asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the attention of the Congested Districts Board had been called to the damage caused by a recent storm to the pier under construction at Ballinskelligs; and whether steps will be taken to repair the damage?

May I express my own sympathy and that of every Member of the House with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Birrell) in his bereavement.

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Congested Districts Board have called for a report as to the extent of the damage caused, on receipt of which the question of repairs will be fully considered.

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has been able to make any arrangements with the National Insurance Commissioners to assist the Poor Law authorities in tracing, through the medium of their insurance cards, men who have deserted their families, thus causing them to be chargeable to such authorities?

The Government have decided that information which has been obtained solely for the purpose of administering the Insurance Act could not properly be used, unless in very exceptional cases, for purposes such as those suggested in the question.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the action of the Deputy-Commissioner of Amritsar in removing, upon the recommendation of the municipal committee, all the liquor shops of Amritsar to sites outside the city boundaries, the number of licences being simultaneously reduced; and whether the Secretary of State will encourage further experiments in the same direction in other municipalities?

The Secretary of State has noticed a statement in the Indian Press to the effect mentioned by the hon. Member, except as regards the alleged reduction in the number of licences. Inquiry will be made on the point. I would refer to paragraph 6 of the Secretary of State's dispatch of 29th May, 1914, as to the treatment of "those special cases in town or country in which it might seem desirable and likely to be in consonance with the wishes of the inhabitants that the ward or special area should be kept altogether immune from the sale of intoxicants."

May I ask whether the paragraph in the dispatch means that the Secretary of State approves of further extension?

The dispatch distinctly contemplates that there may be special areas in town or country which would be properly kept free from the sale of intoxicants.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the opening, in April, 1913, of a shop for the sale of country liquor in the village of Ghoda, near Poona, upon the alleged ground of illicit distillation in the neighbourhood; whether inquiries have disclosed the fact that the majority of the inhabitants of the village are opposed to the opening of the shop; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made in the matter?

The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, while the Secretary of State has approved the principle that new liquor shops should not be opened in face of strong opposition from inhabitants of the locality, unless the opposition springs from interested motives, the location of individual shops in particular villages is obviously a matter for the discretion of the authorities in India.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether there is at present a serious deficiency in the supply of opium for medicinal purposes; whether prices have greatly risen; and to what extent the deficiency in stocks and the rise in prices is due to the Government policy of destroying the opium trade?

I am informed that at present the market for opium for medicinal purposes in this country and the United States is well supplied, and that prices are tending to fall. Opium for these purposes has hitherto been drawn from the Levant or from Persia, and the supply is quite independent of the Indian Government's opium policy.

asked the Home Secretary how many motor boats are attached to the Thames Division of the Metropolitan Police; how many are converted rowboats; how many boats with improved engines compose the fleet provided since the coroner's inquest on Sergeant Spooner in January, 1913; and are these boats used on patrol duty or in supervision of the ordinary patrol boats?

Eighteen motor boats are attached to the Thames Division. Seven of these are converted row boats. Five boats with improved engines have been supplied since January, 1913; two others are completed, and will shortly be in service; and another is nearing completion. The boats will be used for supervision or for patrol duty as in the opinion of the responsible officers is from time to time necessary.

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that police officers of the Thames Division of the Metropolitan Police are hampered in their public duty by the inefficiency of the motor patrol boats and their lives endangered by the failure of the engines to act at critical moments; and will he give permission to the constables and sergeants to hold a meeting to discuss this question and lay their views before the police authorities?

No, Sir. The lives of the Thames police are not endangered, nor are they hampered in their duty. The earliest police motor boats are, as I mentioned in reply to a previous question, being replaced by an improved type. The engines of these earlier boats, like all motor engines, are liable not to act at times, but oars are carried to meet such a contingency, and these boats are not now used on the lower river where the currents are strong. This matter is receiving the close attention of the Commissioner and his export advisers, and he informs me that he is not prepared to give permission for a meeting to be organised to discuss this question.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, if he is aware that the insurance committee of the West Riding of Yorkshire have declined to continue the provision of extra nourishment required by Sam E. Fieldhouse, a member of the Stuff Pressers Approved Society, on the ground that Poor Law relief is going into the home although such relief does not include the extra nourishment which the patient needs on account of his illness, and for which he has paid his contributions; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

I find that the case referred to has been fully considered both by a district committee and by the insurance committee concerned. The administration of sanatorium benefit is entrusted by statute to insurance committees, whose duty it is to provide treatment and not to relieve destitution. Further, I may add that in the circumstances in question insured persons are entitled, subject to the usual conditions, to sickness benefit of 10s. a week for twenty-six weeks, and disablement benefit of 5s. a week thereafter during the continuance of incapacity for work, in addition to sanatorium benefit in any form other than treatment in a residential institution.

I very much regret that it is necessary for me to refer to-day to subjects which I have already brought to the notice of this House. I confess I had hoped they would have been dealt with by the War Office long before this, and would have rendered any further reference to them unnecessary. The Government have, on more than one occasion, notably through the mouth of the Prime Minister, expressed their thanks to Members of the Opposition individually and collectively for the services which they have from time to time rendered during the last few months in support of their policy and the plans which they have adopted for the War. In reference to this matter I am certain I can speak for every one of my hon. Friends with whom I usually act, and I believe that, for once in my life, I might even go further and speak for every Member of the House who is not seated on the Treasury Bench, when I say that we do not desire, and we do not think we deserve, thanks for anything which we may have done to assist the Government in their great national work. To whatever party we may belong or whatever may be our individual calling, we look upon it as a very great privilege, which we are proud to avail ourselves of, to be asked to do anything, however small, at a time when our nation is in difficulty and our Empire is confronted with so great a crisis. We neither desire nor deserve thanks.

