asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can inform Parliament if the recent statement of M. Sazonof in the Duma to the effect that Russia intended permanently to occupy Constantinople was made with the approval and knowledge of His Majesty's Government?

I have not seen, and cannot find in any report of M. Sazonof's speech that I have seen, the statement attributed to him by the hon. Member. The statement which I have seen is that the events on the Russo-Turkish frontier will bring Russia nearer to the realisation of the political and economic problems bound up with the question of Russia's access to the open sea. That is an aspiration with which we are in entire sympathy. The precise form in which it will be realised will no doubt be settled in the terms of peace.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact which he made known to the House of Commons on the 3rd August last, namely, that he did not know the terms of the Franco-Russian Alliance, he is willing to make a further statement as to the grounds upon which he refrained from communicating to the French Government the information that France would not be invaded by Germany if her neutrality were guaranteed by Great Britain?

If the hon. Gentleman will refer to No. 105 in the British White Paper—the last two sentences of the main paragraph—he will see that, though His Majesty's Government did not know the terms of the Franco-Russian alliance, they did know that the French Government could not contemplate an attitude of neutrality in the event of Russia being attacked by Germany as well as by Austria. The French Government had in fact already stated in advance on 30th July that the proposal actually made by the German Government two days later would be wholly inadmissible. But apart from that I thought it was a matter of common knowledge that these European alliances, whether dual or triple, entailed an obligation on the part of one Power to assist the other, certainly if attacked by two Powers.

asked the Prime Minister if the opinion recently expressed by the First Lord of the Admiralty to a "Matin" interviewer, to the effect that should France and Russia withdraw from participation in the European War Great Britain would fight to the bitter end, was published with the authority and sanction of His Majesty's Government?

My right hon. Friend specially stated in the interview that he could not conceive that such a contingency could arise, and I am in absolute agreement with him. I see no reason to differ from the views he expressed in the interview.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Gaston Veitch, born at Bayonne in 1896 and now at school at York, the son of Eng- lish parents, his father having been British Consul at Réunion, is liable to be called up as a conscript in the French Army, and has received a summons to return to France this month; and whether he is eligible to join, as he now wishes, the English Army, for which he has been for some time in training?

The case referred to has not been brought to my notice, but if the facts are represented to me I shall be happy to consider whether His Majesty's Government could properly take any action in the matter.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether he is aware of the commercial embarrassments that have resulted from the War to eon-tractors to Poor Law unions in Ireland, especially in relation to flour and bread contracts, owing to the rise in the price of bread-stuffs; whether the Local Government Board in Ireland will empower the boards of guardians to terminate flour and bread contracts at the end of the half-year 31st March, instead of the end of the year 30th September, or else allow boards of guardians to give the contractors something over contract prices and thus save them from commercial ruin; and whether he is aware that boards of guardians in Ireland are willing to adopt either course towards their contractors if permission is given them by the Local Government Board?

The Local Government Board are aware that there has been considerable fluctuation in the prices of commodities since the outbreak of the War. In cases where they have been asked to allow boards of guardians to terminate contracts they have replied that, as regards contracts entered into before the War, they would raise no objection to the guardians making up to the contractor any loss which he may have sustained by the outbreak of the War. As regards contracts entered into since the War began, the Board have stated that they could not assent to any departure from the terms of such contracts.

asked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) what steps, if any, have been taken to secure a representation of Irish manufacturers at the forthcoming fair in London organised by the Board of Trade; and whether the Irish doll and other industries which have been started in Ireland since; the outbreak of War to take the place of products hitherto imported from Germany and Austria will be suitably displayed under the direction of the Department or otherwise?

The Department are furnishing the Irish Press with all the information in their possession as to the scope and objects of the proposed fair. They hope in this and in other ways to bring the project to the notice of Irish manufacturers. The question as to such further co-operation as may be open to the Department is under consideration, but the present state of the Department's funds precludes the idea of action which would involve expenditure from that source.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now state the nature of the reply of the International Navigation Company with regard to their action in engaging eighty-eight extra men in the stewards' department on board the ss. "Lapland," to be transferred at New York to the ss. "Kroonland", and whether he is aware that, as the latter ship is under the American flag, the transference of these men amounted to an importation of labour, which is prohibited in the United States of America?

The International Navigation Company have informed me that as the "Kroonland" required additional stewards at New York they sent spare men from Liverpool by the ss. "Lapland" belonging to the same line, and that these men will be returned in due course. The question whether the transfer of these men to the ss. "Kroonland" would be contrary to United States law is one for the United States authorities to consider.

asked the-President of the Board of Trade whether he has any official information showing that there was an increase on the granary stocks on 1st September of 1,450,000 quarters, and that millers have laid in an extra million quarters and are unusually well stocked at the mill; and, if so, whether he will address a circular to the trade indicating that such a course is in contravention of the Act against withholding food supplies, directing, under threat of proceedings,, that such withheld supplies be at once placed on the market, and warning millers against such practices in future?

From the returns collected periodically by the Board of all stocks held in the United Kingdom, it appears that the quantity held in port granaries on the 1st February was about 4 percent, less than on the 1st September. Stocks held by millers were rather more on the 1st February than on the 1st September, but slightly less than on the 1st January. The Board are keeping the whole position under close observation, and there is no reason to believe that stocks are being held other than in the normal course of trade.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention had been directed to a monthly report of the Colonial Consignment and Distributing Company, Limited, of Nelson's Wharf, Lambeth, dated 12th February, 1915, in which, after recording large arrivals of frozen meat from New Zealand during the past month, the report states that a distinct improvement in demand for mutton has arisen in the last few weeks, and that as disturbance in freight arrangements is likely to interfere with future supplies some slight restriction has to be placed on the output for the time being; whether he will cause inquiries to be made with all importers of New Zealand frozen, meat and at all London refrigerators, asking for a return of stocks on hand on each of the last four Monday mornings; whether he will direct the attention of all such importers to the Act of Parliament dealing with the withholding of food supplies; and whether, in view of the advancing price of frozen beef, mutton, and lamb, he will fix as a maximum the remunerative price of these goods officially quoted in the "Meat Trades Journal and Times" for Friday, 1st January, 1915?

My hon. Friend states correctly that the arrivals of frozen meat from New Zealand have increased recently. The imports of refrigerated beef and mutton from all sources were, however, substantially less in January last than in the previous month or in January of last year, and the decrease of import has been continued in February. Some disorganisation of the shipping services between New Zealand and this country has occurred, but this will, I hope, be reduced or removed as a result of the endeavours which are being made to improve the situation. Particulars are already obtained fortnightly regarding stocks of meat in cold stores, and the movement of stocks is being closely watched. I have no doubt that the importers and others interested are already aware of the provisions of the Act to which my hon. Friend refers respecting the withholding of food supplies. No evidence has come to the knowledge of the Board of Trade that there is any such withholding in the case of meat, but if my hon. Friend has any information on the subject I shall be glad to consider it. As at present advised, I do not think that the adoption of the course suggested in the last part of the question would conduce to the desired result.

asked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that the rise in the cost of food amounts to between 20 and 24 per cent., he will consider the advisability of increasing the wages of all Government workmen to the same extent so that their real wages may have the same purchasing power as they had in July, 1914, prior to the outbreak of war?

I cannot accept without reserve the figures given by the hon. Member. The question of an increase in wages to Government workmen in consideration of the rise in juices in the present emergency is receiving the attention of the Government, who are taking the advice of the Arbitration Committee whose appointment was announced on Monday last.

Does the right hon. Gentleman know that he will find these figures in his speech in this House a few days ago?

I think not.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the further rise in the price of household coal; and whether the investigation has taken place and, if so, when may action on the Report be expected?

I am aware that the price of household coal in London has again been raised. A Committee has been appointed to inquire into the causes of the rise in the retail price of coal sold for domestic use, especially to the poorer classes of consumers in London and other centres. The members of the Committee are Mr. Vaughan Nash, as chairman, Professor Ashley, my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, Mr. J. J. Dent, Mr. A. W. Flux, and Mr. Stanley Machin. I cannot at present say when the Committee will complete their inquiries, but they are fully aware of the urgency of the matter.

Has the Committee commenced its sittings yet?

I am not sure if they have yet met.

Will the Board expedite the sittings at once?

I have stated that the Committee are fully aware of the urgency of the matter.

