Indian master craftsmen following the customary methods exemplified in the case of the Bhopal mosque, but the Government propose to utilise the services of men of this class on the new capital, so far as may be practicable with due regard to these requirements.

In asking the Committee to agree to the Resolution which Mr. Whitley has just read from the Chair, I do not propose, because I do not think it is in any way necessary, to traverse again the ground which was covered by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary two or three nights ago. He stated—and I do not think any of the statements he made are capable of answer and certainly have not yet been answered—the grounds upon which, with the utmost reluctance and with infinite regret, His Majesty's Government have been compelled to put this country in a state of war with what for many years and indeed generations past has been a friendly Power. But, Sir, the Papers which have since been presented to Parliament, and which are now in the hands of hon. Members will, I think, show how strenuous, how unremitting, how persistent, even when the last glimmer of hope seemed to have faded away, were the efforts of my right hon. Friend to secure for Europe an honourable and a lasting peace.

Everyone knows in the great crisis which occurred last year in the East of Europe, it was largely if not mainly, by the acknowledgment of all Europe, due to the steps taken by my right hon. Friend that the area of the conflict was limited, and that so far as the great Powers are concerned, peace was maintained. If his efforts upon this occasion have, unhappily, been less successful, I am certain that this House and the country—and I will add posterity and history—will accord to him what is, after all, the best tribute that can be paid to any statesman that, never derogating for an instant or by an inch from the honour and interests of his own country, he has striven, as few men have striven, to maintain and preserve the greatest interest of all countries—universal peace.

These Papers, which are now in the hands of hon. Members, show something more than that. They show what were the terms which were offered to us in exchange for our neutrality. I trust that not only the Members of this House, but all our fellow-subjects everywhere will read the communications—will read, learn and mark the communications which passed only a week ago to-day between Berlin and London in this matter. The terms by which it was sought to buy our neutrality are contained in the communication made by the German Chancellor to Sir Edward Goschen on the 29th July—No. 85 of the published Papers. I think I must refer to them for a moment. After alluding to the state of things as between Austria and Russia, Sir Edward Goschen goes on:—

"He [the German Chancellor] then proceeded to make the following strong bid for British neutrality. He said that it was clear, so far as he was able to judge the main principle "which governed British policy, that Great Britain would never stand by and allow France to be crushed in any conflict there might be. That, however, was not the object at which Germany aimed Provided that neutrality of Great Britain were certain, every assurance would be given to the British Government that the Imperial Government"—

Let the Committee observe these words—

"aimed at no territorial acquisition at the expense of France should they prove victorious in any war that might ensue."

Sir Edward Goschen proceeded to put a very pertinent question:—

"I questioned His Excellency about the French colonies "—

What are the French colonies? They mean every part of the dominions and possessions of France outside the geographical area of Europe—

"and he said that he was unable to give a similar undertaking in that respect."

Let me come to what, in my mind, personally has always been the crucial and almost the governing consideration, namely, the position of the small States:—

"As regards Holland, however, His Excellency said that so long as Germany's adversaries respected the integrity and neutrality of the Netherlands, Germany was ready to give His Majesty's Government an assurance that she would do likewise."

Then we come to Belgium:—

"It depended upon the action of France what operations Germany might be forced to enter upon in Belgium, but, when the war was over, Belgian integrity would be respected if she had not sided against Germany."

Let the Committee observe the distinction between those two cases. In regard to Holland it was not only independence and integrity, but also neutrality; but in regard to Belgium, there was no mention of neutrality at all, nothing but an assurance that after the war came to an end the integrity of Belgium would be respected. Then His Excellency added:—

"Ever since he had been Chancellor the object of his policy had been to bring about an understanding with England. He trusted that these assurances"—

the assurances I have read out to the House—

"might form the basis of that understanding which he so much desired."

What does that amount to? Let me just ask the Committee. I do so, not with the object of inflaming passion, certainly not with the object of exciting feeling against Germany, but I do so to vindicate and make clear the position of the British Government in this matter. What did that proposal amount to? In the first place, it meant this: That behind the back of France—they were not made a party to these communications—we should have given, if we had assented to that, a free licence to Germany to annex, in the event of a successful war, the whole of the extra European dominions and possessions of France. What did it mean as regards Belgium? When she addressed, as she has addressed in these last few days, her moving appeal to us to fulfil our solemn guarantee of her neutrality, what reply should we have given? What reply should we have given to that Belgian appeal? We should have been obliged to say that, without her knowledge, we had bartered away to the Power threatening her our obligation to keep our plighted word. The House has read, and the country has read, of course, in the last few hours, the most pathetic appeal addressed by the King of Belgium, and I do not envy the man who can read that appeal with an unmoved heart. Belgians are fighting and losing their lives. What would have been the position of Great Britain to-day, in the face of that spectacle, if we had assented to this infamous proposal?

Yes, and what are we to get in return for the betrayal of our friends and the dishonour of our obligations? What are we to get in return? A promise—nothing more; a promise as to what Germany would do in certain eventualities; a promise, be it observed—I am sorry to have to say it, but it must be put upon record—given by a Power which was at that very moment announcing its intention to violate its own treaty and inviting us to do the same. I can only say, if we had dallied or temporised, we, as a Government, should have covered ourselves with dishonour, and we should have betrayed the interests of this country, of which we are trustees. I am glad, and I think the country will be glad, to turn to the reply which my right hon. Friend made, and of which I will read to the Committee two of the more salient passages. This document, No. 101 of the Papers, puts on record a week ago the attitude of the British Government, and, as I believe, of the British people. My right hon. Friend says:—

"His Majesty's Government cannot for a moment entertain the Chancellor's proposal that they should bind themselves to neutrality on such terms. What he asks us in effect is to engage to stand by while French Colonies are taken if France is beaten, so long as Germany does not take French territory as distinct from the Colonies. From the material point of view "—

My right hon. Friend, as he always does, used very temperate language:—

"such a proposal is unacceptable, for France, without further territory in Europe being taken from her could be so crushed as to lose her position as a Great Power, and become subordinate to German policy."

That is the material aspect. But he proceeded:—

"Altogether, apart from that, it would be a disgrace for us to make this bargain with Germany at the expense of Fiance, a disgrace from which the good name of this country would never recover. The Chancellor also in effect asks us to bargain away whatever obligation or interest we have as regards the neutrality of Belgium. We could not entertain that bargain either."

He then says:—

"We must preserve our full freedom to act, as circumstances may seem to us to require."

And he added, I think, in sentences which the Committee must appreciate:—

"You should … add most earnestly that the one way of maintaining the good relations between England and Germany is that they should continue to work together to preserve the peace of Europe. … For that object this Government will work in that way with all sincerity and good will.

If the peace of Europe can be preserved and the present crisis safely passed, my own endeavour will be to promote some arrangement to which Germany could be a party, by which she could be assured that no aggressive or hostile policy would be pursued against her or her allies by France, Russia, and ourselves, jointly or separately. I have desired this and worked for it "—

The statement was never more true—

"as far as I could, through the last Balkan crisis, and Germany having a corresponding object, our relations sensibly improved. The idea has hitherto been too Utopian to form the subject of definite proposals, but if this present crisis, so much more acute than any that Europe has gone through for generations, be safely passed, I am hopeful that the relief and reaction which will follow may make possible some more definite rapprochement between the Powers than has been possible hitherto."

That document, in my opinion, states clearly, in temperate and convincing language, the attitude of this Government. Can anyone who reads it fail to appreciate the tone of obvious sincerity and earnestness which underlies it; can anyone honestly doubt that the Government of this country in spite of great provocation—and I regard the proposals made to us as proposals which we might have thrown aside without consideration and almost without answer—can anyone doubt that in spite of great provocation the right hon. Gentleman, who had already earned the title—and no one ever more deserved it—of "Peace Maker of Europe," persisted to the very last moment of the last hour in that beneficent but unhappily frustrated purpose?

I am entitled to say, and I do so on behalf of this country—I speak not for a party, I speak for the country as a whole—that we made every effort any Government could possibly make for peace. But this war has been forced upon us. What is it we are fighting for? Everyone knows, and no one knows better than the Government, the terrible, incalculable suffering, economic, social, personal and political, which war, and especially a war between the Great Powers of the world, must entail. There is no man amongst us sitting upon this bench in these trying days—more trying perhaps than any body of statesmen for a hundred years have had to pass through—there is not a man amongst us who has not, during the whole of that time, had clearly before his vision the almost unequalled suffering which war, even in a just cause, must bring about, not only to the peoples who are for the moment living in this country and in the other countries of the world, but to posterity and to the whole prospects of European civilisation. Every step we took we took with that vision before our eyes, and with a sense of responsibility which it is impossible to describe. Unhappily, if in spite of all our efforts to keep the peace, and with that full and overpowering consciousness of the result, if the issue be decided in favour of war, we have, nevertheless, thought it to be the duty as well as the interest of this country to go to war, the House may be well assured it was because we believe, and I am certain the country will believe, that we are unsheathing our sword in a just cause.

If I am asked what we are fighting for I reply in two sentences. In the first place, to fulfil a solemn international obligation, an obligation which, if it had been entered into between private persons in the ordinary concerns of life, would have been regarded as an obligation not only of law but of honour, which no self-respecting man could possibly have repudiated I say, secondly, we are fighting to vindicate the principle which, in these days when force, material force, sometimes seems to be the dominant influence and factor in the development of mankind, we are fighting to vindicate the principle that small nationalities are not to be crushed, in defiance of international good faith, by the arbitrary will of a strong and overmastering Power.

I do not believe any nation ever entered into a great controversy—and this is one of the greatest history will ever know—with a clearer conscience and a stronger conviction that it is fighting, not for aggression, not for the maintenance even of its own selfish interest, but that it is fighting in defence of principles the maintenance of which is vital to the civilisation of the world. With a full conviction, not only of the wisdom and justice, but of the obligations which lay upon us to challenge this great issue, we are entering into the struggle. Let us now make sure that all the resources, not only of this United Kingdom, but of the vast Empire of which it is the centre, shall be thrown into the scale, and it is that that object may be adequately secured, that I am now about to ask this Committee—to make the very unusual demand upon it—to give the Government a Vote of Credit of £100,000,000.

I am not going, and I am sure the Committee do not wish it, into the technical distinctions between Votes of Credit and Supplementary Estimates and all the rarities and refinements which arise in that connection. There is a much higher point of view than that. If it were necessary, I could justify, upon purely technical grounds, the course we propose to adopt, but I am not going to do so, because I think it would be foreign to the temper and disposition of the Committee. There is one thing to which I do call attention, that is, the Title and Heading of the Bill. As a rule, in the past, Votes of this kind have been taken simply for naval and military operations, but we have thought it right to ask the Committee to give us its confidence in the extension of the traditional area of Votes of Credit, so that this money which we are asking them to allow us to expend may be applied not only for strictly naval and military operations, but to assist the food supplies, promote the continuance of trade, industry, business, and communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against risk or otherwise, for the relief of distress, and generally for all expenses arising out of the existence of a state of war.

I believe the Committee will agree with us that it was wise to extend the area of the Vote of Credit so as to include all these various matters. It gives the Government a free hand. Of course, the Treasury will account for it, and any expenditure that takes place will be subject to the approval of the House. I think it would be a great pity—in fact, a great disaster—if, in a crisis of this magnitude, we were not enabled to make provision—provision far more needed now than it was under the simpler conditions that prevailed in the old days—for all the various ramifications and developments of expenditure which the existence of a state of war between the great Powers of Europe must entail on any one of them.

I am asking also in my character of Secretary of State for War—a position which I held until this morning—for a Supplementary Estimate for men for the Army. Perhaps the Committee will allow me for a moment just to say on that personal matter that I took upon myself the office of Secretary of State For War under conditions, upon which I need not go back, but which are fresh in the minds of everyone, in the hope and with the object that the condition of things in the Army, which all of us deplored, might speedily be brought to an end, and complete confidence re-established. I believe that is the case; in fact, I know it to be. There is no more loyal and united body, no body in which the spirit and habit of discipline are more deeply ingrained and cherished than in the British Army. Glad as I should have been to continue the work of that office, and I would have done so under normal conditions, it would not be fair to the Army, it would not be just to the country, that any Minister should divide his attention between that Department and another, still less that the First Minister of the Crown, who has to look into the affairs of all Departments and who is ultimately responsible for the whole policy of the Cabinet, should give, as he could only give, perfunctory attention to the affairs of our Army in a great war. I am very glad to say that a very distinguished soldier and administrator, in the person of Lord Kitchener, with that great public spirit and patriotism that everyone would expect from him, at my request stepped into the breach. Lord Kitchener, as everyone knows, is not a politician. His association with the Government as a Member of the Cabinet for this purpose must not be taken as in any way identifying him with any set of political opinions. He has, at a great public emergency, responded to a great public call, and I am certain he will have with him, in the discharge of one of the most arduous tasks that has ever fallen upon a Minister, the complete confidence of all parties and all opinions.