I do not know whether in what I am going to say next I can speak for hon. Members opposite, but I am satisfied that I am speaking for my own side and for many outside this House, altogether irrespective of party, when I say that, while we do not desire thanks or recognition in any form for what we have done, we do hold, and hold very strongly, that we have not received from the Government during the last few months the recognition to which we are entitled as Members of the House. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, speaking the day before yesterday, described our position here as almost a farce. He said that, for his part, he would prefer that the Government should bring in a sort of Henry VIII. Bill giving them absolute powers and constituting themselves, what they really are—dictators in the present situation. In the position in which we find ourselves, when we are called upon to take part in Debates which appear to have little if no practical result, we are, I think, entitled to complain that the Government have not recognised up to this moment, and, so far as we know, have no intention of recognising, the expressed opinions of Parliament, even when it is clear, as it has been on many occasions, that the opinions are shared by almost every section and, I might almost say, by every Member of the House, with the exception only of the Government Bench. I could enumerate, if it were necessary, many subjects to which this description applies. I could refer to the aliens question, upon which opinions were expressed from all sides of the House, and upon which opinions have been expressed outside this House. I believe that the Government stand alone in the view they take as to what their policy ought to be in regard to this great question. The House of Commons has spoken as plainly as the House of Commons can speak. They have done almost everything. The one thing they cannot do, and which I hope that they will not do at this or any other time, is to carry their criticism of the Government to the extreme length of a Division in the Lobby. I appeal to those who have, as I have, a long recollection of the practice and custom of this House, and I say that it has been the invariable rule for Governments to act when they have found that the feeling of Parliament was opposed to the proposal which they had made; they have not waited for Divisions.

I could enumerate cases in which Governments to which I myself have had the honour of belonging, have made proposals, some of them dealing with the Army, which they have found, when they were brought under the fierce light of Parliamentary discussion, did not receive the support of Parliament. It did not require Divisions to force the Government at that time—normal peace times—when there was no truce, to take action to alter and in some cases to entirely remodel their policy. If that were right, and if that were the almost unbroken rule in normal times, when the critics of the Government had all their weapons bright and ready to their hands, how much more ought it to be so when those weapons have been voluntarily and temporarily laid on one hide and when all we can do is to urge upon the Government the views which we hold, and explain to them the reasons why we believe that their policy is wrong When we find that our views in principle, if not actually in detail, are generally accepted in the House—

Not at all.

The hon. Gentleman who interrupts hardly followed what I said. I said, "when we find." If we do not find our views shared, my proposal falls to the ground. When we find that our views are shared in principle, it may not be in de tail, we are doubly and trebly entitled to expect at the hands of the Government the treatment which we have received in times of peace and in all normal times when Debates take their ordinary course; and for my part I regret immensely that on these particular questions to which it will be my duty to refer, the Government have not taken their cue from the evident sense of Parliament. It is not only the sense of Parliament, but it is the strong view of the people of this country. The people of this country are ready to find money, even by the sack, and they are prepared for the time being to withhold their criticisms even if, as they think, it is unwisely spent, but they are unanimous and heart-whole in their desire that everything that money can do shall be done for those magnificent fellows who are fighting so gallantly for us on French, Belgian, and other soil to-day. Is this wish of the country being acted upon by the Government? I have brought up case after case in which I have shown that injustice of the gravest kind is being done to the soldiers in the field. That injustice has been increased one hundredfold by the events of the last few weeks. I regret that it should be necessary for me to deal with these questions at all, and above all to deal with them in this particular way.

I want to express my regret—this refers not only to the War Office—that there has not long ago been a Committee of the Government known to us all by name whose duty it would be to supervise the proposals and the policy of the various Departments and to see that they harmonise. There can be no such Committee, because at this moment the policy of the different Departments is absolutely inconsistent. Let me give one example. The War Office are constantly urging the necessity of additional aid in making the necessary provision for the troops in the field. We were discussing yesterday or the day before a Bill brought in at the last moment—the House knows that is a procedure which can only be justified in times of great national emergency—and we were told that the need for this special Bill was so to command the resources of the country as to be able to add to our supply of the munitions of war. We know that the Treasury have issued special orders in regard to financial matters. Within the last week—I only give this as one example—the Treasury have addressed a communication to the London County Council as to the issue of loans by them, and have desired them to restrain their ardour and to be as chary as they possibly can. Why? In the first place, because every penny we have got is wanted for the prosecution of the War, and, in the second place, because all the labour we can get is required in order to produce the munitions of war.

At the very moment when the War Office and the Treasury are doing this, the Local Government Board write to the local authorities and urge upon them the immediate expenditure of money upon very important and desirable works which would absorb a very large amount of the identical labour which the War Office tells us they are seeking in order to provide the munitions of war. Could anything be more hopelessly inconsistent? I see the President of the Board of Education (Mr. J. A. Pease) there. The same thing, I am informed, can be said of the Board of Education. At this very time when we want to concentrate all our thoughts and energies and resources upon the prosecution of this War, other Departments of the Government than the Treasury, the War Office, and the Admiralty, urge upon the local authorities the expenditure of money on labour which could very well wait until the War is over. Could anything more than this inconsistency show the necessity of a Committee of the kind I have suggested. I hope the Ministers now sitting opposite will not fail to convey to their colleagues this suggestion, because I am confident, if it were adopted, it would materially improve the conditions under which we are working.

I come now to the War Office itself. I have said that, by their policy, they have not made things easy for us here, and in some respects they have made them very unsatisfactory indeed for the soldier in the field. Some weeks ago I said in this House it was a very great pity the Government did not take Parliament more into its confidence as to the general state of affairs. I watch, as I have no doubt other hon. Members do, the statements in the newspapers with the greatest possible care. I read several papers in the morning and what is the result? Does anybody who reads the communications in the newspapers—the telegrams and so on—feel when he has sought information from a good map that he really knows what is actually going on and what is the position of affairs? I venture to say that not one man in a hundred can give a really intelligent account of what is going on. The information afforded is of the most meagre description.

One piece of information might surely be given us: we have asked for it repeatedly. We have been invited by the Government to aid them in getting recruits and we have responded to that call. The work has, I think, been well done by all classes in the community. We are asked to continue it, and if the Government would treat the country as intelligent grown-up people instead of as children, and very stupid children too; if they would say to them frankly, "We believe the forces which the Germans are going to put into the field number so many, and in order to meet them we have determined to raise so many men," it would be better. But they have decided otherwise, and I accept their decision. I do not now ask them to tell us the number or recruits they require, but they might inform us what they estimate to be the forces of the enemy, and then, instead of relying as we do on the calculations made by distinguished men here and abroad, and making the best deductions we can from them, we should, if we had the Government statement, at all events know, as sensible people, what, in the view of the Government, we have to face in this way, however the War may be prolonged. I cannot understand why the Government should not take us into their confidence and give us this very small bit of information. It could not add to the resources of the enemy, as, whether it be correct or otherwise, the enemy have got their men and would not reduce the number because we had made a bad calculation We should know what it is we are working for, and, with that knowledge in our possession, we could give more intelligent help in recruiting than we do at present. This ought not to be treated as a matter of mere amusement by the Members of the Government present; it is a serious proposal and embodies the views held by a large number of people outside this House. I hope that even now it will receive consideration at the hands of the Government.