Is the hon. Gentleman, aware there is a great influx of coal into London just now, and will he take some steps to advise the public not to buy so as to bring the colliery owners to their senses?

That suggestion no doubt will be considered.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government have agreed to contribute a proportion of the extra bonus that is to be paid to railway servants; if so, whether the Government were consulted before the actual extra expenditure was decided upon; whether in any such consultation the various grades of servants who were to receive the bonus was a subject of discussion; and whether, seeing that the Board of Trade White Paper 293 gives the average salaries of station-masters and clerks as only about 33s. 8d. a week, he will use what influence he possesses to make these grades participants in the extra bonus?

Under the arrangement between the Government and the railway companies as to the terms of compensation payable to the companies for the use of the railways a portion of the War bonus which the companies have agreed to give to their operating staff will fall to be paid by the Government. The Government were informed by the Railway Executive Committee of the proposed increase, but the amount of the rise and the grades of employés to which it would apply were settled by the companies in conference with the railway trade unions without any interference by the Government. My right hon. Friend proposes to take up the same attitude with regard to any other adjustments of wages that may be under consideration. I am informed that the figures mentioned in the last part of the question refer only to money wages, and do not include the value of such items of remuneration as a station-master's house.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the inconvenience caused to regular travellers on the railway can be lessened by arrangements being made to allow the holders of contract tickets between any two towns to use the trains of any company between those towns other than those of the company issuing the ticket?

I am informed by the Railway Executive Committee that where it has been found necessary to discontinue certain trains, the railway companies have issued instructions with regard to the interavailability of tickets, and if it is found necessary to make further reductions in the train services the companies will see how far such arrangements can be extended.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Board of Excise do not allow British-made absolute alcohol to be stored in bond for Home consumption; whether dealers must buy it and store it duty paid; whether the duty is 26s. 5d. per gallon; whether prior to the War German spirit could be stored under bond and paid for only when taken out as is done in the case of ordinary wines and spirits; and whether, in view of the difficulties affecting manufacturers in the present crisis and the amounts of money they have to lie out of under the present arrangement, he can see his way to revert to the previous arrangements?

The law has not been altered since the War began as to absolute alcohol, whether British made or imported, and there has been no withdrawal of any privilege in regard to British-made absolute alcohol. Before the War, very little absolute alcohol, if any, was manufactured in this country, and practically all of it came from Germany and remained in bond until required for use. Since the War none is coming from Germany, but some is being manufactured in this country. Under the law storage duty-free in bond for delivery for home consumption would be allowed in the case of absolute alcohol manufactured by a distiller from duty-free spirit, but not in the case of absolute alcohol manufactured by a rectifier from duty-paid spirit. A certain amount of the last-named spirit is now being made in this country, and in view of this fact, and having regard to the high duty, which may be as much as 26s. 5d. a gallon, the Board of Customs and Excise are considering whether an alteration of the law is justified in order to meet the difficulty indicated in the question.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the great disability which is being laid on British merchants who are attempting to capture German trade, and will he bring in the necessary legislation as quickly as possible?

I cannot, of course, anticipate the recommendations of the Board of Customs or the decision of the Government, but I will do what I can, and if it is decided the matter should be put right by legislation, it shall be done as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether any school boards in Scotland have pressed for a relaxation of the conditions governing school attendance in order to enable children to enter agricultural employment or have taken any steps to encourage such use of cheap child labour?

I have received one or two representations to this effect from school boards, but I am not aware of any district in which the conditions governing exemption from school attendance under the age of fourteen have in point of fact been in any way relaxed.

asked the Prime Minister whether the hospital ship "Asturias" was attacked by the torpedo of a German submarine off Havre on the 25th January, 1915; whether two British merchant ships were torpedoed without warning by a German submarine off the North-West coast of France on the 30th January; whether it is now the avowed policy of the German Admiralty to torpedo merchant ships wherever met with in British waters without warning; and whether, in view of the acts which have been committed and the policy now announced, His Majesty's Government will consider the desirability of issuing a Proclamation declaring that the crews of German vessels which may be captured where engaged in operations which contravene the rules of civilised warfare will be treated as criminals and not as prisoners of war?

The facts are correctly stated in the first three parts of the question. As regards the last part, I must refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth on 22nd February.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether Civil, servants who have joined the New Army, and who are promoted to be commissioned officers, are deprived of the benefit of receiving their civil pay, less their Army pay, although that benefit is given to all non-commissioned officers and to commissioned officers in the Territorial Army; and, if so, what are the grounds for confining this benefit to Territorial officers?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part therefore does not arise.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether every painter, including intermediate rates, will receive the increase of 2s. hired and 1s. 6d. established men?

Yes, Sir.

asked whether the Admiralty allow four days' leave a year with full pay to seamen and stokers employed on dockyard tugs, six days to mates, and eight days to masters; and whether it is the intention of the Admiralty, in the cases of those men whose leave has been stopped since the outbreak of War, to remunerate them as on the occasion of the last August Bank holiday?

The leave allowances for seamen and stokers, masters and mates on dockyard tugs were until recently as stated, but the allowances have recently been increased to the following scale, namely, masters, twelve days; mates, nine days; seamen and stokers, six days. The new allowances are shown in the replies to the petitions, a copy of which has been sent to the hon. Member. Leave of absence in all cases is dependent upon the convenience of the Service, and the yard craft men referred to are by no means the only employés who have not been able to take the leave usually allowed to them.

Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman sent me a copy of the petitions?

Yes, Sir, two copies.

I have not received them.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the work done by riggers in the Royal dockyards since the War started; that riggers have been called upon to work at all times of the night and expose themselves to all kinds of weather; and whether, in these circumstances, he can see his way to advance their pay by 1s. instead of 6d., which is regarded by riggers generally as a sum not in any way equal to the special work they have been called upon to perform?

The Admiralty are fully acquainted with the good work done by riggers and the circumstances under which the work has been performed. The small increase of pay recently granted, as from 1st October last, makes the uniform rate for riggers equal to the maximum special rate for skilled labourers.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the wages paid to the 3rd and 4th class women employed on the spinning floor at the Ropery, His Majesty's dockyard, Devonport; whether he is aware that the wages are 15s. and 13s. a week, respectively, and that it takes 10 to 12 years to get an in crease owing to having to wait for a vacancy in the 2nd class; and whether, in view of the increased cost of living and the fact that these women are for the most part widows of sailors who have died at the post of duty, he can see his way to give them a rise of 1s. a week?

The women employed at the Ropery at Devonport dockyard are divided into 1st, 2nd, and 3rd class machinists and probationers. The respective rates of pay are 20s., 17s. 6d., 15s., and 13s. per week, but these rates of pay do not represent the actual earnings, as the women are paid on a scheme of prices under which the excess of their earnings over the time rates at present amounts to from 15 to 20 per cent. In accordance with the dockyard regulations, in the engaging of women for employment at the Roperies, preference is given to widows whose husbands have died in the Service and to respectable orphan girls. The probationers are advanced to 3rd class machinists after twelve months' service, or before if proficient. The advancement to 1st and 2nd class machinists is made in vacancies, and as the women in the 1st and 2nd classes usually remain in the Service for long periods, the vacancies occur infrequently, and consequently the advancement from one class to another commonly takes place at intervals of some years. I am afraid that I can give no undertaking in regard to the last part of the question.

Does not the percentage of wages only come to 15s. a week in the 3rd class?

The hon. Gentleman can make his own calculation.

I have done so.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the scale of officers' pensions to be paid in respect of the loss of the "Bulwark" has now been settled?

No, Sir. The matter is still under consideration, the present position being that the Admiralty, in conjunction with the War Office, are drawing up a scheme of pensions for the widows and children of officers which it is hoped to transmit for the consideration of the Select Committee at an early date. In the case of the "Bulwark" the pensions are meanwhile being paid under Scale B.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, owing to the War, constables in both Metropolitan and provincial forces are only allowed one day off in fourteen instead of one day off in seven; whether the days so worked accumulate considerably; whether this condition of affairs has brought about a state of great tension and difficulty in the police force at Birkenhead, over 100 men having tendered their resignations out of a strength of 240; and whether, seeing that some watch committees now pay the constables wages for the extra days worked, he can put this method into operation in the Metropolitan Police area, as such plan would prove more acceptable to the constables than allowing time off for the extra days worked?