I am asking on his behalf for the Army, power to increase the number of men of all ranks, in addition to the number already voted, by no less than 500,000. I am certain the Committee will not refuse its sanction, for we are encouraged to ask for it not only by our own sense of the gravity and the necessities of the case, but by the knowledge that India is prepared to send us certainly two Divisions, and that every one of our self-governing Dominions, spontaneously and unasked, has already tendered to the utmost limits of their possibilities, both in men and in money, every help they can, afford to the Empire in a moment of need. Sir, the Mother Country must set the example, while she responds with gratitude and affection to those filial overtures from the outlying members of her family.

I will say no more. This is not an occasion for controversial discussion. In all that I have said, I believe I have not gone, either in the statement of our case, or in my general description of the provision we think it necessary to make, beyond the strict bounds of truth. It is not my purpose—it is not the purpose of any patriotic man—to inflame feeling, to indulge in rhetoric, to excite international animosities. The occasion is far too grave for that. We have a great duty to perform, we have a great trust to fulfil, and confidently we believe that Parliament and the country will enable us to do it.

No Minister has ever fulfilled a duty more responsible or in regard to which the responsibility was more acutely felt than that which has just been fulfilled by the right hon. Gentleman. This is not a time for speech making, and I should have been quite ready to leave the statement which he has given to the Committee as the expression of the view, not of a party but of a nation. But as this, I think, will be the only opportunity which will be given for expressing the views of a large section of this Committee, I feel that I am bound to make clear to the Committee and to the country what is the attitude of His Majesty's Opposition on this question. There are two things which I desire to impress upon the Committee. The first is that we have dreaded war and have longed for peace as strongly as any Member of this Committee; and the second is that in our belief we are in a state of war against our will, and that we, as a nation, have done everything in our power to prevent such a condition of things arising. When this crisis first arose I confess I was one of those who had the hope that even then, though a European conflagration took place, we might be able to stay out of it. I held that hope strongly, but in a short time I became convinced of this, that into this war we should inevitably be drawn, and that it really was a question, and a question only, whether we should enter it honourably or be dragged into it with dishonour.

I remember that on the first occasion, after the retirement of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour), when I had to speak on foreign affairs, I made this statement, which perhaps is wrong, though I do not think so even yet, I said that if ever war arose between Great Britain and Germany it would not be due to inevitable causes, for I did not believe in inevitable war. I said it would be due to human folly. It is due to human folly, and to human wickedness, but neither the folly nor the wickedness is here. What other course-was open to us? It is quite true, as the (Foreign Secretary explained to the House the other day, that we were under no formal obligation to take part in such a struggle, but every Member in this House knows that the Entente meant this in the minds of this Government and of every other Government, that if any of the three Powers were attacked aggressively the others would be expected to step in to give their aid. The question, therefore, to my mind was this: Was this war in any way provoked by those who will now be our allies? No one who has read the White Paper can hesitate to answer that question. I am not going to go into it even as fully as the Prime Minister has done, but I would remind the House of this, that in this White Paper is contained the statement made by the German Ambassador, I think, at Vienna, that Russia was not in a condition and could not go to war, and in the same letter are found these words:—

"As for Germany, she knew very well what she was about in backing up Austria-Hungary in this matter."

Everyone for years has known that the key to peace or war lay in Berlin. Everyone knew it, and at this crisis there is no one who can doubt that Berlin, if it had chosen, could have prevented this terrible conflict. I am afraid that the miscalculation which was made about Brussels was made also about us. The dispatch which the right hon. Gentleman referred to is a dispatch of a nature that I, at least, believe would not have been addressed to Great Britain if it had been believed that our hands were free, and that we held the position which we had always held before. That, at least, is my belief. Now what does this mean? We are fighting, as the Prime Minister said, for the honour, and with the honour is bound up always the interest, of our country. But we are fighting also for the whole basis of the civilisation for which we stand, and for which Europe stands. I do not wish, any more than the Prime Minister, to inflame passion, and I only ask the House to consider this one aspect.

Look at the way Belgium is being treated to-day. There is a report—if it is not true now, it may be true to-morrow—that the city of Liege is attacked by German troops, and that civilians, as in the days of the middle ages, are fighting for their hearths and homes against trained troops. How has that been brought about? In a state of war, war must be waged, but remember that this plan is not of to-day or of yesterday. It has been long matured. The Germans knew that they would have others to face, and they were ready to take the course which they took the other day of saying to Belgium, "Destroy your independence and allow our troops to go through, or we will come down upon you with a might which it is impossible for you to resist." If we had allowed that to be done, our position as one of the great nations of the world, and our honour as one of the nations of the world, would, in my opinion, have been gone. This is no small struggle. It is the greatest, perhaps, that this country has ever been engaged in, and the issue is uncertain. It is Napoleonism once again. Thank heaven, so far as we know, there is no Napoleon.

I am not going to say anything more about the causes of the war, for I do not desire to encourage controversy on this subject. But, if I may be allowed to say so, I should like to say this, that I read yesterday with real pleasure an article in a paper which does not generally commend itself to me, the "Manchester Guardian." In that article it still held that the war ought not to have been entered into, but it took this view, that that was a question for history, and that now we were in it, there was only one question for us, and that was to bring it to a successful issue. I have felt sympathy, far more than at any other time, for the Prime Minister and for the Foreign Secretary. I can imagine nothing more terrible than that the Foreign Secretary should have a feeling that perhaps he has brought this country into an unnecessary war. No feeling can be worse. I can say this, and whether we are right or wrong, the whole House agrees with it I am sure, that that is a burden which the right hon. Gentleman can carry with a good conscience, and that every one of us can put up unhesitatingly this prayer, may God defend the right.

I should like, if I may to go to another topic—this is the only opportunity I shall have, and I think it is worth saying—and to ask the House to consider the conditions under which this war is going to be carried on. I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister say the other day in answer to a speech by the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur Henderson), and he has developed it in describing the terms of this Vote of Credit, that he realised, as we all must realise, that in a country situated like ours the development of industry and the supply of food at home is just as much an operation of war as is the conduct of our armed forces. I do not wish to minimise our difficulties, but I am quite sure, as sure as I can be of anything, that there is no danger of a scarcity of food, and that the only danger is the fear of scarcity of food. Everyone who has been in business knows that what causes panic prices is not actual scarcity at the time, but the fear of scarcity coming, and this is a case where every one of us must do what he can to impress upon the people of this country that there is, as I believe, no danger. Here I should like, if I may, to give one warning note. Remember, at least I believe it, this war, unexpected by us, is not unexpected by our enemy. I shall be greatly surprised if we do not find that at first on our trade routes there is a destruction of our property which might raise a panic. That is inevitable, I think, at the outset. Let us be prepared for it, and let us realise that it has no bearing whatever on the ultimate course of the war. There is something else which I think, if I am right, it is important to say. We had a discussion yesterday about credit. That is the basis of successful war, as it is of every branch of industry at this moment. I think the Government have taken the right course. I have followed it closely, and I know that they have been supported by those who best understand the situation. I think the danger is minimised as much as it can be. But, after all, the question of credit really depends on what we believe is going to be the effect of this war upon our trade and our industry. I hope the House will not think I am too optimistic, but I do think there is a danger of our taking too gloomy a view of what the effects may be, and by taking that gloomy view, helping to bring about the very state of affairs that we wish to avoid.

Again, I wish to guard myself against seeming to be too hopeful. But let us look at the facts as if we were examining a chess problem. If we keep the command of the sea, what is going to happen? It all depends on that. I admit that if that goes the position is gloomy indeed, but of that I have no fear. If we keep the command of the sea, what is going to happen? Five-sixths of our production is employed in the Home trade. What goes abroad is very important, for, of course, if the population which supplied the sixth were thrown out of work, that would react upon the Home trade. But, after all, the total amount of our exports to all the European countries which are now at war is only a small part of our total exports. There is here no question of fiscal policy. We are far beyond that. It is a fact. Our total exports to all the countries which are now at war do not, in my belief—I have not looked into the figures—exceed our exports to India and Australia taken alone.

We shall have free trade, if the sea routes are maintained, with the Colonies and with the whole of the American Continent, and, unfortunately for them, both our allies and our enemies will not be competing with us in those markets. Look at it as a problem, and I think we have a right to believe, not that trade will be good, but that it will be much more nearly normal than is generally believed. I hope the House will not think that a useless thing to say. There is one thing more which I would desire to say. This is the affair of the nation. Everyone would desire to help. There is a great deal of work to be done which cannot be done by the Government. I was glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has already asked the co-operation of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham and my right hon. Friend the Member for the Strand. They gave it gladly. But I am sure that I speak not only for this bench, but for the whole of our party, when I say that the Government has only got to requisition any one of us and we will serve it and our country to the best of our ability.

If the House would allow me—[HON MEMBERS: "Agreed!"]—for a very few minutes to express my humble opinion, it is that I desire to give my heartiest support to this Vote of Credit for £100,000,000. At a moment of this sort I consider that there is not time for reproaches or for recriminations. We all should stand shoulder to shoulder in the face of a great national danger. I was profoundly moved by the speech of the Prime Minister, and the case as it appears on the White Paper is overwhelming. The war was not made from the correspondence on the White Paper. The causes of the war are far back beyond that, and I profoundly disagree with the policy that has been pursued and that has culminated in this war. I profoundly disagree with the policy of high expenditure on armaments, which has meant the continuance of the policy of the balance of power, which has been carried on by secret diplomacy. This is a diplomatists' war and not a peoples' war, and I feel that we are only confronted to-day with the disastrous and complete failure of that policy. Nobody can defend the policy seeing what it has brought us to to-day, but I feel that in this great crisis it is incumbent on us to do all we can, not only to help those of our fellow countrymen who have gone to the front, but also to see that suffering at home, which may be very extended suffering, is relieved as far as possible. It is difficult, when the nation feels so keenly as it does now, and when there is practical unanimity in the House, for anyone to sound a dissentient note. The time will come when the whole of the policy which has led up to this calamity will have to be reviewed very carefully, and to be analysed very closely. We shall have to have more Papers than the White Paper that has been presented. We shall have to see that we were committed to a friendship with France long ago, though declarations to the contrary were made to us. I regret very much that we should have been deceived on that point. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] When the time comes, I am perfectly ready to prove that we were. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!" and "Sit down!"] I have no intention of going further into criticism. I only wanted to say when I rose that I give my whole-hearted support to the Government proposals.

I hope that the House will allow me to say a few words on this occasion and for this reason, that for many years I have worked with other friends of mine for friendship between ourselves and the German nation, and I happened only this week to be sitting at the table with French and German and other individuals whose object was to assist in the promotion of friendship between nations. But I do not rise to refer to that now, nor do I rise in order to criticise the Government. I believe myself, from reasons and facts which came to my knowledge in Germany, that this war will be handed down to history as having been caused in the same way as every other war has been caused, by a mutual misunderstanding. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] But I do not want to raise that question at the present moment; I only rise because I hope that the House will give me the opportunity to say a few words upon the present situation. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!" and "Order!"] This is not the time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—for criticism or recrimination; we are in war, and we have to go forward with that war, and personally, as is the case with every man here, my vote and my voice, and every action of which I would be capable will be given to the support of our soldiers and sailors in this conflict. It is for this reason that I ask to be allowed to say a few words upon this occasion. Many of us have been labouring for years to bring about an extended friendship between the English and the German people, and with great respect I venture to think that we have succeeded. The sentiment of the mass of the German people towards us have improved enormously. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"]

Hon. Members should listen to the hon. Member. He is entitled to be heard.