I made a suggestion to the War Office the other day, and no steps have yet been taken to adopt it. I cannot understand why. We are told—and there is no secret about this—that there is, I will not say a scarcity of officers, but a need for a larger supply of officers for two purposes—to fill vacancies unhappily created in our gallant regiments at the front by the lives so splendidly given by the commissioned ranks on the field of battle, and to supply officers to aid in the training of the New Armies at home. We are entitled to ask the Government whether they have exhausted all the means at their disposal to obtain these officers. I say they have not. The other day I called the attention of the War Office to what I regard as the hopeless failure of the system controlling recruiting in this country. What is going on in almost every town of a reasonable size—of, say, a few thousand inhabitants? You will find there two recruiting officers—one recruiting for the Regular Army and the other for the Territorial Army. I said on that occasion, in regard to 95 per cent. of the men joining either of those two branches of His Majesty's land forces, they are joining for active service and not for service at home, and to maintain two distinct organisations in order to enrol them is a waste of men, material, and money, and produces an immense amount of confusion.

But it goes even further than that. You have not only two sets of recruiting commissioned officers—fighting men, young men who ought to be on the field of battle and are longing to be there, and who are, instead, doing work which any one of us old men could do just as well—but you have also got a system which is wholly bad and wholly unnecessary. You have got two recruiting sergeants standing on opposite sides of a street no broader than the floor of this House, one of whom gets 2s. 6d. for each recruit he secures while the other sergeant gets nothing. What is the object of this? Surely if a half-crown is given to the man who gets a recruit for the Regular Army it ought in justice to be given also to the man who recruits for the other Army! Look at the result. You have two recruiting sergeants standing there in their uniform. They are like two vendors of a popular ware; they are doing their best to urge the advantages of each particular system; it is like that kind of account-keeping which I, as a poor landlord, always hated. I always said to my agent when he told me that so many pounds had been spent under heads A, B, C, and D, "What does it matter to me; it all comes out of my pocket? I only want to know how much has been spent." All this recruiting is for the Army; you want to get as many men as you can. Why, then, employ six, eight, or ten officers and non-commissioned officers when two or three could do the work? You have scattered all over the country hundreds and thousands of old soldiers—both of commissioned and non-commissioned rank—who would readily come forward to-morrow and do the whole of this recruiting work. It is not so very difficult. I am familiar with recruiting regulations. I know the old custom of the War Office has been such that a recruit cost nearly his weight in pens, ink and paper. Most of these documents might easily be dispensed with. We old fellows surely are quite capable of seeing that a man writes his name on a sheet of paper, of passing him from room to room, and of handing him over to the doctor! Why this should be done by a gallant soldier who is longing to be taking his part in the fighting in France passes my comprehension.

We have suggested to the War Office—but they have taken no notice of it—that they should first get rid of every officer of fighting age now engaged in recruiting and use them either for the work you have in hand abroad or for the training of men at home, which is very urgent. We have suggested, further, that you should amalgamate your recruiting systems; take the men from one source and distribute them, as they desire or as you may require, as between the two different Forces—the Regular and the Irregular. We maintain that this would result in very great economy. So much for the officers engaged in recruiting. This is not all. The War Office are still engaged in purchasing horses. This is a subject which is very familiar to mo. I have urged the War Office ever since I remember that a soldier, per sc, is the worst person in the world to send out to buy horses, and the War Office know well that a soldier is not the man to do this kind of work. Twenty years ago, or more, when the War Office began to hold manœuvres on a very large scale in this country, they went about the country carrying on mock warfare and necessarily did a good deal of damage to property. As soon as the manœuvres were over what happened? A body of officers—"cocked-hats," as they were irreverently called by the farmers—descended on the district and proceeded to assess the damage done.

I remember discussing the matter with one officer whom I found doing this work. He said, "What do you think of that field, Mr. Long? I am told by the farmer who keeps it that we have done it a great harm because our troops have been over it, and he wants a considerable sum in compensation." I said, "You are strange to this part of the world, Colonel?" He said, "I am. I have been sent down here by the War Office." He did not wear a cocked hat, but he had a cap with a good deal of gold lace on it, which appealed just as much to the farmer. He said. "What do you think?" I said to him, "I would call your attention to the fact that the tract of country which you point out is supposed to be a field of turnips, but as a matter of fact, owing to the great drought at the end of the spring which preceded this autumn, there is hardly a turnip to an acre, and I do not believe that if the whole of the Artillery in the British Army were to go over that field it would do more than a few pounds harm to it." He was greatly obliged to me for the information, and I have no doubt that the amount of compensation paid was a great deal less than it would have been if he had not been informed of the facts.

Did the farmer hear about it?

He heard a great deal about it from me, because I happened to know him. The hon. Member's interruption points to another important consideration. In dealing with these matters you want men who have local knowledge, not only of the land, but of the people on it. As a body farmers are as upright, honest, hardworking and straight as any other body in the country. But farmers vary, as do every other class, and some of them try to get the best, particularly of gentlemen in gold-laced hats. At the time of which I am speaking compensation for these purposes was assessed by a body of staff officers. We called the attention of the Government to the folly of that system. What was the result? After a very long time they abandoned it and adopted the present system, by which men who are used to the work of fixing compensation, who know what they are doing, who do for the War Office the business they are used every day to do for themselves, are called upon to do the work which they can do, and do it far cheaper than it could ever be done by any officers. Take the question of the buying of horses. Why do you assume that an officer is a good buyer of horses? He may be a very good judge of horses: he often is. He may be a very good horseman: he often is. But that does not mean that he is a good buyer of horses. You want to go to the same kind of man to whom yon would go if you were buying anything else, a man who knows what he is going to buy, and, above all, knows the method of the trade in which he is engaged and the people who are engaged in it.

Those are the men we have got.