So far as the county and borough police forces are concerned, the matter is one for the local authority to decide. No information has reached me with regard to pension or difficulty at Birkenhead. As regards the Metropolitan Police area, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave last Monday to the hon. Member for South-West Ham.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether all cases coming within the category of zymotic diseases notifiable under Statute to the local sanitary authority and which occur among the troops now undergoing training in the United Kingdom are so notified; whether such cases are removed for treatment to the isolation hospitals of the local authority in whose district they arise or are treated in camp hospital; and, in case the latter course is pursued, what steps are taken to ensure complete and efficient isolation?

Yes, Sir, a system of intercommunication exists between the civil medical officers of health and the military sanitary officers. All infectious cases are treated in the local civil isolation hospitals, except in a few cases where local civil accommodation is not available. Such cases are treated in special military isolation hospitals. Arrangemuents have also been made for the erection of pavilions in the grounds of civil isolation hospitals where existing accommodation is insufficient.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the cases of cerebro-spinal meningitis among the troops in camp at Reed Hall Camp, Colchester; whether he is aware that men who have been in contact with others who have developed the disease are detained under observation in huts which closely adjoin and are part of a block in which a large number of the troops are housed; and whether he will give directions for these cases to be removed to suitable quarters properly isolated until the full period of quarantine has expired?

I am making inquiries into the subject of the hon. Member's question, and will in due course let him know the result.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many sergeant-majors and quartermaster-sergeants who had retired and were on pension previous to the War, but who on the outbreak of War immediately re-enlisted, has subsequently been appointed to the position of quartermaster to any of the newly-raised regiments, and to act as such during the period of the War?

One hundred and five warrant officers and non-commissioned officers who wore on pension and who re-enlisted at the outbreak of War have been appointed temporary quartermasters for the period of the War.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War what was the estimate in the last edition of the Handbook of the German Army, published before the War, of the total available trained and untrained men in each category, respectively, of the German Army?

The estimate in the last edition of the Handbook of the German Army, published in 1912, of the total available trained and untrained men of the German Army, excluding officers and officials, was as follows:—

Trained Rank and File, including Reserve and Landwehr	3,302,000
Trained Landsturm	623,000
One-year Volunteers	85,000
Non-Commissioned Officers of peace establishment	92,000
Total trained	4,102,000
Partially-trained Ersatz Reserve	113,000
Untrained Ersatz Reserve and Landsturm	5,683,000
Grand total	9,898,000

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the Handbook of the German Army is now only circulated for official use; and, if so, seeing that it was formerly on sale to the public, whether he will arrange for it to be again placed on sale to the public?

The Handbook of the German Army, like similar handbooks of other foreign armies, is now only circulated for official use, and it is not considered desirable that any of these handbooks should be placed on sale to the public.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can see his way to arrange that private houses which are lent for the purpose of naval or military hospitals be free of rates and taxes while so used?

Private houses lent for the purposes indicated are relieved entirely from Inhabited House Duty and also from Income Tax, Schedule A, except in so far as it may be deductible from ground rent or other charges. Questions relating to exemption from rates should be addressed to the President of the Local Government Board.

Does that apply to the houses let to Belgian refugees?

I do not know. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put a question on the Paper.

asked what is the condition as regards inoculation of the 625 cases of and 49 deaths from typhoid fever amongst the Expeditionary Force from the beginning of August, 1914, to 11th February, 1915, and of the 262 cases of and 47 deaths from typhoid fever amongst the British troops in the United Kingdom from 1st August, 1914, to 31st January, 1915?

I am arranging to have the information asked for by my hon. Friend compiled, but as it will take some time to prepare, I will let my hon. Friend know the result as soon as it is ready.

asked what is the condition as regards vaccination and revaccination of the British soldiers who suffered from small-pox in the United Kingdom between 1st August, 1914, and 31st January, 1915?

The history of the solitary case of small-pox which has occurred between the dates mentioned in the question is as follows: The soldier referred to who was vaccinated in infancy enlisted on the 10th August last, went into hospital on the 13th August, and was removed to an infection hospital on the following day. Had he not been taken ill so quickly after enlistment, he would have been revaccinated.

asked what proportion of agricultural labourers in England and Wales and Scotland, respectively, have joined His Majesty's forces since the outbreak of War?

I regret that this information is not available, and, as it would involve a vast amount of labour to compile I trust my hon. Friend will not press, his question.

asked whether any permission has been given to any officer of the late German Embassy in London to spend several days recently in London?

Nothing is known of this at the War Office.

Has any information reached the War Office to the effect that any civil or military officer answering that description has been in London during the present month?

No; I think not.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the condition of the English prisoners recently returned from Germany shows evidence of neglect and ill-treatment; and whether he will consider the limitation of luxuries to German prisoners in this country?

The English prisoners recently returned from Germany did not show evidence of neglect and ill-treatment. They stated that they were well treated so long as they were in hospital, but less well in the camps, where their food is stated to have been scanty and unsuited to them. Those who came direct from hospital looked much better fed than those from the camps.

asked whether it is proposed to exceed the sum of £17,000 already spent in fitting Donington Hall for the confinement of German officer prisoners of war; for how many such officers this house has been fitted at this cost; how many are at present in occupation: and why it was necessary to spend so large a sum for this purpose?

As has already been stated in answer to previous questions, the sum of £13,000 only has been expended on this service, including £4,000 for furniture. Accommodation has been provided for 320 German officers and eighty prisoner of war servants. At present 103 prisoner officers and men are in occupation. It was necessary to carry out extensive repairs to the drainage, to install electric light, and also to build quarters for the guard of three officers and 100 men, and for the staff outside the barbed wire fence.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the somewhat luxurious treatment of these prisoners of war has caused unfavourable comment in the Eastern Midlands?

I believe there is a certain amount of criticism as to the money spent.

asked whether, in cases in which temporary promotions in the Territorial Force are made permanent during or at the end of the War, confirmation of rank can be antedated to the date of temporary promotion, provided that there has been continuous service in the higher rank, in order that officers who have been continuously performing the duties of a higher rank, and who in many cases would have been normally promoted but for the War, may not unnecessarily lose precedence?

Confirmation of rank will be dated or antedated to the date on which a vacancy occurred in the permanent peace establishment of the original unit.

asked whether the War Office received a full and detailed report from the British Empire Committee connected with the Royal Fusiliers (City of London Regiment) Empire Battalion of certain alleged irregularities in connection with the contract for the equipment of the battalion; whether the report submitted to the War Office reveals the payment of moneys by the equipment contractor to two members of the committee; and what advice did the War Office tender in the matter to the British Empire Committee?

I am informed that no such report has been received at the War Office. If the hon. Member has received some information on which he can rely and which he can furnish to me, I shall be glad to make inquiry.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two members of this committee have been retired from the committee on account of having accepted illicit commissions from the contractor and that the contractor is still on the War Office list and has now received a contract in connection with the Crystal Palace?

No, I am not aware of that. It is precisely because I was not aware of that that I asked my hon. Friend if he would be so good as to supply me with any information upon which he could rely.

Did not General Wooll-combe, the General Officer in Command of the Eastern District, receive a detailed report on 30th October last of the investigations of the committee which had sat immediately preceding it?

As I have informed the House, the War Office have received no-such report.

The General Officer of the Eastern Command would be the proper channel, would it not, for anything of that sort to come through?

Yes, I quite agree.

If you make inquiry of General Woollcombe you will find it.

asked what is the exact position of the Royal Fusiliers (City of London) Empire Battalion and the other service battalions which have been formed since the outbreak of war; whether they are subject to the direct authority of the War Office; and whether the War Office is responsible for the control of the battalions and for the bona fides and efficiency of the contractors to these battalions or whether that responsibility rests with the committees which appealed to the public for funds and are still concerned with the duties of administration?

These "local" battalions, of which the battalion in question is one, have been raised by various municipalities and communities and in certain cases by responsible individuals, who have thereby rendered most valuable assistance to the War Office. They are housed, clothed and generally administered by the raisers until such time as they are definitely taken over by the War Office. Until so taken over, the responsibility for the efficiency and bona fides of any contractors who may be employed rests with the raisers. The responsibility for training rests throughout with the military authorities.

Have the Royal Fusiliers been taken over by the War Office?