But the great obstacle that we have experienced has been the existence of a great and powerful military caste. A weapon which was formed for the purpose of defence has now become an uncontrolled instrument of offence in that country. It is a class that lives for war, that battens on the lust of aggrandisement, and is always aiming at and preparing for war. It has no regard for men's rights, and no respect for international rules, and its motto is that "Might is right!" That caste has acquired such strength that it controls not only the feelings and thoughts of the people, but even has too great an influence upon the wishes of its Sovereign, and Europe is now witnessing the results of the curse of conscription. This war has been, of course, foreseen, not only by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but by those who have been working for peace as between Germany and ourselves, and it is for that very reason that we have laboured in that direction. Our efforts have not altogether failed. They have not failed for ever, and later on we may still be able to establish that friendship between the two peoples. One of the reasons why I believe and hope that Germany will be beaten in this great conflict is that it will ring the knell of the great military supremacy of those who rule in that country. We are fighting that military caste, and not the people of Germany. The people of Germany have had nothing to do with this war. Of course, it is true that they are enthusiastic for it. I travelled through Germany on Monday last and saw enthusiasm similar to that which is to be seen in our streets now, due to war fever, and also to the more laudable sentiment, of sympathy with the men who are going out to fight for their country. But the people of Germany have no knowledge of why they are fighting this war, and in particular why they are fighting against Great Britain. They will, I am sorry to say, not read these Debates. They will be told that it is all our fault.

But I do think that, as far as we possibly can, we ought to tell them what is the true reason why Great Britain has interfered in this war, and we may hope that, if we win, we may lay down such conditions as will destroy that military supremacy which has brought Europe to the brink of destruction. [Interruption.] I want, with great respect to the House—I do not know why they do not listen—to make three suggestions. For one thing, I would urge very strongly that we should not lose our heads and lose all feelings of consideration for the Germans who are among us, many of whom have nothing but loyal and friendly feelings towards us. In the second place, I wish to ask that we shall watch for every opportunity of bringing about a satisfactory termination to the war. It will be a war involving great suffering and causing a torrent of blood in Europe, and therefore we should take every possible opportunity of seeing whether some arrangement cannot be arrived at so as not to carry it further than necessary. And lastly, we ought to be prepared with some plan of settlement. We ought to know exactly, and we ought to let Germany know exactly, what we are really fighting for. We are fighting for the status quo. We are not fighting for any territorial changes in Europe, one way or the other. I know the feelings of Germany. I know that their one fear is the possibility of a Slav domination over the Teutonic nations, and we should do our utmost to see that that result does not accrue from the war. I wished to say these few words to the House, because I feel that we are entering upon a terrible war. When that war comes to an end the problem will be only just begun, and it should be understood that at the end of the war our objects and intentions will be as honest as those which we entertain at the present moment.

As I do not want my country to be beaten, I shall certainly vote for this Vote of Credit of £100,000,000, but I wish to say two things on this subject. In the first place, it seems to me that £100,000,000 is a large sum to take from the savings of past years, and to be swept away in five minutes. I think the House should tolerate a certain amount of debate when it is proposed to take this money that we have saved with so much trouble. I do not object to the £100,000,000—or to the future hundreds of millions which may have to be voted in the months to come. What I object to is that, by voting this very large sum at one dose, we are thereby divorcing Parliament from the control of this war. To many people it may seem that that is a thoroughly desirable thing to do, but I do not believe that anybody who calls himself a democrat can regard it as desirable that a democratic country should not have some control over the actions of the Executive. It was only the other day—Friday week last—hon. Members on the benches opposite were denouncing the idea of giving a blank cheque for £3,000,000 to a Government Department. That proposal was denounced because it was a thoroughly undemocratic and uneconomical thing to do. I say that a blank cheque for £100,000,000, with no control over the Executive, is as undesirable in war as in peace. The serious aspect of the case is this: You must remember that this war may, and very probably will, be accompanied by severe distress in the manufacturing districts of the country. It is very possible that there will be bread riots, or out-of-work riots, in various parts of this country, and that martial law may be declared in those districts. If we vote £100,000,000 now, we enable the Government to carry on for six months, at least, without coming to Parliament for more money. It seems to me that that is a very risky thing to do, and, therefore, I wish to enter a protest against this Grant-in-Aid, because I believe the people of the country wish to have control of the war, and are patriotic enough to control it in the direction of the greatest efficiency, and not to hamper the Government when carrying on energetic war.

I wish the country would remember that there are two Germanys, and not one. We are fighting the Junkers and the Hohenzollerns, and I pray that this war may end by smashing them, and that the Kaiser and the Grown Prince may go on their travels for the rest of their lives. But there is another Germany—a lovable, peaceful Germany. We all know the people, and it was among them I was brought up. [Interruption.] Moderate, courageous. That Germany, as the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson) has said, has had nothing to do with this war, and I beg hon. Members in this House, and the people of the country, to remember that these men are being driven by the machine of the war—driven to slaughter—though they are as innocent as any Frenchman or Englishman engaged in this great struggle. Remember this, we shall not end the war until we have separated those two Germanys. The end will come. But if these two Germanys stand together—if there is no revolution in Germany—they are men of our own blood, and it will be a long war. They have a dogged pertinacity which would carry them through two and a half years of war, just as it carried the Boers through two and a half years of war. If they hold together, there is a long and stiff struggle in front of us. Do not let us begin by despising our adversaries. Before this war is at an end we may see conscription m this country, and every man between sixteen and sixty years of age will be enlisted. I shall not be one to ask the Government to stop the war and retire from the combat, even though such measures are found necessary to prosecute it. Let us not, as in the case of the Boer war, carry it out in a boastful spirit. Let us approach the task in an attitude of humility. It is murder. It is contrary to Christianity, and there is nothing to be proud of and nothing to boast of. I have seen men taken out of a battleship, seen and heard them—men wrapped up in cotton-wool—after an explosion. That is what is going to happen in our Navy. That is what war means. I have seen war in South Africa, and I know what it means to the peaceful population as well as to the fighters in the war; and there is nothing to be proud of in such a struggle. It is a thing to bring to an end at the earliest possible opportunity, and I hope with hon. Members opposite that the war spirit in the country will cease, and that we shall regard this war as something to be gone through doggedly, but looking upon it as a curse instead of a blessing.

I have been in communication with the chief constable of Nottinghamshire, and he points out that in that county there is a large number of Reserve men. During the Boer war their wives received 1s. 1d. per day. During the time of the Boer war there were county associations which enabled the wives of the men who had to join the Colours to live in their own homes, but, owing to the large number now being called up under the wholly different circumstances now prevailing, it would be absolutely impossible for the counties to make this provision to meet the necessities of the wives of the men who have gone to the front. I believe there is 2d. a day given in respect of each child of the men, but I think my right hon. Friend will see that the county associations cannot, as at the time of the Boer war deal adequately with the situation, and money will not be forthcoming in the same way now, because people have not really got it to give Trade is now more or less at a standstill. I have received telegrams from large collieries offering the whole of the ambulance staffs of the collieries for service in the field. These men are most anxious that the Government should avail themselves of their services, and I hope their offer will not be overlooked.

I think matters of that kind will be more appropriate, together with other matters, on the Appropriation Bill than on the Vote we are now considering.

I always address the House with great diffidence, and I know that it is almost useless, as well as very unpopular, to say much in the present state of affairs, but I feel strongly that I would be untrue to many of those who sent me here, as well as to myself, if I did not say a word or two as to what I feel at the present juncture. I hope the House will bear with me for a moment or two, however much they may disagree with me. If it were not true it would seem incredible that in a few short days we should be intervening in the affairs of and being asked for a Vote of Credit for a war in Europe with which we have no direct concern. This war was not forced upon us by any duty or obligation under any Treaty, as I understand the case, and I think it would have been much better if we had left these affairs alone, as Parliament hitherto has been assured, and was given distinctly to understand, they would be left alone. I believe the only sound principle and practice, especially for a country geographically situated as we are, is to have friendship with all nations, and entangling alliances with none. It seems to me that the neutrality of Great Britain would have been a far more important national and international asset for us than the neutrality of Belgium was, is, oil's likely to be. We have heard in the last few days a great deal about honour; we have heard something about morality and something about self-interest. As to honour, that is a very elusive term. I see nothing honourable whatever in our present proceedings. The House will remember a very true saying of John Bright, that "a nation dwells in its cottages." We are—or ought to be—the guardians, as well as the representatives, of the millions of people who live in the cottages of this country, and surely the greatest and most supreme of British interests for them, and for us, lies in peace, and not in war, and their happiness is more important than all the so-called honour in the world. As far as the morality is concerned, when we are engaged, as we now are, in organised murder, I think the less said about morality the better. All that is bad enough. What is as bad as anything, from my point of view, about it is that it comes from a Liberal Government, which I was sent here to support. One of the principles I was sent to support was Free Trade. Why, Sir there is no Protectionist tax which the wit of war could devise which would raise the prices of food and other articles to the same extent as a fortnight of serious war. Then I was sent to support—as I understood—a policy of peace, retrenchment, and reform. Where are they all now? All swallowed up in the bloody abyss of war! As to peace, there is no man, in this House or out of it, who has a more sincere respect and admiration for the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary and his noble efforts hitherto in that cause than I have, and, for that reason, all the more, I regret it. But my loyalty has been strained to the breaking point, and I cannot follow further upon this road to ruin. The people of this country will, no doubt, do the bidding of the Government, but they will do so, I am convinced, at best, with a heavy heart in action, the incalculable consequences of which, both for this and for future generations, no man and no body of men can possibly estimate or foresee.

Whilst I disagree profoundly with the policy of the last ten years, which I believe has led to this difficulty. I recognise very fully that this is not the time for argument, but that, whatever be our views, we must now address ourselves with unity of purpose—those of us who do not go abroad—to try and keep the commercial life of this country going, and to minimise to the greatest extent the loss to the country. May I express the most earnest hope that the Government will not allow the course of military events to deflect them from the policy which has animated them in the negotiations—I mean the policy of vindicating the public law of Europe, and of maintaining not only for themselves, but for their allies, the steadfast determination to resist all temptations to territorial aggrandisement, or to crush out the life of any nation. The "Times" said yesterday:—

"We go into the fray without hatred, without passion, and without selfish ambitions or selfish ends."

Let us see that those words remain true to the very end. We have no enmity to the German people. They are the victims of the policy of their rulers, and, if they can bring their rulers to a better mind, we must seize the occasion in such a way as to save the workers of every country from paying, for an unnecessary hour, the terrible penalties they are now being made to suffer. The House is being asked to vote a sum equal to the whole of the reduction in the National Debt since this Government took office. The Prime Minister has indicated that this money will be devoted not merely to naval and military expenditure, but to prevent the dislocation of our civil and industrial life. That is a purpose which we, whatever our views as to war in general, and this war in particular, cannot but approve. I want to make this appeal to the Government under that head—and it is even more important than the provision of charitable relief—to use all possible influence in co-operating with the employers of labour to keep their people in full employment. What we want, if we can, is to keep the ordinary channels of commerce open; we want, if we can, to employ our people; we want, if we can, to preserve their independence; we want, if we can, to find them work, rather than to offer doles. I do appeal to my hon. Friends to give the most serious consideration to this question, and I am perfectly sure—and I share the view of the Leader of the Opposition—that if we can be of any service to the Government, or to our country in this respect, they have only to ask and to demand it. I hear that a hundred of our colleagues and our Friends have gone, or are shortly to go, to take their places in the fighting forces. May it be true, for the sake of our country, for the sake of preventing or alleviating the misery caused by the war, that every one of us from to-day may take our place in the fighting force.

I do not rise to make any criticisms, for I believe we all agree that we must vote this money, and that we must see our country through this crisis. But this money will not be the last; there will be many other millions to follow; and there is one gleam still not altogether shut out, and I, therefore, rise to call attention to the fact, and to ask for some assurance from His Majesty's Government that they will not ignore it. We find in the newspapers to-day that the head of our great sister nation, the United States of America, President Wilson has expressed his willingness to be of any service he can, either now or at any time, between the powers engaged in this terrible conflict. I do ask some assurance from His Majesty's Government that they will not turn away from that offer, but that they will do everything in their power to facilitate such mediation and do everything possible to bring it towards success. I know that this may be premature, but I venture to press it upon His Majesty's Government so that, before much blood has been shed, there may be some possibility of President Wilson's offer achieving some results, for if we wait until much blood has been shed it may become almost abortive. Therefore, I hope His Majesty's Government will do everything in their power to help forward that offer.