If only the right hon. Gentleman's practice equalled his speech, we should have no complaint to make. He says, "Those are the men we have got." You have got officers on the other side of the Atlantic buying horses—a sufficient number of officers to fill a division of His Majesty's Army. You may say they are the sort of men you have got; that they are good judges of horses and capable men. So they are. But does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the officers the War Office sent out to the United States of America and to Canada were conversant with the American system and the Canadian system of buying and selling horses, or, above all, that they were acquainted with the men who have been all their lives engaged in this trade? I do not think he will advance any such claim on behalf of the officers they have sent out. I will make him a present of his statement, and will allow, for the purposes of argument, that these officers have all the qualities that they require—full knowledge, intimate acquaintance with the extremely clever people who are the sellers of horses, not only in America, but also here; that they have all these gifts, that they are hard-fisted, and that they know how to deal with people who will take the skin off your back if they have the opportunity. Then I come back to my original question. Why, when he wants officers in the field or for training men here, are officers doing work in Canada and America which can be better done by business men? The right hon. Gentleman's interruption shows that he does not appreciate what is the real foundation of my charge. It is that, while you complain that you have not got munitions of war, that you have not got labour to produce them, and that you have not got officers to do the work they have to do, either abroad or here, you are not taking the necessary steps you ought to take, and that when you have not exhausted all the available material you have got for all these major purposes—purposes for which the officers have been trained—yet you have a number of officers scattered all over the world who ought to be working in France or here at home training troops.

I come to another question we have raised here, one about which I regret there has been some misunderstanding. I mean the maintenance of the fundamental difference between the professional and the amateur soldier. I am very sorry that this question was raised in a way which made it appear, although it was not so intended in any way, that it was connected solely with the appointment of one particular officer. I think I may claim the right to remind the House that I raised this question some time before that appointment. On the day that I raised it I had learned, for the first time, of the appointment to a Brigade of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ilkeston Division (Brigadier-General Seely), and I carefully said that my remarks would have been exactly the same had it not been made, because I had arranged to make them long before I knew of his appointment. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite thought they detected in my action in regard to this matter some undue bias because of the politics of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ilkeston Division. I can assure them that they were mistaken. In their mistake, not unnaturally, one of them said the same remark would apply to the Marquess of Salisbury, who also holds a brigade appointment. If I were to debate this question on the ground of the claims or merits of individuals, I do not believe that I know, among these amateur brigadiers, two men you could find who more deserved their promotion than Lord Salisbury and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ilkeston Division. As amateurs they have worked hard at soldiering as a temporary occupation for a period of the year. They have done their best to make themselves efficient. Therefore, I should not select either of them if I were going to discuss this question from the personal point of view.

Let me go further. I know a great number of these brigadiers, and do not hesitate to say that, so far as my acquaintance with them goes, by far the great majority of them belong to the same party in politics to which I belong. Therefore, the views we seek to urge have no connection whatever with the political views of these able gentlemen. What we contend is that the War Office has been gravely, unduly remiss, in allowing these plums of the Army to be given to the men who are only amateurs, instead of giving them to professionals. We have nothing to do with the individual, but we ask is it true that your supply of the trained article has run out and therefore that you are compelled to fall back on the amateur? We know that your answer must be in the negative. There is not a man in this House who thinks of the people in the neighbourhood in which he lives who cannot lay his hand upon one or two, and sometimes many more, officers of right age and ripe experience who would be able to take the field to-morrow, and who have had many years' training in the Army, but who have not had the opportunity. This is a great War, and our soldiers, whether they have served as officers, non-commissioned officers or men, have covered themselves with glory and have won our gratitude and our affection, and they will fight to the end, whatever we do here and whatever mistakes the War Office makes, as they have fought from the beginning. But surely we ought not to rest upon that knowledge and, taking advantage of it, let them, because of their patriotism and public spirit, suffer if we can prevent it!

May I ask the House to remember that when these men joined the Army they naturally and properly looked forward to the time when some of these plums may, if they have deserved them, fall into their lap? What do you think must be the feeling of these men, who have given the best of their lives to the Service, who have adopted all the suggestions made by Governments and by Parliaments and spent their money upon expensive preparations for examinations and made themselves familiar with all the most recent developments of tactics and of strategy, when they know that they are fit for these appointments, when they see these appointments become vacant and find that they are denied to them and are given to those who, however efficient and however capable they may be, have only given a fraction of the time which they could spare from other occupations to the prosecution of the military art? It is not fair.

It is not playing the game. It is not treating these men as they are treating you. They are giving you of their best. They are serving you with all their hearts. They are giving to you and to their country their lives, and all they ask is that you will remember that they are professional soldiers, that the Army is a great profession, and that its plums should be reserved for those who are its real and active members, and not distributed amongst those who would be glad enough to go into the field in altogether minor positions where they might, and would, do excellent work, but who ought never to be allowed to filch from the professional soldier the advantage which his training and his loyalty and his knowledge entitle him to claim for himself. It is not on personal but on public grounds that we urge this case upon the Government, and I say to them that while it is absolutely and literally true that our officers and non-commissioned officers and men will go on fighting as they have done, yet it is also true that if they see that your policy towards them is one of kind words but of neglectful actions, they will feel a bitter consciousness that they have not been justly or fairly treated, and they will come out of this War feeling that the Army is no profession for the man who is prepared to give to it his best, but who, when the time comes, will receive at its hands none of the rewards which the Army is able to offer.

The same comment applies to the regimental officer. We have acknowledged here, and are ready at any time to acknowledge, the magnificent services which Sir John French and the other distinguished officers who are serving under him have rendered. We know that Sir John French has rendered services which we can never sufficiently acknowledge. But if Sir John French had had ten times his ability he could not have done what he has done if it had not been for the regimental officers. I believe that in no war which has occurred in the whole history of the world has so much responsibility and so much trial fallen upon the regimental officer. Remember that you have been holding with your little Army a long line of trenches, and remember what that trench fighting is. It is not the glorious form of fighting of the olden days, when the general and the colonel and so on were able to control and direct the operations. Here you have miles and miles of trenches filled with bodies of men, almost each little section carrying on, on its own responsibility and by the aid of its own wits and its own training, the work of the Empire. The generals can do little after they have given the actual orders and made their dispositions.