No, they have not.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the disability laid upon candidates for commissions from the ranks who have received their commanding officers' permission to apply, inasmuch as other commanding officers refuse to take them as officers; and whether the War Office will take steps to prevent this disability being continued?

I am not clear as to the class of case to which my hon. Friend refers, and if he will furnish me with particulars of any specific case I shall be glad to inquire into it. So far as temporary commissions are concerned, no such disability as he suggests exists. In the case of commissions in the Special Reserve, it has always been the rule for commanding officers to recommend candidates for their own battalions, and this rule also applies to locally raised battalions.

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how it is that we all get so many letters from men who have applied for commissions stating that the colonel will not sign the application?

No, I cannot.

asked whether any of the troops of the Expeditionary Force are still required to stand in water in the trenches without being provided with waterproof stockings or trench waders and oilskin coats; and, if so, whether this applies to men who have already suffered from frostbite and who have returned to the trenches?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave him on the 17th instant. The supplies of water proof stockings or trench waders and oilskin coats which have been dispatched oversea are considered adequate.

asked if, taking into consideration the perils and hardships regimental officers have had to undergo, and the comparative safety and comfort of the staff officers, the usual practice of distributing the larger proportion of honours and rewards to staff officers may be revised in this War?

All relevant considerations, including those mentioned by my hon. Friend are duly weighed in the distribution of rewards for services in war.

asked what percentage of the old Regular Army battalions and Cavalry regiments in France are now being commanded by lieutenant-colonels, what percentage by majors, and what percentage by captains; if all these officers commanding battalions are receiving the pay and allowances of lieutenant-colonels in command of battalions; what percentage of companies in these battalions are being commanded by lieutenants; and if the Secretary of State for War will recognise the advisability of giving these officers the rank of the positions they hold?

It would require a good deal of laborious investigation to arrive at these percentages, which, moreover, would vary from day to day. I would remind my hon. Friend that the subject was dealt with in the recent Debate on Army Estimates. I then informed the House of certain steps which had been taken in the direction desired by my hon. Friend, and, as I indicated, the whole matter is receiving further consideration.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that on the termination of the White City contract of Lyons and Company, Limited, the contract was given to Kerr and Company on the nomination of Mr. Imre Kiralfy; if he is aware that Mr. Imre Kiralfy is a close blood relation to Sir Joseph Lyons; and if he will make inquiries into the matter?

The contract for catering at the White City is now held by Messrs. Kerr and Company, of Glasgow, and in the circumstances I hope that my hon. Friend will not press me to inquire into the personal relationship to which he refers.

asked whether the new separation allowances in the case of London are increased by 3s. 6d. a week?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War, whether he will consider paying in full the amount of dependence in all separation allowances without any deduction from the soldier's pay?

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been drawn to the irregularities in the allowances made to dependants of soldiers other than wives; whether much of this is due to the varying sums calculated to have been given by a soldier to his dependant before enlisting; and whether he is prepared to recommend that this grievance be abolished by the substitution of an universal value for pre-enlisting dependence and thus remove what is at present a cause of hardship to many dependants and of much work to the pension officers?

I would remind the hon. Members that these matters were before the Select Committee and that the Government has finally accepted the Committee's recommendations.

Will my hon. Friend make it quite clear in any future statement he makes that the soldier himself contributes the allotment which the Government allege they give as a separation allowance?

I will see that the facts are properly stated.

Will my suggestion as to the substitution of a universal value be the basis?

No. I understand that has been considered by the Select Committee and rejected.

When may we expect a decision?

The decision is contained in the Report.

asked whether, when a soldier has his pay stopped for default, his dependants also lose their separation allowance for that period; and, if so, whether the War Office will consider the advisability of punishing the soldier only and not his dependants?

It has been decided that separation allowance in these cases shall continue so long as the soldier remains in the Army.

asked whether there are any arrangements by which soldiers when brought to hospitals in this country can exchange with ease, and at a proper rate of exchange, French notes in which they have received their pay; and, if so, whether notices to that effect may be posted up in the wards of the different hospitals?

Arrangements have been made by which French notes brought by soldiers returning to this country may be exchanged at any Post Office at the rate of 9½d. to the franc. Instructions are being issued to officers in charge of hospitals for the posting of the necessary notices.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that officers appointed to depots as adjutants have, so far, received no additional pay; and, having regard to the fact that these officers have for months past been doing adjutants' work, will he see that they receive, as from the date of their appointment, the extra pay allowed to adjutants?

Additional pay has been approved for acting adjutants of depots. When not already provided for in regulations this takes effect from the date of authorisation. For Infantry depots the date was 5th February.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in Mitcham the remuneration for making khaki coats is at the rate of 8d. per coat, and the remuneration for making haversacks at the rate of 4s. and 3s. per dozen; and whether the contracts made by or on behalf of the Army Council contain any provisions with regard to sweating?

All War Office contracts contain the Fair-Wages Clause. I am not aware of the payment of the rates in question, but if the hon. Member will kindly furnish me with the names of the firms concerned, I will have the matter inquired into.

asked whether the usual self-denying ordinance applies to the members of the Garrison and Regimental Institutes Board?

I am making inquiry into this matter.

Cannot the hon. Gentleman say whether the proprietors of certain articles who are on this committee will not be allowed to contract?

I hope my hon. Friend will postpone the question until the Board has met again. I am not in a position to give an answer.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if the women typists employed there have to work seven days a week; and if any arrangements are made by which they can have occasional holidays?

The typists employed in the War Office are compelled to take one day's rest in seven. Opportunity is also offered to them for taking occasional holidays.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any clerks of works or building inspectors were appointed by the War Office to superintend the erection of the huts, etc., at the various military camps; and, if so, will he state the number appointed?

The erection of huts for military camps has been carried out in nearly all cases by contractors or agents appointed by the War Office who have provided their own superintending staff. In two commands a portion of the hutting has been carried out under the chief engineers, who have, I am informed, appointed nineteen clerks of works for this purpose.

Am I right in assuming that some of them are appointed by the contractors?

No, Sir. The chief engineer has the whole responsibility to the War Office.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that Robinson and Son, contractors, of Grime Street, Grimsby, who are carrying out work for the War Office for the military camp at Rhyl, refuse to pay for overtime worked for the job, as agreed to by the Grimsby Master Builders' Association and their workmen; and whether he will compel this firm to observe the Fair-Wages Resolution or cancel the contract they have in hand?

No complaint has been received regarding the firm in question; but I am making inquiries into the matter.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in spite of the use of the interned steamers, the expected reduction in freights from the Tyne to London has not taken place; and what is now the rate?

My right hon. Friend has requested me to answer this question. There was some reduction in freights when these vessels started running, but there was afterwards an upward tendency. I understand that 14s. 6d. was the last rate paid to an outside boat, and 12s. to an interned steamer.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in order to ease the freight rates for coal from the Tyne to London, he can arrange for some of the colliers which take coal from Cardiff to the North Sea Fleet to take a cargo from the Tyne to London on the way back instead of returning empty?

Certain colliers have already been temporarily released by the Admiralty for the purpose indicated, and the practice will be continued so far as Fleet considerations permit.

Would the hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of representing to the Admiralty that they should pay part of the excessive rate out of the savings on the hire of these colliers at 4s. per ton?

I will convey the suggestion to the Admiralty.

Is it not possible for the Board of Trade to fix these freights?

No, I think not. As I have indicated, the rates charged for the interned steamers are lower than those in the open market.

Are they fixed by the Board of Trade?

They are fixed by the business firm accustomed to the management of these matters.

Have they been given instructions to fix them at as low a rite as possible?

The firm was instructed to conform to the market rate and to resist any upward tendency.

Where does the profit go if the rates are heavier on these interned ships?

My hon. Friend says that they were instructed to conform to the market rate. Does that mean the market rate as inflated in these peculiar circumstances?

An inflated market rate is still a market rate. The firm were instructed to observe the market rata and to resist an upward tendency. These figures show that they are doing so.

Would not the best way to resist be to charge less?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, until all further risk of meningitis at the Crystal Palace is over, he will arrange for any men who have been in contact with those who have developed the disease to be kept in the Palace grounds so as to prevent the spread of the disease outside?