I should like to say that I heartily endorse the remarks, which have been made by the last two or three speakers. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Rowntree) has raised a point of very great importance, and it is one which came under my notice little more than an hour ago, when I was addressing a number of workmen whom I employ. I said to them, in regard to reservists who had already gone to do what they believed to be their duty, that they would have their positions safeguarded till they returned from performing that duty. Any of them who may be required by the Government for service as engineers, as well as others, I stated, would be treated in the same way. I want entirely and heartily to endorse the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Cockermouth (Sir Wilfrid Lawson). He has deplored, as I am sure we must all deplore, that the country has been, I suppose, dragged into or forced into this unhappy position, and that we are now at war. I do believe that had we had a different policy in the past we might have prevented this war. We have had offers and offers, again and again, from the great nation of Germany, saying that they want to be close friends with us, that they wanted to cultivate our friendship. In supporting the ideas and sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson), I believe heartily, from intimate knowledge of the people of Germany, that the mass of them, including many in high station and positions, have been entirely against this war. They have been, and' are friendly to us in this country, but they have been overborne by the military class who are dominating the position, and who have caused this war. They fear, and they fear not without reason, the great Slav population, who are double the number of the Germans, and who have been arming and preparing for this conflict for years. To Germany, with enemies right and left, east and west, it is a matter of life and death. They feel that they are in a desperate position, and, if you could realise their position, I think you would see that there is very much to be said for the hasty action that they have taken. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] They felt that the only opportunity they possessed was by striking quickly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I say that they have been forced into this position. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I believe they are entering into this war with deep regret, and certainly, on the part of the masses of the people, with great friendship towards us. I have been pained, most deeply pained, to hear the almost laudatory cheers, and to hear sentiments of gladness—almost of joy—that have been expressed by different Members on both sides of the House— [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]—

I am sure the hon. Member would not like to make any reflection on the motives of his colleagues in this House.

If the House will permit me to say so, the impression I gathered was [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] I certainly withdraw any imputation against any individual Member, but I gathered from the cheers that went up, and they also gave me the impression that many in this House were going into this awful business with a satisfaction [An HON. MEMBER: "We are as sorry as you are!"]

If aspersions of that kind were made they might have to be made from two points of view, and that is most undesirable.

Perhaps I may be permitted to put it this way. In the enthusiasm of loyalty there are expressions often used, that make one almost weep with sadness to see with what alacrity we are ready to go and slay—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no" and "Sit down!"]

I must appeal to the hon. Member to give other Members of the House the same credit for sincerity which the whole House has always accorded to him.

I entirely withdraw anything against any hon. Member, but having just passed during the last thirty hours through the country where war is about to be waged, and then coming to this country and finding the same thing in our streets, and already almost we see the spirit of "Mafficking." [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no," "Withdraw," "Sit down!"] That is the impression which I have gained, and the point I wish to make is this, that we are entering on one of the most horrible acts in this and other countries of Europe that will have, effects and results, that we can in no way at the present moment estimate, war is of such a horrible character with the present weapons and with the machinery of slaughter to mow down men. I do not intend to Vote against this Vote. In entering on this war it should be with feelings of the deepest sadness, and with the prayer that it may soon come to an end, and with the desire that a generous and lasting peace may soon be agreed to.

I think it right on behalf of Members on this side who do not agree with much that has been said to say that we keep silent, because we think that the words of the Prime Minister require nothing to be added to them, and that any attempt on our part to discuss any phase of this question would only detract from the impressive effect in this House in our country, and throughout the whole civilised world, I desire to say for myself and for many others like myself, that we entirely endorse and support the action of the Government in this matter. We are fighting to maintain the peace of Europe, and I cannot understand people who make special profession of peace not being prepared to maintain it.

I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to authorise the issue of Currency notes, and to make provision in respect of the note issue in Irish and Scottish banks."

This Bill is to give legislative effect to the proposal which I laid before the House yesterday. The only point which I left to some doubt yesterday, a point which has not yet been cleared up, is with reference to the position of Irish banks and Scottish banks. We had the privilege yesterday of meeting a deputation of all the great Irish banks, and we had also the opportunity of meeting Sir George Anderson, and a number of representatives of the Scottish banks. We were able to come to an arrangement with them. This is the arrangement we have entered into with the Irish banks: We propose that any bank note issues by a bank of issue in Scotland and Ireland shall be legal tender in payments of any amount in Scotland or Ireland respectively, and any such bank of issue shall not be under any obligation to pay its notes on demand, except at the head office of the bank, and may pay its notes, if thought fit, in the currency notes issued by the Treasury under the Bill. If gold were desired they would have to be presented at the Bank of England.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman against what is that issue to be made. Is it to be against capital or reserve fund, or what?

Is the hon. Baronet referring to the general issue of Treasury notes?

I am referring to the new issue of Scottish one pound notes, which must obviously be represented by assets.

This is the proposal that the Bank of England, and the banks of issue in Scotland and Ireland may so far as temporarily authorised by the Treasury, and subject to any conditions attached thereto, issue notes, in excess, of any limit fixed by law, and those persons are hereby indemnified in respect of any issue beyond the amount fixed by law since 1st August, 1911, in pursuance of any authority by the Treasury or by letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I understand that the banks are perfectly satisfied with the arrangement?

I can assure the hon. Baronet that it is in pursuance and in accordance with the wishes of the Bank of Scotland. The banks of Ireland are also satisfied.

I desire to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the attention which he has paid to the representation of the Irish banks. What he has proposed entirely meets our case, and we are extremely well satisfied. We hope that to-morrow, when the banks open, that business in Ireland will pursue its normal course, both as regards ordinary business and the employment of labour.

I think I rather promised yesterday to say a word to-day about extending the moratorium, and perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I made that statement now. We propose to issue a new Proclamation which will extend, and extend very considerably the area of the moratorium. The first Proclamation that was issued dealt with a very special emergency. It was, of course, understood then that the banks were to be opened on Tuesday, and with that view we thought it was incumbent on us to meet the desire of the market and to issue that Proclamation immediately. It was never our intention to confine the moratorium merely to that market. When the Bank Holiday was extended we had time to consult the various interests, and we have come to an understanding with them as to the extent of the general moratorium. We propose, therefore, to issue a new Proclamation, which will extend to all indebtedness, subject to a few exceptions. I will give the House the exceptions to the general moratorium. First of all, it will refer to all contracts made before the date referred to in the Proclamation—before 4th August—and it is proposed that the moratorium should come to an end on the 4th September. That is subject to further consideration whether it would be desirable to extend it. I think it is very likely that it will not be necessary to do so. Arrangements have been entered into with the banks and business interests which will enable business to follow its normal course on Friday next. That is the confident feeling, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) knows perfectly well, of those who were present at the Conference.

The Proclamation will not apply to any payment in respect of wages or salary. It will not apply to matters like the Workmen's Compensation Act or any Act amending the same. It will not apply to any payment in respect of liabilities which, when incurred, did not exceed £5; any payment in respect of rates or taxes; any payment in respect of maritime freight—we were assured that it was quite unnecessary there, and that it would cause great inconvenience if there was a moratorium in that respect, because it would be impossible to pay wages. It will not apply to any payment in respect of any debt from any person resident outside the British Islands or from any firm, company, or institution whose principal place of business is outside the British Islands, not being a debt incurred in the British Islands by a person, firm, company, or institution having a business establishment or branch business establishment in the British Islands; any payment in respect of any dividend or interest payable in respect of stocks, funds, or securities (other than real or heritable securities), in which trustees are, under Section 1 of the Trustee Act, or any other Act for the time being in force, authorised to invest; any liability of a bank of issue in respect of bank notes issued by that bank; any payment to be made by or on behalf of His Majesty or any Government Department, including the payment of old age pensions; any payment to be made by any person or society in pursuance of the National Insurance Act or any Act amending the same, whether in the nature of contributions, benefits, or otherwise; any payment under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, or any Act amending the same; any payment in respect of the withdrawal of a deposit by a depositor in a trustee savings bank. … These are the subjects which are excepted from the general moratorium. If there are any questions that hon. Members wish to put, I shall be glad to answer them.

Nothing in the Proclamation will affect any bills of exchange to which the Proclamation dated the 2nd August, 1914, relating to the postponement of payment of certain bills of exchange applies.

I desire to add only two or three sentences to what has been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I believe that, after the deliberations and conferences held by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the situation is well in hand. The object of all the steps which are being taken is to restrict the disturbance of trade and industry to the smallest proportions, and to enable trade to be carried on, as far as may be, in the normal way. No doubt there are different interests in particular matters, but it cannot be too strongly said that at this time the common interests of all classes is much greater to everyone than the separate individual interests of any one class. We all stand or fall together, to whatever class we belong. While it is necessary, in order that industry may continue and the ordinary industrial life of the country may be carried on, that general credit should be maintained and that the great banking institutions and others should be able to fulfil their tasks, the steps which are being taken are at least as important to the little men dependent on their daily work and their daily wages and to the small trader in his shop, as they are to the biggest financial interests affected by them.

I want to add one other word. The small man can get the help just as much as the large man. The smooth working of these arrangements will very much depend upon the extent to which every citizen in his own capacity contributes to the help of his fellows and to the help of the State. It cannot be too strongly said, as the opinion, not merely of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he expressed it yesterday, but of everyone whom he called into consultation, that any man who attempts now to hoard money or food is an enemy to himself and an enemy to his fellows. No doubt the very extension of the Bank Holiday, which was absolutely necessary to give time, has incidentally helped to restrict the supply of small cash at the moment. Small traders in all parts of the country got their ordinary Bank Holiday takings; then they received their takings on the other Bank Holidays, and the banks have not been able to receive the cash. I hope the Press will bring home to the traders of the country that if they lodge their spare cash with the banks in the ordinary way as soon as those banks are open, they will largely contribute to the smooth working of their own business and facilitate all the little transactions on which the convenience of the community depends. Again I say, and I say it with the authority, not merely of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself, but of all those whom he called into conference, that we cannot too strongly place on record our opinion that any man who attempts to hoard up cash or food is injuring the country, injuring his fellows, and injuring himself.

I quite agree with the well-chosen words of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down; but I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there is any provision for the eventual retirement of the notes?

There is a provision for the retirement of the notes, but it depends far more on the arrangements made with the banks. It must be to the interest of the banks to retire when the occasion has passed.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer will understand my point. If there is an unlimited issue of these currency notes and no provision for their retirement, the effect will be to accentuate the hoarding of gold and the export of gold.

Inasmuch as the Bill has not been printed, perhaps I may be allowed to read the particular provision. [The right hon. Gentleman read the provision.]

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers have considered the question of including rents—at any rate to a modified figure—in the moratorium?

The question of rents, of course, does not arise except in certain cases. There will not be any cases of the kind. But the idea with regard to the industrial classes was that you should exclude them from the moratorium both ways. Their wages are not included in the moratorium; compensation will not be included; national insurance will not be included. We try to keep the industrial classes outside the moratorium altogether. The same thing applies to their arrangements, both with their traders and with their landlord. I think it would be very undesirable that you should have an accumulated debt for rent at the close. That would really not be in the interests of the working classes themselves. We came to the conclusion, after considering the matter, that it would be desirable to keep the industrial classes outside the moratorium in respect of debts owing to them for wages, and in respect of debts owing from them.

With regard to the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman is about to introduce, I understood that it referred to Scottish notes and Irish notes.

Not merely.

Does it contain provisions with respect to the issue of £1 notes in this country?

Certainly. I thought I said that it was to carry out the proposal which I detailed to the House yesterday.

I wish to make quite sure that it will be known that no man can refuse the notes. In some cases I am sorry to say people have been demanding actual cash. Do I understand that the quantity of the additional notes issued by the Scottish banks will depend upon the reserve of the banks, or will it be up to the amount at call?