It is to the regimental officers that you owe the glorious record that our Army has won in this campaign. And how have you treated them? How are you treating them now? You are breaking their hearts. You are teaching them to feel that the Army is no place for them. You are making them realise that, although you pay lip service to them here, you will not do them the common justice that they ask. I will only take one Cavalry regiment as an example of all. There are plenty more which can be described in exactly the same way. The establishment of the regiment is a lieutenant-colonel with four majors, eight captains and so many subalterns. There are regiments fighting in the field now which have been fighting for the greater part of this campaign with no lieutenant-colonel, and instead of four majors there are three, or two. What happens? It means that the work of the lieutenant-colonel is done by a major. All the responsibility, all the anxiety and, what is to him a minor question which he never considers, all the extra expense fall upon the major. The captain is doing major's work and the subaltern is doing captain's work.

Yesterday we were discussing the action of the Government in regard to the taking over of industrial undertakings, and Gentlemen on the Labour Benches naturally raised the question of the payment of the men. I ask this House what would happen to the Government, even in these times of truce, if in the works which they are taking over men were doing foremen's work and receiving the wages of day labourers and you were paying those employed in responsible posts, on the successful management of which the whole output of that factory depended, at the rate of ordinary workmen without responsibility at all. Labour Members would act together and would demand at your hands the cessation of such an unsatisfactory state of things and you would concede it without a moment's hesitation. But because the Army have no united body of men, because they will not ask, because they will not complain, because they fight and never think what your treatment is going to be until afterwards, you take advantage of all these splendid characteristics and you let them work there in France without the rank to which they are absolutely entitled. If there is such a thing as a claim to anything their claim is absolute to this promotion and you will not give it to them.

I said at the beginning that this condition of things which I described in a previous speech had been made ten times worse by what has happened recently and I will tell the Government why. The whole blame rests with the War Office here. In the course of the last few weeks they have had published Sir John French's dispatch and his list of honours. About these lists of honour everyone knows, ever since the days of the Duke of Wellington, the publication of dispatches and the granting of honours cause a great deal of very natural criticism and comment. I believe that never in the history of the world has the regimental officer received fairer treatment or fuller acknowledgment at the hands of the Commander-in-Chief than has been the case in this War. We all know what is the system tinder which these great rewards are given. No Commander-in-Chief in the world can keep his eye on the whole of his Army when it is in action. No Commander-in-Chief in the world can tell who ought to be the recipients of the various honours. There is only one way by which this most difficult task can be performed, by procuring from the officers commanding your Armies, down to brigades and regiments, the names of those who, in the opinion of the commanding officers, have made themselves most deserving of reward.

The most casual study of these reports will show anyone what is the fact, that commanding officers vary, as other people vary. Some have a more far-seeing eye and a more generous appreciation of the the deeds of their subordinates than others. If you take a report containing the lists of four or five regiments you will find that in one regiment there are eight or ten names given and in another two or three. Does anyone believe that that is because there has been a smaller number of men who have done gallant deeds in the other regiments? No. For aught you know there may have been even more men. The commanding officer takes a different view of his duties. All the Commander-in-Chief can do is to take the lists as sent to him, examine them, criticise and look into them, and discuss them and make his best report, and splendidly has that work been done. What have you been doing in the War Office? You have been allowing regimental officers to serve in subordinate ranks when they are as much entitled to their promotion as you are entitled to your monthly cheque from the Treasury for your services. Then what has been the result? Every officer who is fighting in France or in Flankers now and who at the beginning of the War was senior to officers who have got rapid promotion in Sir John French's list of honours has gone down by so many places in the list of seniority in the Army to which he belongs. It is a cruel injustice which is bitterly resented, as I know from letters received from the front. These officers are not jealous of the recipients of rewards. They are thankful that their merits have won these distinctions. They feel no grievance against anybody, and still less do they feel any jealousy, but they do feel a real grievance with respect to the War Office, which has sought an inactive line and allowed promotion to remain in abeyance to this day, with the exception of a few brevet lieutenant-colonels—promotions which have no value whatever. In fact, they are worse than of no value.

4.0 P.M.

The commanding officer of a regiment cares for his regiment, but officers resent brevet rank. It only rewards the officer, because it carries no consequential promotion. You lay down that a regiment is to be commanded by lieutenant-colonels, but, you have had majors commanding regiments for months. Why do you not make them lieutenant-colonels? When I applied privately as to the reason for this, I was told that it was because of the Treasury—that old Buffer. I hope I made the "B" quite plain. The Treasury will not allow the War Office to do this. I am not going to challenge the accuracy of the right hon. Gentleman's statement here, but we really are in a very great difficulty. We are obliged to get our information as best we can. The other day we brought up the question of compensation and pressed for an answer. We were told that the Treasury would not admit the principle for a moment. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down here a day or two afterwards and said, "We are going to pay fair and reasonable compensation." Can you not agree with the Treasury with regard to this question of promotion? I am absolutely certain of the cases to which I am referring, and there are scores of them. They are not to be counted by twos or threes. These cases could be taken up and considered by a Committee of three, consisting of, say, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for War, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will undertake to say that in half an hour the whole thing would be done. Why should you have men in France and other parts where we are carrying on war doing work that properly belongs to higher ranks? They have done this for months, bearing the heat and burden of the day without getting the promotion to which they are entitled. You are paying them on a lower grade, and if they think that they are not getting the promotion to which they are entitled, while you may do something at the eleventh hour by way of giving them justice, you cannot restore to them the position of which you have deprived them. You cannot by any means in your power undo the great wrong you have inflicted upon these men who have been fighting for the country, and who have done splendid service. Their commanding officers speak in the highest terms of their services, and what is their reward? They have been left by you not only where they were, but, as the result of your system, they are in an absolutely worse position than they were in before they went out to the front. Is that treating these men fairly?

As regards their pay, I do not know how to talk. I think it is almost impossible to discuss it. I have got a letter here from a colonel—a distinguished officer who has been badly wounded. He was invalided home, and he has been two months in hospital here I say that the War Office system of pay is bad. That gallant officer, after two months' suffering is not yet convalescent, but on account of the War Office system of pay, he is fined £40 by a grateful country for the services he has rendered. You have docked his pay. That is the way you deal with officers financially. I know of another case of an officer who was shot through both legs and who was shot badly in the forehead. He was invalided home. His only chance of restoration to health and activity is a prolonged and pensive system of medical treatment. How does the War Office treat him? It cuts his pay down to a little over one-third, leaving him here at home wounded and struggling to get well with the thought ever present to his mind that a grateful country which talks so glibly of his services, deprives him of his money. I ask that the same—I will not say kindness—but the same justice should be meted out to noncommissioned officers.