As I indicated in the reply which I gave to the hon. Gentleman on the 18th instant, contacts are at once removed from the Palace altogether and isolated until all danger from them is passed.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give any estimate of the consumption of cotton by Germany for explosives used in mines and torpedoes, either per month or to date, since the outbreak of war; and whether he can furnish any estimate of the probable consumption should the War continue until the end of the present year?

I am afraid that I can give no estimate.

asked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that the allowance for uniform and kit of £20 has given rise to dissatisfaction; and whether, seeing that no officer can provide such under £40, he will consider making such increased allowance such as will prevent such officers incurring a loss1?

The full outfit allowance is £50. The allowance of £20 is only given in cases in which a full campaigning outfit is not required, and I am not aware that it has been found inadequate.

I rise to call attention very briefly to a matter which is exciting a certain amount of interest and some alarm in the country. The subject will also be dealt with by some hon. Members with greater knowledge of the subject and who have more power of physical exertion than I possess at the present moment. I refer to the encroachments which are being made on the educational by-laws, chiefly in the agricultural districts, with the practical sanction of the Government in relation thereto. It has taken the House of Commons and the country over fifty years to build up even a partial system of education. Hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen are able to look at this question from rather an abstract point of view. They may have sympathy for the children, but they do not consider the question of education from the same point of view as those of us who represent more or less directly the interests of the working classes, and who in many cases have had only the most limited education, while some of us have never spent a day in school in our lives.

There are various limitations in the Acts of Parliament which regulate our educational system, and these limitations can be embodied in by-laws which have the same force as the Acts of Parliament. If the local authority fails to enforce the by-laws the Board of Education may hold an inquiry and enforce the findings of that inquiry by means of mandamus. That, briefly, is the present state of the law in England and Wales. Every child between the ages of five and fourteen is nominally entitled to such education as the public school can give. There always has been a certain strife in many agricultural districts between those who desire the children to be allowed to remain at school until they are fourteen and those who, especially in the agricultural industry, want the cheap labour of the children for their farms. It now looks as if the latter were becoming more powerful and were obtaining the approval of the Government. That is a serious situation.

I may quote very briefly a list of cases in which exemptions from the by-laws have already been settled with the practical approval of the Board of Trade. My information is taken from that very remarkable document submitted to the Board of Education by Miss Susan Lawrence. She tells us of such cases in Dorsetshire, Buckinghamshire. Devonshire, Gloucestershire, where in some instances boys of eleven years of age may be temporarily employed; Hampshire, where the chairman suggested that managers should be told not to prosecute for non-attendance if the parents desired boys of twelve years of age to leave school for farm work; Oxfordshire, where the education committee wrote to the Board of Education asking that children of thirteen might be exempted from school and the Board replied that it was not necessary to alter the by-laws, but advised the committee that they could exercise a reasonable discretion as to the enforcement of the law—in effect to "wink with both eyes"—but not to prosecute. At the meeting of the education committee a resolution was passed asking the attendance committee to consider favourably the absence of any boy of eleven years of age who was employed temporarily on farm work. In West Sussex it appears that the number of boys under twelve who are already at work is over 100. In East Sussex it is much the same, but the figures are not given. Wiltshire and Westmorland are also exempt. Even Yorkshire is being affected. In Somersetshire, on 31st October, the education authority asked to be allowed to exempt children of eleven years of age. In Derbyshire they also asked exemption.

These are the agricultural districts, but in the manufacturing districts also encroachments are to be made. The Darles-ton Education Committee have been petitioned to exempt boys over thirteen years of age. The Staffordshire Committee in response to the application expressed their willingness to do this, in spite of the protestations of the trade unions that adult labour is available, and that the work to be done was too heavy for boys. That is the actual position that the bylaws issued to protect our children are being practically swept out of existence, as I hope to show before I finish, not because of any special necessity for child labour, but very largely as a means of perpetuating the uneducated sweated labour in our agricultural districts. I will only read one quotation as showing the support which this action has received from the Government. On the 28th of August last year, the hon. Member for Wilton (Mr. C. Bathurst) desired to know whether the Government would enable boys over eleven years of age in purely agricultural districts to furnish assistance in necessary farming operations, subject to the approval and supervision of the local education authority.

"Are we to understand,"

he said,

"that if the local authorities took such action they would not meet with the disapproval of the Board of Education?"

The Prime Minister who had previously assured the hon. Member that the matter was well within the discretion of the local authorities, answered,

"Yes Sir."

That is to say, the local authority, if they made it easy for children to be employed, would not be prohibited either by the Government or the Board of Education. I received this morning a letter from the Member for Roxburghshire (Sir John Jardine) on this subject. He says he should have liked to be present, but was not well enough to attend. He adds this sentence:—

"I think that under our system, as sanctioned by law, it should be a very exceptional thing to deprive children of twelve of any further education. This committee—"

No doubt the hon. Gentleman speaks of the committee of the county in which he lives—

"have doubts as to what authority can pass general orders. This matter ought to be made clear. There may also be benches of magistrates in very rural districts who give too much weight to the cry of the farmer for cheap labour. If it got to be believed that in all cases the bench would take the child away from school merely because they preferred agriculture to education I fear that the children would be sent without protection."

There is danger that if this withdrawal of children is allowed, to meet, I suppose, the exigencies of the War situation, it may continue after the War is over. It is a difficult matter to get reforms, and once reforms are in operation and then relaxed, it becomes a still more difficult matter to get them re-established. I have a number of quotations—I will only read one or two of them—which proves the statement I am now making. This relates to a meeting of the executive of the Brecon and Radnor Farmers' Union, and reported in the "Mark Lane Express." 19th October:—

"Mr. R. T. Rogers was of opinion that children should be allowed to leave school earlier. He hoped the time would come when there would be a proper system of education, and children taught something which would be of assistance to them when they went out into the world.

The chairman observed that there were some children intellectually bright and others the opposite, but in the cape of the latter, to keep them in school was an unnecessary waste of money."

Once the principle is laid down it may become permanent. At the annual meeting of the Ashford branch of the Kent Fanners' Union, on the 1st February, Mr. Clements, according to the report in "The Mark Lane Express,"

"spoke on the question of employing hoys over twelve years of age for agriculture, contending that too much education would mean a shortage of labourers."

I would ask the House to observe that the question really is that in the admitted shortage of labour due to the War, many of those who are agitating are doing so in the hope that the relaxation of the education laws will be perpetual, and that their cheap labour will be continued. I want to refer to what we consider are the reforms which ought to be enforced, not merely to remedy the undoubted shortage of labourers in some of the agricultural districts, but to permanently improve the conditions of work of the agricultural labourers. The first requirement is higher wages. It is a most remarkable fact connected with this question which has to be dealt with, that the further north you go the more the tendency to employ child labour disappears. The further south you come, in the southern counties, and in parts of Wales, the stronger is the demand for the employment of child labour. When in the north of Scotland, and all over Scotland generally, and also in the north of England, the wages of agricultural labourers, farm hands, ploughmen and so on are almost double what they are in the southern districts of England, you see at once the reason why the farm hand should be in a position which will enable him to have the same respect for his child as any capable workman. The President of the Board of Education said—I quote him in support of my view:—

"There is one curious fact in connection with this subject, and it is this, that where wages are lowest there has been the greatest tendency to lake children from school; where the conditions have been best, where the wages are highest, there is no demand on the part of the fanners to try and secure the cheap labour or the free labour of the boys on their farms."

This was said on the 7th February by the right hon. Gentleman in reply to a deputation. Then we have the testimony, and very remarkable it is, of the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Oxford University (Mr. Prothero), who, in the House of Commons, on 17th February, referred to this question. I should like to quote a passage from his speech, because of one fallacy which to me it appears to contain:—

"If you inquire in various quarters of the country, you will find that even ordinary wages of agricultural labourers have been raised by something like 2s. a week. I quite agree that 3s. would probably re-instate the men in the position in which they were before the War, and if hon. Members will go for that, there we must part company, because I do not think that that can be fairly expected from the employer."