I desire to bring under the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer a matter which has just been brought to my attention. It arises from difficulties which have occurred in the case of large ironmasters in Scotland owning mines in Spain, whose London bills, owing, they say, to the moratorium, cannot be cashed at the Bank of Spain. They ask that some diplomatic intervention may be used to arrange that money deposited in the Bank of Spain here may be released by telegram at the office in Spain. It is most necessary to keep our public works going, and this is a case of great importance, especially to the West of Scotland, and should be dealt with at once.

The reason for the moratorium being declared is due to conditions over which we have no control. The moratorium has been declared in order to give those who had accepted the Bills referred to time, at any rate, to get over the various difficulties and to make the necessary arrangements. I think the hon. Baronet will find that as a result of the arrangements made by the bankers themselves that cases of this kind will now go through in the ordinary course.

I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to remove electoral disabilities which may arise in the case of members of the Reserve, Militia, Yeomanry, and Territorial Forces, by reason of absence on the Naval or Military service of the Crown."

This Bill is founded on the precedents of the Bill passed in 1900, with the necessary adaptations to meet the various changes which have been made in the constitution of the military forces since 1900, at the same time extending the provisions of the Bill to the naval services. Perhaps it is unnecessary for me to read the Clause, which is a somewhat long one, but, as I say, it is a mere reproduction with the necessary adaptations of the Act of 1900 to the present circumstances. In reply to a question which was put earlier in the day by the hon. Member for Woolwich, I may say that there is a provision in the Bill that a person so acting shall not be disqualified by reason of his wife or children having received poor relief during such time. I believe the Bill has a general approval of the House, and I beg to move.

What about the signing of the necessary papers in the absence of the voter?

Exactly the same Clause in the Act of 1900 is reproduced. If the hon. Member wants to know what the words are, they are these in regard to lodger claims: "The claim to be registered as a lodger may be made and signed, in the case of a person so absent, by any other person on his behalf, and the form of the claim and declaration may in those cases be modified accordingly."

I entirely agree with the proposals of this Bill, but I would like to ask whether it is the intention of the Government to do anything to reserve the franchise rights of those people who suffer unemployment and distress brought about directly as a result of the war?

The Bill does not interfere with the Poor Law.

May the House take it then that the only change in the Bill from the Act of 1900 is necessitated by this being a different war.

And, owing to the changes which have taken place in the military services of the country, the Bill is extended to the naval services.

It does not introduce any new principle?

No.

We would like to know whether the Government proposes to deal with those who, though remaining at home, are impoverished by the war, and will be driven to receive poor relief? We submit to the House that it is improper that the state of the country should deprive these of their franchise rights?

Will people employed on relief work lose their qualification, exactly the same as the people who take advantage of poor relief? If so, we are going to disfranchise a large number of people.

The point which is being raised by my hon. Friend below the Gangway, whilst it may be pertinent to the register the year after next, will not be pertinent to the immediate register which is about to come into force. One of the main reasons for this Bill at the present moment, and why there is some necessity for its passage at once, is that those who have been called into the public service, in the last few days may be debarred from obtaining their qualification as lodger voters. The Bill is brought forward with a view to enable the lodger voters to continue to be on the register whilst serving their country. The Bill is on "all fours" with a Bill which was passed when we were at war last in 1900. It is not a Bill for any permanent alteration of the principle of the Poor Law. One or two of the points raised are controversial. I think, under the present circumstances, it is desirable that we should all unite on the point where there is no controversy.

Even under our present extraordinary circumstances, I think it rather a bad precedent that a Bill should be taken, of which no notice what ever has been given, which does not appear on the Order Paper, and which hardly anyone knew was coming on. If there are any emergency Bills to-morrow. I would venture to suggest that this Bill should be taken then.

There is one point with regard to the lodger vote which, I think, it is very essential we should not forget, while safeguarding the interests of those who are going to the front. There is a great variety in the judgments and opinions of revising barristers. Some revising barristers will give a lodger vote for a house with a qualification as low as £8, while other-revising barristers would not do so. I think there ought to be in a Bill like this some general indication on this matter—seeing that the person is not there to state his claim—so that it should be some guide to the revising barrister, so that we have not a very large number of rejected cases and many kept off the register. I do not know whether there is a provision in the Bill, but I do know that some revising barristers will give a very low qualification, and the next revising barrister wilt strike the whole lot out.

That would be an alteration in the general law, and is not within the scope of this Bill.

In reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. James Hope), it must be remembered that it is only since yesterday that we have been at war. It was through the kindness of the Member for East Birmingham in putting a question to the Prime Minister that my attention was called to this real grievance. The hon. Member will see how we were not able to put the Bill upon the Notice Paper.

I really think there must be some misunderstanding about this. I asked my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham only this minute whether this Bill was to be taken, and he said, "Certainly not." He understood it was not to be taken. If that is so, this is the last opportunity that we shall have for the discussion of matters of public moment.

The Third Reading!

I believe the Third Reading will be taken immediately afterwards.

It will not be taken to-day.

I do not press that point, but I should like to ask: Has the Vote we passed just now been reported, and would it not come into this Bill? I asked several authorities. One said one thing, and one said another. Do I understand that no attempt will be made to take the Third Reading of this Bill to-day?

On the Committee stage of this Bill to-morrow the Vote of Credit will be put in.

There seems to be still some doubt about it. My Noble Friend (Lord Edmund Talbot) has now come into the House, and I formally move the Adjourmment of this Debate in order that it may be made quite clear what the position is.

There is no necessity to move the Adjournment of the Debate. Discussion can take place upon the Second Reading. If the hon. Member moves the Adjournment, it would be necessary to confine the Debate to the Adjournment.

For the convenience of hon. Members, perhaps I may be allowed to mention that there seems to have been an understanding on this side of the House that the Second Reading of this Bill would not be taken to-day. If that is an erroneous view, and if the Government is proceeding in the matter with the usual communication between different sides of the House, as in all this business, I am sure nay hon. Friend does not desire to interrupt that arrangement.

What the right hon. Gentleman said is quite accurate. It was agreed we were to take the Second Reading to day, and not go further.

I called the attention of the House to the very grave omission—I hope not an intentional one—in the appeal just issued through the public Press for a fund towards the relief of distress. That appeal invites the public to send on its subscription to a central committee for the general relief of distress. I was very much surprised and disappointed that no special mention was made at all of any fund for the relief of the wives and families of our soldiers and sailors, nor for any fund for the relief of the widows and orphans of our soldiers and sailors. Had the precedent of the Transvaal War been followed an appeal would have been made through the Lord Mayor for a fund which would have been divided among the different societies which exist and have large machinery at their disposal for the relief of the families of our soldiers and sailors, and for the relief of the widows and orphans who will come, unfortunately, into being shortly after the war takes place, and a relief fund of that kind would have been established. On the occasion of the Transvaal War the Lord Mayor issued an appeal to the public and as a result of that appeal over £1,000,000 was subscribed for this purpose, of which £500,000 was placed at the disposal of the old Royal Patriotic Fund Commissioners. I speak in my capacity as Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, and it is part of our statutory duty to do everything we can to provide for the widows and orphans of our soldiers and sailors, and I should be neglecting my duty as Chairman of that Corporation if I did not call the attention of this House to the very urgent necessity of raising money for the relief of the widows and orphans who may be occasioned by the battles in which our troops must be engaged.

On the last occasion the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation assisted no less than 5,000 widows and 7,000 orphan children. There has been at the present no communication of any sort or kind between the Government and the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation of which I am Chairman. The only communication we have had is that they took our Royal Victoria Patriotic School as a hospital for troops. We gladly surrender it for that purpose, but, of course, we shall have to provide for the 300 girls who for the time cannot be educated in that establishment. I do not know what is in the mind of the Government. Yesterday, acting, as I think, upon my duty, I cabled to His Royal Highness, the Duke of Connaught, as President of the Royal Patriotic Corporation, asking him if he could not approach the Lord Mayor with a view of raising a similar fund as that raised on the occasion of the Transvaal War, and, putting myself in communication with the Lord Mayor of London, I was informed by the Lord Mayor that he could not on this occasion give any assistance, although he is a member of the Royal Patriotic Fund Committee, because the Government have forestalled us in our request for an appeal for public funds, and that the Government itself was going to undertake an appeal of this kind, and therefore, so I was informed, that fund ought to have precedence of any other fund. That may be wise or not, I have my own opinion, but what I want to know is whether the fund for which an appeal is made is to include the relief of those who will become widows and orphans by reason of this war.

It is really worth the while of the House to consider what is done for our soldiers and sailors on an occasion so lamentable as this. First of all, let me inform the House that until the Transvaal war no provision whatever was made for any allowance of any sort or kind for the widows and orphans of soldiers and sailors who died fighting for this country. That provision was made for the first time in 1901, and now what I would like to ask the Government is, whether the War Office will give a pension, and what sort of a pension, and on what scale they will give it, to the widows and orphans of those killed in battle? I particularly want to address this question to those in charge of the War Office. I want to know whether that pension will be given to the widows of those who have married off the strength as well as to the widows of those who have married on the strength, because, up to the present, the War Office always refused to give any pension for the relief of any widow or orphan of those who married off the strength, and therefore it has become the duty of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation to give equivalent pensions to the widows and orphans of those who married off the strength equal to those who married on the strength. In the case of men who die fighting the battles of the country, I think we might set aside discipline in this matter, and that their widows and orphans are entitled to our sympathy quite as much as the widows and orphans of men married on the strength. I hope the War Office will consider that. Let me acquaint the War Office of this fact: The Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, owing to the great depreciation of its stocks and securities, has now no money at its disposal by which it can give this allowance to the widows and orphans of those who married off the strength. Neither has it further money at its disposal by which it can supplement the very inadequate allowance now given by the War Office for the widows and orphans of soldiers and sailors whether married off or on the strength. The pension is 5s. for a widow with an allowance of 1s. 6d. to 2s. for every child of a private soldier. That pension is far better than no pension at all, and it was only given for the first time in 1901. The Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation had always to supplement that pension by two or three shillings in order that a widow with very young children might be able to support herself and not to be sent into the workhouse.

As far as regards the widows of soldiers they are better cared for than before the Transvaal War. All that it was possible to give the wounded soldier, although totally disabled and unable to earn his living, was from 8d. to 1s. per day, that is, at the most, 7s a week, and we must recollect that many of these reservists when called up were earning as much as 40s. a week. Men returned from the Transvaal War so wounded or diseased that they were totally unable to earn a living. I was representing the Treasury at Chelsea Hospital for something like three years, and it was at my request that the Government raised that allowance to 1s. 6d. in case of partial disablement and 2s. 6d. in case of total disablement, that is 10s. 6d. a week for partial disablement and 17s. 6d. for total disablement. I think the House would like to know whether that scale prevails at the present time for wounded soldiers and sailors, of whom we must have many thousands before long. I come now to the third category, that is the wives and children of those who have been called up to the Colours. There is a society called the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association. It has very large machinery at its disposal with something like 12,000 almoners, and it is desirous of doing all it can for the assistance of the wives and families of soldiers and sailors called up from their civil employment, but that society, like the other societies, wants money. It is true it is far better off than before the Transvaal War, because after that war we issued an appeal and we obtained certain sums of money which we put by as a nest-egg and it will be very useful for this war, but it will be necessary for that society to be supported by charitable funds, and I ask the Government when they make a general appeal and ask all those benevolently and charitably inclined to subscribe only to that fund, whether they will put aside a portion of that fund and place it at the disposal of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association in order that they may carry out that work which is very immediately required. No less than seventy letters came to the office this morning all asking for instructions and some for immediate assistance, as the homes were left practically destitute of money, the breadwinner having been called to his duty to join the general Reserve.

6.0 P.M.

These are all matters that require attention and immediate attention. For my own part I cannot help thinking that we ought to have allowed the first appeal to have been made for the wives and families and the widows and the orphans of those who go to fight our battles. I think they have the first claim upon charitable consideration, and that the first claim should have gone out on behalf of them. But if we have not been first in the field, I only hope that the case of those whose claims I advocate may not be in any way neglected, and that a good share of the funds will be placed at the disposal of the Royal Patriotic Corporation and the Soldiers and Sailors Families Association, so that they may distribute the Fund in accordance with the regular scale and rules which we have framed after long experience of these matters. I wish to say that I have been personally occupied in this work for over ten years, and this organisation have at their disposal very efficient machinery for the distribution of these funds. We have accumulated a very large amount of experience, and we have very seldom been found fault with. Besides money, there are so many other ways of assisting these wives, and widows, and orphans. For instance, there are schools in which to place the children, and ways of apprenticing the boys and girls, and all kinds of things which we can do through that committee, which really has at heart their interest and welfare. It would be a great pity if the machinery which has been doing such good work for so many years should not be utilised. The Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation is a statutory body with representatives of the War Office, the Admiralty, the Treasury, and the county council upon it. I think that body should be encouraged to do its duty towards those who may fall in this war, just the same as was done during the last war.