Here is a case to which I beg the attention of the War Office. I know this case myself. I know the man, and he is as fine a fellow as you would wish to meet. He served eleven years and eight months in a regiment. He found himself in Gibraltar. Everybody knows that that is a station which imposes a heavy strain on the health of soldiers. He had a difference with his colour-sergeant, and the colour-sergeant put him under arrest. What did he do? He had never had a mark against him before; he had gone steadily up, having been instructor in musketry and instructor in the gymnasium. He is a first-class man, but when he was put under arrest he broke his arrest, and got some atrocious stuff which made him drunk. He has never been tried to this day for insubordination, but because he broke his arrest and got drunk he was fined by the commanding officer and reduced in rank. He claimed his discharge, and two months ago, after he had left the regiment, he rejoined and went straight to the trenches. His work in the trenches was so gallant that his company officer offered him his sergeant's stripes. He replied, "No, Sir, I would rather not take them. Having served all these years without a mark against me, I ask that I should be restored to the rank which I formerly held in my regiment. If I have done well for my country, my sentence might be wiped off the slate, and I might be restored to the position I held before." The company officer agreed with him, but he was killed.

He was succeeded by another company officer under whom this man continued to fight. He was badly wounded by being shot through the shoulder and the chest. He lay for twenty-four hours in the wind and rain, and finally he crawled into a place of shelter. That officer confirmed the recommendation that this man should be restored to his original rank. I am assured that his colonel confirmed the recommendation. When he came out of hospital his arm had been cut off, and he is now walking about at home. He has no grievance. He is grateful to the Government for the increased financial allowance they have made to him. He is not troubled about money, because, whatever this House or the War Office may do, country landlords may be trusted to look after such cases. He knows that he is secure. He has no misgiving, but he does want one thing. He wants it more than I can describe. He wants, if the country thinks that he has done his duty, to be restored to the position he formerly occupied. When I heard of this case I wrote to the general officer commanding and begged him to take the matter into consideration. He told me he could not do so because it was contrary to the regulations. I say that the country wants not only to help men with money, but in every other way, and if there is a regulation which stands between this man and the reward to which he is so justly entitled, it should be swept away. I say that a regulation of that kind is an injustice. It is unreasonable, and it is an anachronism during a war like this. I say it ought to be the business of someone at the War Office to see that these things do not occur.

It is no good telling people that these are matters which had Lord Kitchener's approval. I have been head of a Department, and I know that there is no department in the world which, even at an ordinary time, can be carried on by the head of it dealing with matters of detail himself. He is obliged to rely upon subordinate people, and all these matters to which I have referred come under the control of subordinate people. The man responsible for denying to this man this small measure of justice is rendering a bad service to the Army, for the future as well as the present time, and is doing very little to aid in the successful prosecution of the War. I pray the Government to look into these matters without a moment's delay. In reference to the question of the officers, I know that my own son is one of the officers concerned. I do not bring the case forward because it is in his interest, but because I am compelled to do so. But because it is my own son I am not going to refuse to fight a case which I believe to be a just one, but I may say that is only one of many. There are scores of others which are dealt with in this way. On the last occasion the right hon. Gentleman told me that what was asked could not be done because you could not employ a brigadier. Let the House remember that you have created all of a sudden a vast Army which has risen from 120,000, to say, three or four times that size in France. That means that everyone of your subordinate commands has had to be very largely increased Where you had ten Brigades you now have fifty or sixty or perhaps a hundred. The War Office tell us that they cannot give these promotions, because after the War is over they will have too many officers of senior rank, and they will not be able to employ them. That is no answer to make. Finish the War, do justice to the Army, and then come to the House of Commons and ask them to help you if you have any problems of this kind to face, but do not, because you are afraid of problems in the future, inflict criminal injustice on either the commissioned or non-commissioned ranks of the Army.

There is only one other matter to which I wish to refer. That is the question to which I referred before, of the National Reserve. I cannot understand the attitude of the War Office in this matter. The men concerned are working men, small tradesmen and men of that kind. They entered into a contract with the Government that they would be willing to serve for two purposes—for Home defence or for service abroad. For one they were to be given a pink and for the other a blue card, which they had to sign. It was the War Office who devised the system, and it was the War Office who appointed the officials to carry it out. Owing to mistakes, which one can easily understand, these cards were never sent out. In one particular case which I have investigated myself in the town of Westbury in my own county, the reason why the cards were never sent out was because the local commandant in his enthusiasm hurried off and joined himself, the men were sent to other parts of England, and he forgot all about his duties in this respect and never issued the cards, and therefore they were never signed. Have these men failed you? Has one of them failed you? Has one of them declined to go where he was sent? Have not they been doing their duty ever since they were called upon? Did not they come at once? Was there one man missing? Have they been dissolute, disobedient, or drunken? No, they have been doing their work, at one time of the utmost importance, of guarding your railways, bridges, and canals. To every one of them you promised to pay £5 for service for Home defence and £10 for foreign service. What is the reason that you have not paid that money? The reason is that they never signed the cards which your officials never sent to them.

Could there be anything more con temptible in the way of administration by a great Department? How many of those poor fellows are there? What are you doing? I am not going to take account just now. The time will be hereafter. But you are spending money, you are pouring it out, building huts in bogs and marshes, and putting up buildings which no human being outside of Bedlam would try to do, without first of all making roads. You are trying to establish camps, and then you find that you have forgotten roads, drainage, and water supply. You have not taken the trouble to ask a single local man whether the place was a bog or what it was, and you are paying £5 for work which you could have got done for 10s. The Financial Secretary told us the other day of certain huts which only cost £13. They are not finished in nine cases out of ten, because they have not done anything to provide roads, drainage, or water supply.