It does not seem to me to be logical, or very consistent, to say that farmers can afford to pay an extra two shillings and that they cannot afford to pay three shillings. That difficulty seems to be a small one. We put that forward as our first claim that a living wage should be fixed, by law if need be, or, at any rate, by Wages Boards; and, secondly, that suitable cottages should be provided for the agricultural labourer. We have Housing Acts and all sorts of Acts and all sorts of Departments for this purpose now, and it cannot be expected that agricultural labourers are going to be content to live the kind of life in the future which they have done in the past. There is one question upon which I do not know whether my colleagues would be unanimous, but which I feel might be used to great account in solving this problem for the War period. I refer to the question of the employment of women. I can remember in Scotland my own mother, who was a farm servant, many times had to work after she was married with her children growing up. I have seen her employed in the fields at kinds of work that I would not like to see any other woman employed at now; but there is much work about a farm which is perfectly respectable, clean, and which calls for a certain amount of intelligence—such as milking, the handling of milk, the making of butter, and many other occupations which a woman can do with advantage to herself and to others. But, like many other cases, the average woman brought up in the town or the city has lost all instinct for, and all contact with, the life of the farm.

Then, if we are to permanently solve this problem, there must be a fresh land policy. This country cannot afford to allow its land to be sacrificed and its labourers to be degraded in order to perpetuate an old-time system of private ownership, and before the agricultural problem can be solved some form of common local ownership and co-operation amongst the producers will require to be adopted. But these things are not for the moment. They do not help us in the situation in which we find ourselves. I say emphatically that child labour will not help the farmer even in what is called the present crisis. We want to find out what are the causes of the scarcity of labour. It is said that the agricultural labourer has enlisted to the extent of 10 or 12 per cent., and the big wages prevailing in the agricultural districts in connection with the camps have taken away the agricultural labourer also. But, let the causes be what they may, we on these benches protest against the child being made the victim. We ask the Government to investigate the causes, and to prevent education committees all over England robbing the child of the education which the law has provided for it.

Do you want to rob them of their food?

No.

Perhaps you will explain how.

I have tried to explain how.

You have not explained it.

I have pointed out that the agricultural labourer should have a wage sufficient to enable him to keep his family in comfort, and every consideration must be subjected to that. If it means the curtailment of the power of landlordism, the country will be all the better for it. The farmer, I know, is in a difficult position. I admit that. But at the present time his difficulties are being removed by the way in which prices have gone up and are still going up. The farmer stands between the landlord on the one hand, who must get his rents, and the labourer on the other hand, who has got to live. The labourer hitherto has been squeezed, while the landlord is stronger and better able to protect himself. But I am glad to say that the agricultural labourers are forming unions, and will not suffer as they have done in the past. The point is this: We ask the Government to take a firm stand against the suspension of the Education Act in agricultural districts; we ask them to preserve carefully all that we have got, and to see that the agricultural labourer's child has the same chance to get education as the children in our larger towns. The whole matter may require investigation, but the one thing we protest against is that when a bit of a crisis appears to be on us, the burden of it should fall so heavily on the child. That surely can be avoided in a House with so much power as this House possesses, and I trust that the Government, instead of pursuing its policy of weeping with both eyes, will let the educational authorities all over England know that the Education Act must be enforced in the interests of the children.

I understand that the theory current amongst hon. Members who will speak against this Motion is that the difficulties of the time and the need of young labour during the War may be taken to justify a practice which, at another period and in more peaceful years, would not be justified even by them. I dare say that is the view which those who may speak on behalf of the Board of Education would also take of the question. I think we all wish to be reasonable, as reasonable as we can, at a time like this, and to make every practical concession there can be made to the special circumstances and difficulties of the period. But I confess I should be more inclined to accept the theory which I have sketched as being likely to be put forward by other speakers if I heard it at the present juncture for the first time. But I do not. I have been in this House for a good many years now, and I have seen at least four, and I think five, times a Bill brought forward for the express purpose of increasing the duration of the school life of children in urban districts hampered, injured, and finally killed by those who speak for the farming and land-owning classes. When there was no war, when agriculture itself was looking up and flourishing very satisfactorily, when there was no shortage of labour on the land, or no greater shortage than there has been for many years past, attempts to raise the half-time age of children in town schools were again and again successfully attacked, manœuvred, played with, and finally killed by those who are anxious to keep down the age for school attendance and introduce a still earlier age for child labour upon the land. Therefore, I think, there is some reason for regarding with suspicion the statement now made that these children must be allowed to leave the elementary schools in the rural districts at an earlier age than they have done in the past because of the claims which the War makes on the labour of the country.

I understand that the Board of Agriculture propose to farmers that they should employ Belgians upon the land, while the Board of Trade propose that labour for the farmers should be procured from the Labour Exchanges. I gather from reports of meetings of chambers of agriculture and farmers' unions all over the country that the farmers reject both these methods of temporarily supplying labour for the land on the ground that they are not practicable. Belgians, it appears, are townspeople, as also are the persons who might be supplied through the Labour Exchanges, and the labour of townspeople upon the land cannot be so valuable for farming purposes as the labour of children of eleven years of age who live in the villages. The Belgium adult and the Bradford and Bristol adult are useless for farming purposes compared with the great agricultural value of the lesser labourer of eleven years of age. References are made to the depletion of agricultural labour to the extent of 12 or 15 per cent. due to the War. There is also a depletion amongst the teachers of the country of about 25 per cent. due to the War. It would be to the interest of the teachers remaining in the rural districts if there could be removed from the schools 10, 15, or 25 per cent. of the school children to work upon the land, because it would mean less labour and less strain upon them during the War in the absence of the teachers who have enlisted. But I have received letters from teachers in rural schools, men and women alike, conveying to me lamentations upon this subject and descriptions of the loss of education in the future life of the children that would arise; and I am bound to say that in my view, after most careful investigation, there is no sufficient justification for the cry that the children must be taken out of the schools and put upon the land or else farming will go to rack and ruin. We are not going to get the supply of food largely increased by the labour of these youngsters upon the land. The labour of these children cannot for months, perhaps years, to come affect very much the supply or the prices of food.

I join my hon. Friend (Mr. Keir Hardie) in what he said about the land system and the proper way of dealing with it. I join him in saying that better wages for agricultural labourers is the way to keep men upon the land and to induce people to leave the town for labour on the land. But, as he pointed out, those are matters which cannot be dealt with now. The question before us now is, shall we take away from schools at 11½ or 12 years of age scores and hundreds and thousands of children during this crisis and destroy a large part of their chances of ever getting any education at all? Will the House agree to that? Will the Board of Education approve of that? Will the Government stand up and defend it? Will members of local education authorities close their eyes to their proper duty under the law and wink at laxity? Will justices of the peace in rural districts, when the members of the education authority do their duty and bring these cases into Court, go on refusing to administer the law as it is their duty to administer it? These are the questions before the House, and it is to them that I beg the House to address itself, and I hope the President of the Board of Education will deal with them when he comes to reply. The teachers are short-handed. The more scholars there are in the schools the harder is the work the teachers have to do. Therefore it is an unselfish demand on their part that I make to the House, that we should not interfere with the already too short, incomplete, and insufficient educational prospects of the children by bringing into the field at the present moment boys and girls who ought to be at school. I hope that this question will not be dealt with as one between food for the minds of the children and food for the body of the parents. That question does not really arise. Employ all the children you can in this way, multiply the present number employed by ten thousand or a hundred thousand, and you cannot do much for the supply of food for the parents, but you will destroy the food for the mind of the coming generation in the rural districts and undo that very difficult and long process of building up the education of the children, which has gone on so imperfectly, but which was beginning to go on more hopefully, at the end of all these years.

The speech to winch we have just listened was one of a high educational authority and deserves the attention of the House. The speech of the opener of the Debate (Mr. Keir Hardie) affected me by its evident earnestness and sincerity. But I think that the danger we really run is that we are exaggerating the situation altogether and losing sight of the principle which ought to run through the whole of this discussion. That principle is that the cultivation of the land is a necessity. You cannot carry it on without a supply of labour, and if you try to get an abnormal supply of labour from any new source there are reasonable abjections in whichever direction yon look. The question is, if you have an absolute shortage of labour, in which direction can you look with the best advantage and the least detriment to the community? Recruiting has, in certain districts, produced an absolute shortage of labour. Look where you will, there is no means of supplying the labour market in such agricultural districts. It is not so in every district, because recruiting has been very patchy. In one parish you will find three or four farms without a single man of military age and capacity left, while in an adjoining parish you may find three or four farms from which no one has enlisted. But in the districts where recruiting has taken firm hold of the people there is an absolute shortage of labour. I think the hon. Member for Nottingham (Sir J. Yoxall) rather doubted whether there was an absolute shortage of labour, because he said that farmers were offered Belgians and were also able to go to the Labour Exchanges. A great difficulty in regard to getting Belgians—I know the difficulty, because it has been tried—is that there is no agency at work in this country to sort the Belgian refugees and set aside those who are available for agricultural work. It would be as absurd to go to a Labour Exchange and get a plumber in a boot factory where you wanted a finisher as it would be to get a Belgian brewer to go on the land as an agricultural labourer.