While I desire to support the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham, I wish to ask those who represent the Army and the Navy Departments to realise that the wives and children of many of these men require immediate assistance. In one place alone that I have heard of there are at least 3,000 families who will not have any of father's money coming in this week. If the Government could publicly announce the provision which they are making for these people it would be a very good thing.

I raised this question earlier in the Debate, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that I should deal with it later on. I now take this opportunity of again asking what the Government intend to do with reference to the pay of the Reservists and provision for their wives and children. These men are entitled to 1s. 1d. per day, or 7s. 7d. per week. As hon. Members know, during the Boer War county associations were formed to augment the Government allowance. Here a question of principle arises. I maintain that it is not the duty of the Government to ask for charity for the purpose of looking after the wives and children of the men who have gone to the front. It is the duty of the Government to provide sufficient funds so that the wives and children of these men should be maintained in a state of citizenship while their husbands are fighting at the front. It must be better for the State to take up that duty rather than make an appeal for subscriptions to the public at large, for, although the public are extremely generous in these matters, there are always a certain number who never subscribe to any good office, and, after all, Parliament more or less endeavours to put the burden of taxation upon those best able to bear it. Therefore, I hope the Under-Secretary will see his way to inform the House that this allowance of 1s. 1d. per day will be increased to such an amount as will enable the wives and dependants of these men to live comfortably. There is one other question which has arisen during the course of this war, and that is the publishing of false news, which has become a perfect scandal. Reports appear in the Press from hour to hour stating that victories or otherwise have been achieved by British arms or French arms, and the majority of these reports turn out to be absolutely devoid of foundation. Really the Government ought to take some steps in this matter. I do not know what powers the Government have in regard to suppressing these lying organs which spread this false information. These rumours, once set going, spread very rapidly, and cause intense irritation to the public.

The object of all this is to sell the papers and make money by publishing false information. I would like the Department concerned with this matter to bring before the attention of the Law Officers of the Crown the fact that these papers are sold in London, stamped 6.30, and they can be bought in the suburbs at 4.15. This is done merely for the purpose of obtaining money, and the best thing for the Government to do would be to take the public into their confidence in these matters. Nobody wishes to have any information made public which it is not in the public interest to give, but I hope my hon. Friend who represents the War Office will see his way during this time of national stress to furnish to the post offices throughout the United Kingdom a statement of all the official information which comes to the Government Departments, which it is of public interest to disclose, for this would give great satisfaction to the public. After all, this is what they are entitled to demand from the Government. They have a right to demand that they should be furnished with the most accurate and latest information as to the news coming from the seat of war. I would like to call the attention of the Home Secretary to the fact that at two o'clock this morning people were crying papers for sale in the street which contained false information. The public are simply being robbed by these dishonest newspapers. [An HON. MEMBER: "Name!"] They are all very much in the same boat. I ask the Under-Secretary to furnish to the public at the earliest possible moment all the information which comes to his Department, and more particularly that applying to the Admiralty. There appears to have been several small minor engagements in which we have been successful, but this lying Press marks every message official, whether it is or not. Therefore I hope the Admiralty will take some steps to see that the first information which it will be safe to disclose in the public interest will be furnished to all the post offices. The representatives of the Government ought not to forget that in the country districts where the people have not facilities for obtaining this information the anxiety is equally great, and they would be doing a great public service if they would take into consideration the suggestion I have made.

I should like to say a word or two in support of the appeal which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham has made as to the necessity of the existing organisation being utilised. The notice which appeared in the Press this morning led some people to suppose that that course was intended. I am sure the Government will be ready to recognise that these organisations have already got a number of people who have information and experience in these matters, and they would be most useful in carrying out this great work. I should like to support the appeal which has been made on behalf of the Soldiers and Sailors Families Association. Perhaps that is the most urgent need at the present moment. We have already received notice of hardships arising through the bread-winner of the family being called out as a Reservist or a Territorial, and some particularly hard cases have been brought to my notice in London. In the case of the men receiving 7s. 7d. per week in pay, which has been referred to by my hon. Friend, the money is hardly enough in some cases to pay the rent. I hope the Government will recognise the necessity of having some central fund, and I hope they will not completely ignore existing organisations which has done such useful work in the past, and are only too willing at the present moment to place their services at the disposal of the Government.

I want to ask a question in regard to the powers of the Committee of which the President of the Local Government Board is the Chairman. My question has special reference to relief in Scotland. Let me say for the benefit of the representatives of the Government, if he is not already aware of it, that the law in Scotland is different from that of England, being much more stringent and hard, and the authorities cannot relieve a person if he is able-bodied, and he must be destitute. My hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. A damson) and myself have been asked to raise this matter, and we were told that we should raise it through the hon. Member for Leicester. We have consulted him as to the powers of the Committee of which the right hon. Gentleman is Chairman, and he has told us that the powers of the Committee are not limited by the general law, and a similar opinion has been expressed by the Secretary for Scotland. All we want is that the people of Scotland shall not be under any misapprehension in this matter, and I shall be exceedingly obliged if the right hon. Gentleman will state if it is a fact that the powers of the Committee are sufficiently ample to cover the point which I have just raised.

I would like to ask if any provision has been made for the dependents of the Reservists in the Navy. I think it is a fact that the Army Reservists have had provision made for them, but the Naval Reservists are unprovided for at the present time. If something is not done, the local committees which are coming into operation may be placed in a difficulty. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make some announcement to this House to the effect that the wives and children of the Reservists in the Navy, as well as in the Army, may be provided for, for such a statement as that would be very much appreciated in the country. A statement made a week or so before these committees get to work would tend to relieve a good deal of the anxiety which exists at the present time.

I wish to support the appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for the Mansfield Division (Sir A. Mark-ham). I trust that the Government will see to it that the wives and families of Reservists do not have to fall back upon charity. If another man goes out and fights for me, I am quite willing to pay and see that his wife and family whom he leaves behind him are kept from the stigma of charity. The man who has the courage to go out to fight is just the type of man who hates charity, and I do think that this nation, which has just asked for a Vote of Credit of £100,000,000, should see to it that the dependants of these men do not fall into the hands of any charitable institutions whatever.

The whole subject as to the wives and children of Reservists who have gone to serve their country, and subsequently as to widows and orphans—the whole subject of what appeals should be made to the public charity, how those moneys should be divided, and how they should be dealt, with, is an exceedingly important one. Whilst I have a very great regard and respect for the Royal Patriotic Society and also for the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Fund, I may say that during the Boer War we in Liverpool found that those funds were entirely inadequate to deal with the cases of Reservists' wives and children, and widows and orphans. There were ladies who devoted several days and weeks for a long time on behalf of both of those societies, but their operations were restricted and hampered in almost every direction by the most stupid red-tape, and by the regulations of both those soceties, particularly after the Royal Patriotic was altered and became a sort of State institution. We do not want the administration, either of such funds or of public money voluntarily subscribed, to be hampered by any stupid restrictions of any-kind or description. If a man residing in London is called to the Colours, and his wife and children feel obliged to go and live in Manchester, we do not want that poor woman to be forced to come to London to get the few shillings to which she is entitled. That is the sort of difficulty which arose on the last occasion. The whole subject should be carefully and properly investigated at this stage. The Royal Patriotic Society, on whose behalf my right hon. Friend made such a moving appeal, has got a splendid organisation in a great many districts. There are ladies who are very well experienced in these matters, and they visit all these cases and see that the poor women and children get the proper relief to which they are entitled. I would suggest that the War Office and Admiralty should form a small Committee and get the co-operation of the Royal Patriotic Society and the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Society, and supplement that by the assistance of those locally who have been found so willing both to give money and to see to the proper administration of these funds. Organisation and co-operation are required. There ought to be no question as between one society and another, or one form of administration of this money and another, or as to either getting the fund or distributing it. It ought to be done in a proper organised manner.

I should just like to ask one or two questions as an employer of labour on a large scale. My own firm is deciding how to treat men who are Reservists and Territorials. We should like, and I think all employers would like, to know as speedily as possible what terms the Government are going to give the families of these men. I was very glad to see the other day that one large retail firm in London are going to pay half wages to all their married men who go away to the war, but we shall have to have machinery for discrimination. Some married men have children able to keep their parents. I would therefore strongly put in a word for some efficient machinery of discrimination between those married with children and those who do not require assistance. It is very important that there should be local machinery of discrimination, so that those really dependent should have the best terms. I would also like to ask another question. It will not interest-many people, but it is a question which arises in the case of some of us who have not motor cars. I have a couple of horses. The Government are going to take one of my horses. [Cheers.] Everybody approves of that. Supposing I get another, are they going to take that? If so, what am I to do? [An HON. MEMBER: "Go on getting them!"] The Government are taking most of the cab horses in my town. My next-door neighbour has to ride up the hills. I take him sometimes in my carriage. My carriage is too heavy for one horse. I would like to ask the Government whether they are going to go on taking horses, or whether I may be allowed along with my neighbour to join in one pair. I only want to know for the benefit of horse owners, and more particularly for the sake of delicate people who cannot walk. I have a practicable suggestion to make as regards this false news business. I do not know whether there is a law which provides for it, but we are giving the Government very large powers now, and I would very respectfully suggest, if it can be done, that the publisher of any false news should be called upon to show why he publishes such news. There should be an obligation imposed on those who spread about big lies and make people very anxious and cause disturbance to trade to show cause why they publish them. They should not be allowed to publish big lies and then go scot free.

There is just one point on the question of the pay of Reservists and the money for their wives while they are abroad which I should like to ask. There are a great many Reservists in the employ of public bodies. They have at present no legal power to pay them while they are away. They can pay, but they run the risk of being surcharged. The local authorities did take this course during the Boer war, and they were not surcharged. I do not suppose that they will be this time, but we should like to have a statement from the President of the Local Government Board that this is perfectly legal. We should like to know for the guidance of local authorities throughout the country what ought to be the proper scale of pay. It is very absurd that one local authority, because it happens to be better off than another, should have one scale of pay and another local authority a less scale of pay. There ought to be some advice given on this point. I would like to ask the Government whether they would lay down a general scale for the men in their own employ who are Reservists, so that it might be some guidance to the local authorities. I have put down a question on the paper, and I did not want to bother the President of the Local Government Board to give me an oral answer, but I thought, as the Debate was now on this subject, that it would be convenient perhaps for him to answer the question, and also to state whether he would be inclined to give the local authorities some guidance as to what they ought to do, so that we might have an equitable scale throughout the country for the men who have been called up either for the Army or the Navy.

I desire to support the appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes). I would also like to draw the attention of the President of the Local Government Board to the fact that the co-operative societies, which are largely engaged in the distribution of food, are having their horses and their motor cars taken charge of by the military authorities. We have just received a telegram intimating that fact, and, as these horses and motor-cars are largely used in the distribution of food, I think the matter ought to be seriously taken into consideration.

I should like to say one word on the subject of the horses. I know there have been difficulties in the town, but just for the time being there are still greater difficulties in the country districts owing to the tendency, of which I believe the right hon. Gentleman does not approve, of impressing horses which are now being used on the farms for harvesting purposes. I am quite sure the House will agree with me that there is no more important national service you can perform to-day than to have the present harvest carried through properly and satisfactorily. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough in answer to a question yesterday to say that the military authorities were going to be as sparing as they could in insisting upon taking horses on the farms used either for harvesting purposes or other purpose's. During the last forty-eight hours a very large number of horses, particularly in the Eastern counties, have, in fact, been taken by the authorities, although they were actually employed in harvesting operations. There is no more patriotic body of men in the country than the British farmer, and I am quite sure that they are quite prepared to suffer such sacrifices as other sections of the community will have to suffer, but it is in the best interests of the community that our harvest should be got in. It should be borne in mind that a large number of men are now being called up as Reservists, and owing to this fact and to the embodiment of the Territorial Force, farm labour is being to a great extent depleted. It is, therefore, most essential for the next fortnight or three weeks that horses should remain on the farm for the purpose of harvesting, and, what is almost as important, afterwards for putting in seed as soon as the land is cleared, so as to obtain another crop at the earliest possible moment.