You are spending money in this way. You are throwing it away. I know the pressure of your work. I know that you have had to expand a small Department suddenly into a big one. You have had to provide for an enormous Army instead of a small one. I am not throwing these things in your face. I know that mistakes of this kind are almost inevitable. I think that you might have avoided some of them. You might even avoid them now. You might now effect economies before it is too late. But if you are going to spend money, and spend it profusely, over camps and other places, you have no right to try to make something appear on the other side of the ledger by making these economies out of the pockets of these hard-working men. That is what you are doing. You are depriving these men of their few pounds bonus and resting yourself upon this miserable fact that these cards were not signed. You have had the services of these men. If these men had not come I could quite well understand your attitude. But that is not the case. You have not pretended that that is the case.

I have seen the whole of your War Office correspondence with General Somebody or other at the War Office. I raised the question here. The Prime Minister was then present. He said that he would look into the matter and he gave what appeared to us to be a very favourable reply. A friend of mine took up the question and corresponded with the War Office. They said that the Prime Minister and I were talking about two totally different things, and that the Prime Minister understood one thing and I another. The War Office appears to take a somewhat low view of a Prime Minister's intelligence; it was not mine. I should have said the Prime Minister is above, and not below, the ordinary standard of intelligence, and yet, apparently, we are told, he could not understand this very simple proposition which I explained, and he thought, when I was talking about National Reservists not being paid £5 or £10 for their services, that I was talking about Territorials or something else. I could not accept that officer's description of the Prime Minister's attitude. He certainly very largely held the view that these men were being underpaid. Of course he made no promise. I am not suggesting that he did, but I say that if you take advantage of your autocracy, or your position, for the moment unassailable, if you resort to these injustices against these men, you will be doing a grave injury to the fighting forces of this country, and you will be bringing on the good name and the fair fame of this country a vast amount of discredit.

The same thing applies to the question of the pay of officers. I could quote the Prime Minister's statement. I could show, if necessary, that under the new system so far from increasing the pay you have actually decreased it. There are cases where a second lieutenant gets an increase, and a lieutenant gets an increase, and after seven years' service his pay is actually reduced. In many of the upper grades of the Army you boast that you have raised the Service pay, and yet, actually under the new scale, when a captain rises to a certain point at which he becomes a major, you take 1d. a day off his pay. I will not delay the House by going into details of these matters now, but I will give the right hon. Gentleman the cases, so that he can have them in his hands when he comes to reply.

These cases are so extraordinary that one is compelled to think that they must have been settled in some place when reason does not prevail. It is almost incrdible that such mistakes should be made. It is no good for the Financial Secretary to the War Office to say that these things are not so. They are so. My statements come from the officers themselves. I prefer the statements of the man who receives the cash to those of anyone else. Undoubtedly, the system has been to reduce the pay of officers in certain cases. I apologise for the time which I have taken. I assure the House that I have not trespassed, as I have done, so unduly upon their time, because I am anxious to make a statement of this kind, or still less because I am anxious to make a speech. I have put these cases before the House, because I believe in my heart and conscience that this country desires at this moment that justice should be done, and that all ranks should be fairly and properly treated. I believe that the general feeling is that, if necessary, we should err on the side of generosity. I say that to save money by robbing men of pay which is due to them, by depriving them of the bonus which you have distinctly promised them, on account of some technical error for which they are not responsible, and by depriving soldiers in the field today of the promotion which is their due, and which they ought to have received long ago—I believe it is the War Office who are charged with the work—is a negation of everything that this country is asking for at the present time. I do pray the War Office, not to treat this matter again with the neglect and contempt which it has hitherto exhibited, but to give it real consideration, because I believe that is in the interest not only of the Army but also in that of the fair fame of this country that our soldiers should be fairly and honourably treated.

I am proud to be allowed to say a word in support of the position put forward in the thrilling speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long). The case which he has presented is one in which we must all acknowledge the justice of the claims which he has put forward. There are one or two cases to which I may refer. The first is that of the recruiting officers. From my own experience of the recruiting officers who are now about the country I am perfectly certain that there are hundreds, or I may probably say thousands, of old colonels like myself, over sixty years of age, who could do this recruiting business just as well as the men of thirty and thirty-five who are now engaged on it. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about officers abroad in Canada purchasing horses. A Canadian friend of mine told me that the British War Office is a sort of gold mine for Canada, and that the prices which are being given for Canadian horses are out of all proportion to their value. I do not want to dwell on those points, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for War to give his attention for one moment to a question about which I spoke a month ago—the question of regimental officers. It is a month since the Under-Secretary of State promised that the regimental vacancies should be filled up. What has been done? I put a question to the Under-Secretary only yesterday, and all he could tell me as to what has been done during the last month was that promotions to fill the places of officers taken prisoners or missing will be gazetted as rapidly as circumstances permit. I was glad to hear that, but I must say that circumstances are permitting of very slow promotion. I have watched the "Gazette" very carefully, and very few men have been gazetted during the last month. Then, again, the right hon. Gentleman told me that promotion in the place of lieutenant-colonels appointed brigadier-generals is still under consideration. We always understood that the Under-Secretary, on 10th February last, definitely promised that in the case of lieutenant-colonels promoted to be brigadier-generals the officer who took over the command of a battalion should receive full pay and rank on appointment.

I never made a promise; I said it was under consideration.

We all took it as a promise. However, the question is still under consideration, and has been under consideration for a month, and no definite solution has been arrived at. May I ask why? Is there any reason why the question could not have been settled long ago? I cannot express the disappointment which this delay is causing officers at the front. As the right hon. Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Long) said, the regimental officer is the mainstay at the front; he is the man to whom we owe everything; he is the man to whom we owe the glorious record won in this War, and to use his own words, "Here you have men, men who are leading our troops in the grandest possible manner, and yet the Government refuses to give them proper pay." My own old regiment is one of those concerned, and a captain has been in command of it ever since November last. But it is not only in one regiment, for in a dozen regiments a captain has been in command since November last, and during all those months has been deprived of any pay or acknowledgments of the duties he is performing.