May I say that the Labour Exchanges have a complete list of the refugees, with their occupations and life history, and they could supply agricultural labourers?

How long has that been so?

The preparation of the list has been going on for the last four or five months.

That the preparation has been going on I am quite aware, but at the present moment the list is not available. With regard to the Labour Exchanges, the farmer is looking out for adult agricultural labourers, but at the present time no agricultural adult labourer registers because he is perfectly well aw are that he can get a job wherever he goes. Therefore it is useless for the farmer to employ the Labour Exchanges. But I sincerely hope that in this crisis the fanners will go to the Labour Exchanges and endeavour by every possible means to get adult labour wherever they can; I have long tried to make farmers in my own country use the Exchanges, but I know there has been that insuperable objection—that if you go there you are offered perhaps a plumber out of work, or a misfit in industrial life, and not an adult agricultural labourer. In certain districts there is an absolute shortage of labour, and it is proposed by the chambers of agriculture that, owing to the scarcity of labour in the present crisis, children of twelve years of age and upwards should be exempted from school attendance during the continuance of the War, provided they are employed solely on farms.

We have heard a great deal about children of eleven and eleven and a half. Apparently the statement has been made that farmers are trying to get children of that age. I do not think there is the slightest foundation for that statement. What is the position? I have long been a member of the local education authority, and I may inform the Member for West Nottingham (Sir J. Yoxall) I have tried my utmost to increase the school age for town children in my own country. There fore, I am not out of sympathy with his proposal. What, however, is really asked is simply this: Already children who have attained the sixth standard are entitled to a certificate of exemption. Children of twelve years and upwards who are not in that standard, but who have made a certain number of attendances, are entitled to what I am afraid in my country is called "the dunce's certificate of exemption," provided that they have made a certain number of attendances. What the local education authority asks is that at this exceptional crisis, and for this specific purpose, children over the age of twelve should be allowed to leave school, although they may not have reached the sixth standard and although they may not have made the requisite number of attendances. That is all that is asked—nothing more, only that!

I so far agree with the two hon. Members who have spoken that I think it would have been very much better if the Board of Education had given local authorities a direct lead on the subject; if they had said for instance, "You should not grant the certificates," or "You should insist upon your attendance officer prosecuting unless the school managers are satisfied that the parents want the child to go; that the child has produced the proper certificate of birth; that there is an absolute shortage of labour; that the farmer has gone to the Labour Exchanges and failed to find labour; that the hours of labour are such and such; that the wages of labour are so and so; and that the child will not have to travel more than a certain distance to arrive at the farm." If the Board of Education had made that answer instead of, as it were, throwing the responsibility upon the local education authorities, it would have been much better, for what the local education authorities wanted was a lead and guidance, and in my opinion they did not get it.

Put, however, in that way, in the straight, limited way that I have put it, where there is an absolute shortage of labour, provided that those conditions are complied with, I venture to think that the damage to the child is very much exaggerated, as well as the number of children who would be damaged. When the Member for West Nottingham talked of the hundreds of thousands of children, surely he must have known that he was exaggerating! After all, we are here to discuss a very practical question, and we ought to try—it is our duty—to present the case exactly as it is and without exaggeration. It is said that farmers are trying to get cheap, low-priced labour. Within the last week we have had three discussions upon agricultural topics. In the first the suggestion was made that the farmer, to enrich himself, was exploiting the necessities of the poor. The suggestion in the second was that the farmer, to suit his own convenience, was turning out of their homes the wives and dependants of the soldiers at the front. The third suggestion is that of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie), that the farmer is trying to perpetuate the uneducated, sweated labour of our agricultural districts.

The British farmer is not a paragon of virtue; at the same time he is not an ogre! He is a human being just as any of us, and in proportion as these three suggestions are shocking and alien to our natures, we ought to be very careful before we assume that they are true of our absent neighbour. I for one deny that in making this appeal for the use of children at an exceptional crisis there is any attempt on the part of the farmers to stop the progress of education in the country. It may perhaps be out of line with the argument, but I would like to say that whatever the farmer thought twenty years ago he is new in favour of education. His complaint is, that, in the elementary schools of the country districts a course of education is given to the children which not only disqualifies but discourages them from following the pursuit of an agricultural labourer. They further complain—and I think with reason—that while you spend millions on technical instruction on other industries, you dole out pence in technical instruction in agriculture, and you give it at a time when it is neither useful or effective. That is the position of the farmer at the present day as to education.

The hon. Member (Mr. Keir Hardie) went on to suggest that higher wages should be given. He quoted a passage from a speech of my own. If I may venture to explain that to him, what I was saying then was this: "That there is a time during work on a farm when the agricultural labourer has ordinarily no work to do; that during the wet months we have had all labour operations were suspended." I said, "Here is a case in which, if you go in for the strict law of supply and demand, the farmer is entitled to say, 'I am not using the labourer, why should I raise his wages?'" I went on to say, "That the moral responsibility of the employers had almost universally in this country overridden those strict laws of supply and demand, and wages had been raised by 2s. in order partially to restore the agricultural labourer to where he was before." I am entirely with the hon. Member when he wants higher wages. We, all of the agricultural community, want to see higher wages paid, but that cannot come at a dead agricultural season of the year; it will come the moment the farmer begins his spring operations. Then you will find wages increase, and I, for one, will be glad if the farmers are able to pay them. That is the explanation of my observations.

When the hon. Member talks of the low rate of wages, does he know what is the rate of wages? Is there any hon. Member in this House who knows? I venture to say there is not. In 1907 we did have an official inquiry into wages, which was so impartial, so sound, and so practical that we do know approximately what wages were in 1907. Although, however, there was an inquiry in 1898, another in 1902, and another in 1907, the Government have never again inquired into agricultural wages. They at last set on foot an inquiry last autumn, I believe, but neither the hon. Member, nor the hon. Baronet who represents the Board of Agriculture, nor myself, nor anybody else in this House knows what is the average rate of wages.

I can tell hon. Members this: the official statistics show that since 1896 there has been a continuous rise in agricultural wages every year. That rise had been secured, up to the end of 1913, without any of the expenses of strikes or lock-outs, and there is no industry in the country which can show a continuous rise of the same kind. You will find that in the published Official Statistics for 1913. The hon. Member spoke of the provision of cottages for agricultural labourers. That was a point which was brought up, I think, by the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division a few days ago. We all have heard of the shortage of cottages in the rural districts. A rural district is not necessarily an agricultural district. A "rural district" is a Public Health Act term which may include a semi-urbanised area, and the shortage of agricultural cottages is a very small thing indeed. I have a return for 260 estates in various parts of England and Wales representing over one million acres, dealing with upwards of 22,000 agricultural cottages built for agricultural labourers, and showing how they are now occupied. Out of those 22,000 cottages only 13,000 are occupied by agricultural labourers. The remaining 9,000 are occupied by persons who prey upon the provision made for the agricultural labourer by the agricultural landowner. Nine thousand cottages built for the agricultural labourer, and occupied by whom? Over 1,000 are occupied by the employés of the Government and of the local authorities. Why have not they done their duty and built their cottages. There are upwards of 5,000 occupied by industrial capitalists who have collected large numbers of people for industries other than agriculture. Why have they not done their duty and built their cottages?

I would remind hon. Members that nearly one-seventh of these 22,000 cottages are occupied by old age pensioners—occupied through the sympathy of that class which is not always fairly treated by hon. Members opposite—though, I believe, in fairness I should say that that lies in the fact that we do not understand one another quite as well as we ought. Over 3,000 of them! When you speak of the shortage of agricultural cottages surely you are making a very great mistake! The Member for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Anderson) quoted a statement, I think, in the unofficial land inquiry, that 120,000 cottages was the shortage in rural districts. He did not know, or at all events he did not let the House know, that those were rural districts, not agricultural districts, and that it was not a shortage of agricultural cottages, but a shortage of cottages required for other purposes than agriculture. I need hardly say that I do not wish to say anything against the authors of that Inquiry who, I have no doubt, tried to be correct and impartial.