I will entirely associate myself with the hon. Member as to the desirability of getting in the harvest of this country. It seems to me that it is of the utmost importance that we should gather in our crop. I can assure my hon. Friends who have spoken on this point that inquiries will be made into the matter, and specially into the Norfolk case. I can only repeat that horses of this character are a very small part of the requirements of the Army, and therefore I had hoped—and I regret my hope has not been fulfilled—that there would be no dislocation of business and that no difficulty would be caused by the impressment of this particular class of horse. But with regard to light draught horses, such as have been alluded to, I may point out that they must be acquired in larger numbers. I can, however, promise that investigation shall be made into any grievances which may be brought to my notice, and, perhaps, hon. Members will give me more definite information with regard to actual occurrences.

May I ask what kind of motor cars the War Office are requiring to take at the present time?

I have not come to that. I was dealing with horses. Our requirements in the matter of motor cars have not yet been decided upon. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher) mentioned three points—Reservists, wounded soldiers returning home, and the widows and orphans of those killed in action.

Also the wives of men who married not on the strength.

I had no notice that these questions were going to be raised, and therefore I have not such full information as I could have wished.

I was unable to give the right hon. Gentleman notice, because I only became aware a short time ago that I would have an opportunity of introducing this subject. I did not know that we were going to take the Appropriation Bill.

I am not making complaint that no notice was given, I am simply apologising for not being able to give that full information which I could have wished. The right hon. Gentleman stated that, in 1901, grants were first given by the State to this class of widow, and that therefore it is a modern acceptance and acknowledgment of the responsibility of the State to the wives of soldiers who have fallen in action. I think I may claim some sympathy for the War Office in respect of the difficulty in which we stand with regard to money—

After you have got £100,000,000?

We are constantly brought face to face with the fact that these non-effective Votes are eating into the Estimates, and that is a phase of Army administration in which I should like to elicit the sympathy of the House. We very often want to spend more money on effective machinery for war, but are hampered by the large sums demanded for non-effective Votes. Still, I shall be prepared to recognise the obligation of the State to make as full provision as it can afford for those who have been dependent on men who have fallen in action.

Does the right hon. Gentleman include the dependants of men who married off the strength?

I am speaking generally. I am unable to say whether after this war is over, or during the progress of this war, provision will be made for the wives of soldiers off the strength, but I should like to point to the fact that the Prime Minister particularly laid stress on the fact that part of the £100,000,000 voted to-day may be appropriated to cases of real distress, and that Committees under the supervision of the President of the Local Government Board will have the distribution of these funds. I should like to say further that I do not wish to state anything which would discourage the most patriotic efforts made by the right hon. Gentleman himself and one or two great societies of which he is a member—the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation and the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, the latter of which, I may add, will be represented on the Local Mayor's Committees under the scheme of my right hon. Friend.

Will not the Royal Patrotic Fund Corporation also be represented?

Not so far as I am advised, but my right hon. Friend will make a statement later on in regard to that. I should like, in passing, to say how greatly the Government always appreciate the services of these two great bodies, and I do not wish to utter a syllable which will prevent them renewing their efforts in the same direction and continuing that admirable administration which in the past has been productive of so much benefit. My hon. Friend the Member for Radcliffe (Mr. Theodore Taylor) asked me about the question of the disssemination of false news. That is really not the business of the War Office. It is more a Home Office question, but I will certainly put myself in communication with the Postmaster-General to see if we cannot have some scheme for issuing real and true news. I shall give all the assistance I can in it?

With regard to the dissemination of false news, an hon. Member opposite suggested that the Government should take action of some sort against newspapers which publish false news. Speaking as a former editor of a London newspaper, this is a matter in which I have some interest and some knowledge of, and I can assure hon. Members that no reputable newspaper willingly publishes false news. If the country, or the Government, or the House wish to put pressure upon newspapers and still more to subject them to penalties for publishing reports which turn out to be false, then, as far as I understand the position, they will have to make their choice between the present system of leaving it to the discretion of reputable newspapers to take the best means of publishing true news, or else they must submit to having no news published whatever except such as bears the official imprimatur—news which will be subject to a rigid censorship by the Government. Let me give an example of the difficulty which has to be faced. You may see in the newspapers: "It is reported from Hull that heavy firing was heard this morning in the North Sea." The newspaper publishes it, and it turns out, in the end, that it was a thunderstorm. Does the hon. Member suggest that the publication of that report, which in itself was perfectly true, for the noise that was heard was suspected to be firing, is to render the newspaper which publishes it open to reproof or to make it subject to a penalty?

I raised this question. The papers have published full reports that a "Dreadnought" had been sunk and eight ships captured. They have given many particulars, whereas there was no truth in the report at all.

I do not know to what newspaper the hon. Member referred. But if he will take the trouble to read the newspapers carefully he will find that as a rule the information given is given under reserve, or it is given in such a way as to suggest to the discriminating reader that he should take it with reserve. The words used are, "A report reaches us," or, "It is reported" from some reputable quarter that such and such a thing has occurred. How is a newspaper printed in London or Manchester to be in a position to say, in advance, "whether the news it publishes is true or not? Is it under any obligation to withhold from the public the fact that certain reports are current until they have ascertained from the Admiralty itself, whether they are well-founded?

There is no suggestion of reserve in the placards or Contents Bills.

I am dealing with the newspapers, not with the placards. It must be remembered that a great number of nations are now engaged in war, and there will be vast amounts of news accumulating at the various capitals. I hold that it is the obvious duty of the newspapers to let the public know, not merely what they are aware of from their own knowledge or from official information, but what people in different parts of Europe are reporting as having occurred. Obviously if they do not do that we shall be left without any information at all. A correspondent in Brussels may have a telegram from Vienna with regard to something which has occurred in Servia. It may or may not be true. The newspaper cannot possibly exercise discretion as to that. It can only say, "It is reported," and the discriminating reader v ill be able to exercise his own judgment and will know that he must take the news with some reserve, and must await official confirmation before accepting it as undoubtedly true. Yesterday we had an account in the newspapers of the checking of the German advance by Belgians in the neighbourhood of Liege. Some of us did not accept that report as absolutely true, and desired to see it confirmed before so doing. I understand the news has now been confirmed. But these reports will be constantly flying about, and it is not always possible to await official confirmation before publishing them. In case the President of the Local Government Board proposes to reply, I should like to refer to a question much more important than the dissemination of false news. I wish to ask whether the Government have, or propose to take, any power for controlling the publication in our Press of news regarding the movements of troops or of ships. Most Foreign Governments possess and exercise that power. I do not think the reputable papers of this country are likely to be so unpatriotic as to publish information of that sort, but there are some papers which might, and I think it would be an advantage to the public and to the country, as well as to the reputable part of the Press, if the Government would exercise some supervision over the publication of news which might be to the national disadvantage.

I should like to reply to a point raised by the hon. Members for West Fife (Mr. Adamson) and the Black-friars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes). They have stated perfectly correctly that there is a difference between the Poor Laws of Scotland and of England. My hon. Friend the Member for the Black-friars Division was good enough to mention the matter to me, and I have been thinking about it this afternoon. On the whole, I think the answer to it is that this Committee would have a much wider scope than the Poor Law. The Poor Law authorities are merely one of the agencies which will be essential. As at present advised, I do not think it is advisable that we should deal with the question through the Poor Law authorities, because we want to have as little pauperisation and as little of the Poor Law in the matter as possible. My idea is that the Poor Law authorities should deal with the paupers, as they do at present, and that the relief of distress outside that sphere should be as far as possible relieved from pauperisation. I hope my hon. Friend will think that answer satisfactory. I do not think I need dwell upon the matter further, because the President of the Local Government Board as Chairman of the Advisory Committee, will give some particulars as to the scope and intention of that body.

Perhaps I may be allowed to answer the questions put to me. First of all, as to how the wives and children of the Reservists will get on when the men have been mobilised and anything happens to them in the course of the war. We have regulations existing now with regard to pensions and allowances for the wives and children, and gratuities to parents and to other relatives of Marines and other persons, partly maintained out of the Greenwich Hospital Fund and added to by grants of various kinds. Those regulations continue. I shall immediately ask the House to give a Second Reading to a Bill which will cover the case of civilians who may be afloat and exposed to war risks, such as men engaged in the coaling of the Fleet, so that they will be covered by the regulations, Being afloat and in this service they would not be, as the ordinary civilian workman would be, under the Workmen's Compensation Act. With regard to the question of the wives and children of Reservists now mobilised, the position is this: Reservists on mobilisation receive a month's pay. Possibly in some cases—the procedure is so rapid and events march so quickly that it cannot be many—a man may be in a position to hand that money on his going to his wife. He can continue to make remittances, for which we offer every facility. Further, he can make a declaration of desire to make regular monthly allotments. It is interesting to note that already quite a large number of these men who have been mobilised in the last few days have sent in notice of their desire to make allotments from their monthly pay to the wives and children. I went into the matter very fully this morning because of a private notice question sent by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mildmay). I do not think we can do very much under our Regulations as they stand, but I shall certainly explore the matter further at once, because the least we can do is to care for the relatives of those men who are fighting. I will certainly consult my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, who is the Chairman of the Advisory Committee, to see whether he can, wherever necessary, assist the cases of women and children who seem in need of assistance.

With regard to the question of the publication of reliable and early news, the Postmaster-General said to-day that he was considering the best method of providing information at all post offices, so that all important news affecting the public may be disseminated as widely as possible. I will immediately confer with him on that, and see if we can send to him, as often as may be, such official statements as we can, which will be official and reliable, for publication through the post offices. As regards the publication of premature information regarding the movements of fleets and troops to the prejudice of the public interest, I should like to say that we are in touch with the Press, and it is only due to the Press to say that it has behaved quite admirably and patriotically in respect to the premature publication of the movements of fleets and troops, which would obviously be disastrous to the public interest. After the comments which have been made, I need not say, whether rightly or wrongly, about the publication of false news, it is only due to the Press that in the matter of keeping out of the newspapers anything which might be prejudicial to our affairs, the Press has behaved quite well.

I am aware of that, and I think I did say that all respectable newspapers were to be trusted in this matter. They are the people, above all others, who would like to have some kind of regulation which would put less reputable newspapers on the same footing as themselves, so that a newspaper which was not actuated by patriotic motives should be prevented from publishing news which another paper might have in the office and yet patriotically keep out of the paper.

May we have a statement as to the amount of money the Reservist is going to receive?

As to the suggested discrimination between newspapers, I should be very sorry to think that there would be any newspaper which would publish news injurious to the forces of the Crown. As to the question raised by the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks), so far as we are concerned we have no separation allowance in the Navy. The sailor gets it in pay. I can let the hon. Member have the rates of pay for the different grades, but I do not know how much a man would set aside by the method of allotment to his wife. The number of sailors who do make allotments to their wives and their dependent relatives is very large, it is no less than £75,000 a month. It is interesting to note that already the men who were recently mobilised are sending in asking that all the machinery should be set going which will enable them to allot their pay.

In answer to the question put to me by the hon. Member for South St. Pancras (Captain Jessel), with respect to the power of local authorities to provide for the wives of the men who have been in the employment of those authorities, the local authorities have the power to provide for the families of such men at their discretion, and the members of those authorities are not liable to surcharge. Perhaps it would be more convenient to the House if, instead of answering specific questions, I were to give very briefly a conspectus of the work now being done by the Government with a view to the prevention and relief of distress. The first desirable step is to use every means in our power to prevent unemployment, to keep the ordinary industries going, and to leave men in their present situations. I am glad to think that very many manufacturers and traders throughout the country are patriotically using their utmost efforts, even at some loss to themselves, to keep their mills and works going, and, if they have to restrict employment, to do it by means of working shorter time rather than by dismissing a proportion of the workpeople. From a national point of view, the best thing that the Government can do to maintain our national trade during this time of stress is to keep open the sea, and the Navy is fully alive to the primary importance of maintaining the security of our trade routes. The establishment of the system of Government insurance against war risks is also calculated to enable many of our trades to continue their normal operations. The House and the country will no doubt bear in mind that although our commerce on the Continent of Europe is to a large extent necessarily stopped, on the other hand the commerce from the Continent of Europe to the rest of the world is also stopped, and that our trade is likely to receive in the near future a great stimulus in its operations in Asia, Africa, and America through the cessation of the competition to which our traders are subject from the Continent of Europe.

However, it is certain that, to some extent at least, unemployment is likely to ensue in the near future. Next to the prevention of unemployment, the best course is to provide new and alternative means of employment; that is better than relief. To that end the various agencies have already been called into action. The Road Board has at its disposal a reserve fund of some millions accumulated against a time of emergency, which can be realised and spent upon new works which would give employment to considerable bodies of labour. The Bill which has just passed through Parliament to enable a great new road to be made out of London to the West may provide, also, an opportunity for quickly constructing works which will give employment to considerable bodies of labour. The Road Board are now engaged considering these matters. The Development Commission also has considerable funds at its disposal, again with a view to utilising them in a time of emergency such as this. They are now actively engaged in formulating schemes, and the various Government Departments are considering what works can be put into operation—the Office of Works, for example. The Post Office has lately passed a measure through Parliament to enable a tube railway to be made through London. I believe that in the near future the Postmaster-General may be in a position to take actual steps for the carrying out of that work, and giving a considerable volume of employment.

7.0 P.M.

At my request the Central Unemployment Body of London is considering what schemes can be rapidly put into operation, and the distress committees throughout the country have been summoned by the Local Government Board to meet with a view to planning relief work. Further, all the local authorities have been requested to take into immediate consideration the improvements in their localities that may employ labour. Therefore, by every means in our power we are inducing the responsible authorities, who are very willingly responding, to make plans for the execution of works which will give employment to considerable bodies of labour. These works will not, of course, be put into operation until the necessity arises, but they must be planned in advance, and steps are actually being taken in these days with that end in view. The third group of measures, which are receiving the attention of the Government, is the provision of relief to women and children, and to individuals for whom work cannot be provided. It has already been announced that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales is about to issue an appeal for a national fund. That appeal will be made under the auspices of the Government Committee, and an announcement will very shortly be made as to the method of collection. I think the House will agree that it is most undesirable to have a multiplicity of funds competing with one another, and therefore the public are urged to contribute to this national fund, which will use the resources at its disposal for the benefit of all proper objects requiring assistance. The Board of Education is requesting the Education Authorities to see to the feeding of school children under the powers conferred upon them by the Act which has passed Parliament within the last few days. The Poor Law is being kept rather in reserve, and all other methods will first be adopted before we fall back upon that last line of defence.

Lastly, with respect to the organisation of these methods. At the centre a small Advisory Committee has been formed under my chairmanship, which contains among its members the Secretary for Scotland and the Chief Secretary for Ireland, representing those countries, and various of my colleagues in the Cabinet, and which also has the advantage of the co-operation of my right hon. Friend, who for so many years was President of the Local Government Board, and who until lately was President of the Board of Trade, and whose loss as a member of the Government we all deeply regret, but we are fortunate in having the assistance of his long experience in matters of relief work, which he has readily placed at our disposal. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walter Long), who was also for many years President of the Local Government Board, is actively assisting us, and the leader of the Labour Party is co-operating as well. This Committee is an Advisory Committee only. It will have no powers of its own, it will merely seek to co-ordinate all the various agencies, and see that there is no overlapping, and give guidance and advice to the Departments and Authorities concerned. In the various localities of the country the mayors and chairmen of county councils have already been asked at once to form committees with a view to the distribution of the funds collected by the Prince of Wales's organisation. This committee will contain representatives of the town councils or county councils, of the boards of guardians, distress committees, charitable agencies, trade unions, and other bodies experienced in matters of distress. The mayors and chairmen have been specially asked to include among the members of the committees representatives of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, so that the work of that body shall be coordinated with the other relief measures. Further, they have been asked in all cases to see that women are included in the membership of their committee. In the Metropolis the mayors of the boroughs will be called upon to take similar action. They will be asked to work in very close touch with the distress committees which already exist, and to use, as far as possible, the machinery and the experience of those bodies. The Government is taking actively all measures in its power to deal efficiently with the great task which may perhaps confront us in the near future, but if any members, or any organisation outside, will be good enough to send suggestions or advice as to measures to be taken, I can only say that my Committee will receive them gratefully and adopt them wherever practicable.

Most of the information which the President of the Local Government Board has given us will, I am sure, commend itself to the House at large. We are all glad to hear that already so-many steps have been taken in the right direction for the purpose of meeting a national difficulty, but I wish to offer one or two criticisms, not by way of adverse criticism, but by way of encouragement and in order to assist the work which has been undertaken. First of all, I think the right hon. Gentleman has drawn, or apparently intends to draw, too little on-some of the organisations which at present exist. I should like to have heard him mention the Charity Organisation Society in the various districts, which, from my own experience, is often able to guide relief of distress into proper channels, and I hope that in the recommendation which he sends out—because I am quite sure he spoke without wishing to make a complete catalogue of all he was going to do, or perhaps he omitted it by reason of haste, and not having time to think of it—he will include the Charity Organisation Society as a very valuable channel through which to obtain suitable information for the purpose of the relief of distress. Then, with regard to trade unions, I do not know whether he used that expression as a comprehensive method of describing friendly societies, because I should certainly have liked to see some representatives of those bodies on all the local advisory committees, because they are certainly able to give very valuable information, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take that into account.

Also upon the Central Committee, that is the chief Committee, I hope he will add names which are not merely well known in the sphere of politics, but a great many other names. I am glad to think that he has availed himself of one distinguished Member who sits upon the Front Opposition Bench, but I cannot help thinking that in the catalogue of names that he gave us of the Advisory Committee there are a great number of persons, quite outside the sphere of politics, who ought to be placed upon the Central Advisory Committee, and I hope he will go outside politics, and not merely ask for the assistance of distinguished Members, past and present, of the Cabinet to assist him, and some Members of the House, but that he will also go outside among other bodies. I should like to have heard that not only locally, but upon the Central Advisory Committee, he had sought the assistance of one or other of the two bodies which are represented here by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hayes Fisher). Some representative from this body would do very good work upon the Advisory Committee, for they must have in their possession information, and detailed information, which would form a very good start for the Advisory Committee itself. Lastly, there is one matter which the right hon. Gentleman did not touch upon, and which we have been really waiting to hear more about, and that is the question of the widows. I understand that the relief that he is going to disseminate will be given to the wives and families of those who have their bread winners at present either actually at the war or in the Reserve, but he did not indicate that he was going to take the case of the widows into consideration. I do not want a particular class to fall between two stools. We have had three right hon. Gentlemen speaking to us to-night. We have had the representative of the War Office, the representative of the Admiralty, and the representative of the Local Government Board. Several of us have made an appeal for a class which does not really belong to the consideration of either of these great Departments. I speak of men who have married off the strength, who are not recognised either by the Navy or by the Army, and who may be absolutely in want because they are not recognised by the military and naval organisations, and who may also not be within the ambit of the scheme of relief which the right hon. Gentleman has indicated.

Nay, more! If these married women should become widows, it seems to me very probable that they will fall absolutely between the three Departments, and the Local Government Board will say, "That is a matter for the Army"; the Army will say, "No, you married off the strength, therefore we cannot give you any assistance"; and equally that would be the answer of the Navy. We must really recognise that it is a very grievous case which must be met. What does happen? At present a certain number of men are married off the strength. We all know what human nature is, and we may all respect the great number of men who are in the ranks and marry off the strength. Are we to be told that because they have not been fortunate in securing the consent, which, after all, is very limited, of the officer commanding the regiment to their marriage, their widows are to be placed in a less fortunate position than if they had been fortunate enough to have an opportunity of getting that concession? That is an injustice which this House will not tolerate, and I am quite sure that we must ask one of this triumvirate who have addressed us this afternoon to say that they will really take this matter into their consideration. One of the boroughs which I represent is a very large military centre for the Midland district, and this is a matter in which I have a very particular interest, and I say now, and I am sure I say it with the assent of all Members in all parts of the House, who directly or indirectly are greatly interested in this matter, that we must not allow this injustice to happen in this war although it has happened in the past. Our experience ought to prevent us from ever allowing it again.

I wish to ask whether loans obtained by these local bodies from the Local Government Board will be on the terms they are accustomed to or whether the duration will be extended?

I wish to ask one question, which I think the right hon. Gentleman omitted to give us any information about. He talked about getting information as to how much extra employment the Road Board and Development Fund and various local public bodies were able to give, but he did not say whether he was going to ascertain, which I think is rather an important point, how much extra employment private individuals would be able to promise in the case of emergency. I think the local committees in various counties would be able to find that out for him when they are appointed, and I think he will probably find that a large number of people would state that if necessary, and they were called upon, they would be prepared to spend so much on certain work on their own estate or on some public work connected with their own home. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has taken that into consideration, though he did not mention it.

I wish to reinforce the claim made by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Pollock) on behalf of those who are married off the strength. Would the right hon. Gentleman remember that there is no separation allowance for those married off the strength. The question therefore arises immediately—this week—and next week it will be more and more pressing, so that they have really a very special claim upon any public fund—not charitable fund—that is got up to meet the gaps in organisation which at present exist. I have not the least doubt that if time had permitted, the regulations under which people are now married off the strength of the Army would be altered. We have almost a pledge by the Government to make some alterations, but it will not be possible in all probability to make them in the present circumstances. Therefore it is the more necessary that any public funds which are got up should not forget that it is a weekly allowance that these women will be requiring.

The question of interest on loans to local authorities is one really for the Public Works Loans Commissioners. These loans are made by them, and not by the Local Government Board. The Public Works Loans Commissioners act in consultation with the Treasury. I am, however, in communication with the Treasury on the point. I regret that I am not in a position to-day to make any statement on their behalf. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Shropshire (Mr. Bridgeman) for the suggestion he made with regard to additional employment by private individuals. That will be a matter for the local authorities to deal with. That answer to some extent applies to the question asked by the hon. and learned Member behind me. The Central Committee is a kind of enlarged Cabinet Committee. It is not intended to administer relief itself. It is to advise and guide the local authorities throughout the country, and it is to them we look for the actual distribution of relief in connection with the measures to deal with unemployment. But I will say that the suggestion of the hon. Member will be borne in mind We are communicating with the various authorities throughout the country.

I am not quite certain whether the question of the Trade Unions who are administering the unemployment insurance funds is before the House, but I wish the right hon. Gentleman to make arrangements so that those who have been paying benefit out of their funds may have remittances as often as possible through the Board of Trade. Some societies are kept waiting a long time, and I wish the Board of Trade to see that the money is remitted weekly or monthly to those societies. In the building trade there have been considerable demands on the funds, and they cannot afford to wait too long for the money due to them from the Board of Trade. I wish the right hon. Gentleman to expedite matters in that direction.

I beg leave to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill, to authorise the grant out of police funds of certain allowances and gratuities in respect of Police Reservists who are called out upon permanent service."

In this Bill we follow the exact precedent of 1900 with reference to the widows and children of married men, and also the gratuities and allowances to those dependent upon unmarried men.

It is clearly not in the interests of India, nor of the House, that we should have the usual discussion at this particular period, but at a later period of the year in the new Session the usual discussion on Indian affairs will take place.

Committee deferred until To-morrow.

I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman representing the Board of Trade whether he has anything to communicate to the House in reference to the Grimsby fishermen and the insurance of their vessels, on which I put a question to him the other day, and as to which the Government promised consideration. The matter is really urgent, and a deputation of owners from Hull and Grimsby are in London anxious to confer with the Government on the matter.

I can only say that the matter is under active consideration. I cannot say that the fishing boats will be brought under the same scheme of insurance, but there is under consideration a proposal for bringing them under a special scheme of insurance to meet their case. Their case would not come under the same definition as would be put in policies in the case of ordinary vessels making a voyage. The matter is being carefully and closely considered, and any assistance which the hon. Member or the deputation can give will be gladly received.