But there is no agriculturist in the country who does not regard that Inquiry as a gross caricature and an absolutely obsolete account of the condition of agriculture to-day. Now, if the labour is wanted, how are you going to provide it? I did not quite understand whether the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) was an advocate for the employment of women labour. I think that in certain kinds of agriculture, like dairying, woman's labour would be extremely valuable, and would be most useful to the woman as well as to the farmer. The worst of it is that in the present generation you cannot find a woman in the village who can milk at all. Therefore, again, that side of the shortage cannot be relieved in that way. Then the hon. Member spoke of the lower wages in the south, but does it ever occur to him that the higher wages in the north—Durham, Northumberland, Westmorland, and such counties—are wages given to men in charge of animals? In that part of England there is a ready market for the produce of a grass farm, and wherever there is a ready market for the produce of a grass farm, higher wages are paid—in the south and east, just as in the extreme north.

My point was that where wages are low and conditions unsatisfactory there is a demand for the relaxation of the education by-laws. May I ask whether the hon. Member would tell us who built the cottages to which he refers?

The 22,000 cottages were built by the agricultural landowners out of their own money for the accommodation of agricultural labourers. As to the other matter, the point is this: On a mixed arable farm the shortage of labour is at once more acutely felt the moment you begin the Spring operations of the farm than anywhere else: and the wages on an arable farm are much higher per acre and less per individual.

May I ask whether the hon. Member's remarks apply to the Lowlands of Scotland?

I have no experience of the Lowlands of Scotland. I am speaking of the wages of England and Wales. I understood this question was practically confined, the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil told us, to England and Wales, and that Scotland was excluded.

Excluded by its superior system.

And, I might add, by its greater love of education. But the point to be remembered is this, and it is one very often lost sight of: When you talk of raising wages you have to consider the number of men on a farm. If you raise wages by 5s. a week on a grass farm, it only means on a 200-acre grass farm a charge of 5s. an acre; but if you raise it on an arable farm it will mean much more like 15s. an acre, because a much larger number of persons is employed. Those are points on which I felt myself obliged to follow the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil. I do not think they affect the present question, which is simply how you are going to find the sort of labour to meet the existing shortage. By such a letter as the Board of Education might send round, I think that you would reduce the employment of child labour to a minimum, that you would mitigate the evil, and that you would not produce all these evils which, I think, have been somewhat exaggerated by the Mover and the Seconder.

Like my hon. Friend, I can recall discussions on previous occasions on this same question. For a number of years there has been a tendency on the part of farming and landowning interests to demand a reduction in the school age of children in rural areas. Therefore, the question is by no means a new one, but the incident of the War has been utilised for the purpose of Hiving it greater prominence. Undoubtedly farmers have for many years past been agitated about the question of labour supply, but they have never yet, in my opinion, gone the right way to work in order to find a solution. It is perfectly well known that there is a constant flow from the country-side to the towns in some districts, and the result is that we have a scarcity, generally understood, of labour in the country, but a superfluity of labour in many of these towns. An analysis of the reasons of this generally clearly shows that the men leave the country-side because of the low wages there prevailing and because of the conditions of living to which they are subjected.

There is no doubt whatever that better wages, free homes in place of tied cottages, greater facilities for education and recreation, would stem the flow to the town and solve the problem with which the farmer has to grapple. I happen to be one of those born in a small agricultural village who still maintain a pretty intimate contact with conditions there prevailing, and I have no doubt whatever in my mind that, were the wages and the housing questions equitably solved, we would have got rid of this question. But the real point we have to consider here to-day is whether we ought to sanction the general employment of children of school age in agricultural and other pursuits, for let it be borne in mind that, although the discussion so far has mainly centred around the rural aspect of the question, the demand is not confined to farmers, but is already being rapidly extended to manufacturing centres, and we entertain a very grave apprehension that unless this House does strongly disapprove of the employment of children of school age all the advantages painfully built up by a series of Education Acts may be destroyed, not only to the detriment of the individual child, but to the nation as a whole.

We are aware that this question has assumed its form in this House arising out of a question submitted by the hon. Member for Wilton (Mr. Charles Bathurst) to the Prime Minister. I regret the hon. Gentleman is not here, because, I am proud to acknowledge a very close relationship with him, and I would not like to say anything in his absence that might be misunderstood. He is generally progressive on questions even of agricultural concern, but I am much disappointed that he should have personally associated himself with this agitation for the employ- ment of child labour. But the hon. Gentleman certainly got some encouragement from the reply of the Prime Minister. I am aware of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman and the Members of the Cabinet generally have very large responsibilities resting upon them, and they may not have the time closely to follow every one of these questions as they arise; but it is perfectly certain that farming and other interests in the country have construed the reply of the Prime Minister to mean that the Government, the Board of Education in particular, will favourably consider this question and acquiesce in the relaxation of the provisions of the Education Act.

The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil has already instanced the fact that a number of county council education authorities immediately proceeded on the assumption that they would have the backing of the Government in relaxing the provisions of the Education Act, with the result that there are numbers of children already being employed who are not qualified by law for that employment. The White Paper which has been issued bears out that contention. We are told that in West Sussex there were at the end of October sixty-seven boys who had left school under these conditions, the average age of the boys being thirteen years and three months, and the average wages paid 4s. 10½d. per week. Well, I view with very grave concern the whole of this tendency. I have had some experience of the administration of the Education Acts. For several years I was a member of the old School Board for the city of Norwich, and this question of partial or complete exemption was always one of the most difficult points with which we had to deal. I had always understood that you could only entertain the question of exemption on condition that the local authority was satisfied that the child was beneficially employed. Of course, when we come to construe the meaning even of those words we get different points of view. I always urge that the spirit of the law requires that we should have regard to the future interests of the child. "Beneficially employed" might mean that the parent was anxious to have an addition to the family income, or that the employer might regard it that child labour was beneficial to his particular industry.

I believe that we more correctly interpret the desire of Parliament and the spirit of the Education Acts by a strict inquiry as to whether exemption is going to be to the ultimate benefit of the child's welfare. Now we have the point that the education authority has only to be satisfied that there is reasonable excuse for the exemption, and that places a very dangerous power in the hands of education authorities. Supposing farming interests are well represented, as they generally are, on county council education authorities. It would not be at all difficult to convince an education authority that the children will be beneficially employed. I want to go further, and say that, in my opinion, it has not yet been proved that there is a shortage of labour in agriculture which cannot be overcome by other and better methods. Of course, we recognise—and everybody who knows me will admit that I have recognised—the extraordinary emergency through which the country is passing, and if it were the case that we had not adult labour to cultivate the land, I would be prepared to consider relaxations, properly safeguarded. But we are in no such need of labour. I believe that there is labour in the community which can be secured for the purpose if the conditions are only made just and sufficiently attractive. The replies which have been given to questions by Members of the Government have also confirmed that view. I say that the relaxation of the conditions of exemption ought to be the very last resort of a country, even in a great national emergency.

I might cite one or two cases which have been brought to my notice of extraordinary relaxations that have already taken place. I have stated that not only is there a very strong demand on the part of farming interests, but we are also aware of the fact that manufacturers are already taking advantage of the Board of Education's acquiescence in the relaxation which has already taken place. I have here a report of a case tried at Edinburgh on 1st February of a firm being fined £10 for employing two boys aged twelve and thirteen during the night. In the case of the twelve-year-old boy, he was at school on Monday from 9 o'clock to 3 o'clock; he went into the factory at six, and worked until 5 o'clock next morning. He then went to school, and in the evening resumed work in the factory until 5 o'clock on the Wednesday morning. On Wednesday he was ill, and could not go to school, but he went to the factory at night, and went back to the school on Thursday. The inspector found him in the factory at work at 9.40. In the case of the other boy, the circumstances were similar. He had collapsed at work and had slept in a corner of the factory. I do not suggest that farmers or employers generally are harsh. I have not been accustomed to resorting to exaggerated or immoderate language, but once we allow these relaxations we are laying the child life of the country open to injury even as great as that indicated in the reference I have just made.