I may state that in some cases a captain of one battalion has been posted to command another battalion, and surely he deserves the rank and pay of the appointment which he has been sent to hold. Money is being poured out in this country, as the right hon. Member for the Strand has just said, yet you refuse to give the regimental officers, who are the mainstay of the Army, the pay due to the rank of officers holding the position of commandant and second in command of their regiment. Necessarily they should have the pay attaching to the rank to which they are appointed. I hope the Under-Secretary of State, when he comes to reply, will inform us that this question is no longer to be kept merely under consideration, and that a settlement will be reached. In speaking on this subject may I express my regret at the reply which the Under-Secretary gave to my question the other day, as to whether any increase of pay is to be given to officers in the near future? The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that an increase of pay had been given last year. We know that, but it was absolutely infinitesimal. Why, in some instances, the result of that was, as was brought to the notice of the House the other day, that some officers found themselves worse off by a penny a day than they were before. I would like to recall to the House the memorable speech of the Prime Minister on the 16th November last, regarding the insufficient pay of officers. The Prime Minister said:—

"I am sure that the grievance of the officer who cannot live on his pay, and must either get into debt or be supported by his parents and friends from extraneous sources, is a reproach to the country, and ought to have been remedied long before, for it becomes increasingly urgent and scandalous when men are laying down their lives for the sake of their country."

Those were the words of the Prime Minister, who went on to say that the Government had—

"got the matter in hand, and will not delay to propose remedies."

What are those remedies? So far as I can gather from the reply of the Financial Secretary for War to my question of the day before yesterday, it was the Army Order of the 24th November, and that Army Order relates almost entirely to officers promoted from the ranks, and applies to no officers above the rank of captain. The Army will welcome that Order, but I may point out that the Prime Minister's words excited great hopes, and I trust that this Order does not mean that nothing is to be done for majors or lieutenant-colonels. A captain of the line will now get, under the new Order, a maximum of 14s. 6d., but why is a major to be limited to 16s. a day? I ask the Under-Secretary to think of this question, and to think of the Prime Minister's promise regarding the grievance of the officer who cannot live on his pay. The right hon. Gentleman said that this was to be left over until the end of the War. Why should it be left over until the end of the War? There are lots of retired and unemployed officials, well acquainted with the subject, who might be called together to inquire into it and formulate proposals. There was no difficulty in the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the question of separation allowances, nor has there been any difficulty about the consideration of officers' pensions and allowances. Why should this matter be delayed until after the War?

Officers at the front at the present moment are in the greatest difficulties, especially married officers. One of those difficulties is the question of insurance. Here is the case of a married man. About twelve years ago he insured his life for £3,000. The annual premium was £63 15s. His pay was 16s. a day, less 1s. in the £ for Income Tax. That officer is now in a new service battalion, but he is liable at any moment to go back to his own battalion at the front on the old pay of 16s. a day. His whole pay is £277 12s. a year. Out of this he has to pay not only £63 15s., his ordinary insurance, but additional insurance amounting to five guineas per cent. on the £3,000, making a sum of £157 10s., or a total of £221 5s. out of his whole income of £277 12s., leaving him a balance of £56 7s. out of which he has to feed himself at the front, and provide for his family at home. The officer, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, cannot, even if he has money invested, sell out now without loss, and the result is that he has to borrow money, and I am told that money cannot be obtained under 6 per cent. Therefore, he will probably have the debt hanging over him for years and years. The Prime Minister himself has stated that it is a reproach to the country that an officer cannot live on his pay. I ask the Under-Secretary to consider this question, and remove this reproach before the end of the War. The Secretary to the Admiralty stated on the 11th February that the Admiralty were considering the advisability of approaching the insurance companies with regard to naval officers. I would ask the Under-Secretary if he cannot approach the insurance companies on behalf of the military officers also.

I wish to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the question of commissions in the New Army. It is one in respect to which a great deal of anxiety is existing, because it is believed there is a veto against colonels of service battalions issuing the necessary recommendations for promotion from the ranks in service battalions. If that be the case, it entails an injustice on patriotic men who wished for temporary commissions in the Territorial Force. A great many members of the Territorial Force, when the War broke out, instead of joing the Territorial Force thought they were doing best for the State by joining the New Army, and in many of those cases, at the time of their patriotic action, it was understood that they would be in no way hindered from getting promotion. Here is one case in the North of England where a circular was issued to old public schools and university men:—

"All who are awaiting results of their application for commissions should at once enlist in this force (the New Army). The very fact of their having enlisted in these battalions will increase their chance of obtaining commissions later on. The War Office will place no hindrance in the way of obtaining a transfer if a commission is obtained further on."

Was that an advertisement?

It was a circular issued in the North of England to public or county schools, and university men. I regret to say that there are certain service battalions who resist very effectively any promotion from the ranks for those commissions, and the colonel absolutely declines to consider applications for commissions. They are notably the 18th, 19th, and 21st Royal Fusiliers (Public School Corps), the 16th Middlesex, the 10th Fusiliers, the Honourable Artillery Company (1st battalion), the London Rifles (1st battalion), and the Royal Warwicks (Birmingham contingent). Officers commanding these regiments have systematically put obstacles in the way of men applying for commissions; in some regiments they have actually declined altogether to see them.

When the hon. Gentleman says that this is done "systematically," does he mean that the commanding officers always take that course, or does he mean that it has occurred recently?

In the last few months.

The last few months?

Yes. The right hon. Gentleman will see I am not stating anything that I cannot prove. This is not a case of a Public School Corps, for, of course, there are other service battalions in which individuals have had their applications for their commissions signed by the colonels. But I have been informed by a number of public school men that several of the colonels have absolutely declined to see them at all. Some of those who were fortunate enough, as they thought, to get before the colonel, the instant the word "commission" was mentioned, the sergeant-major came to the rescue—"Rightabout turn, march!" They received no consideration, whatsoever. I myself have endeavoured to verify these statements. Colonels who I know are in need of capable and qualified men to serve in their regiment have been asked to sign the papers necessary to get a commission; and I have written to colonels myself, and I have several of their letters, but I think two of them which I have here will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman. The first answer is this:—

"The general officer commanding this brigade has received verbal instructions from Lord Kitchener that no further men in the brigade are at present to be recommenced for commissions. Under these circumstances, yon will see that it is impossible for me to grant your request."

Here is one of several from colonels, which I will read. Though there is need of these men, yet this is the reply:—

"I beg to inform you that I cannot grant the necessary recommendations for these men to take up commissions in the battalions under your command, in consequence of the general officer commanding the brigade having received verbal instructions from the Secretary of State for War that no further men are to be granted commissions from this brigade for the present."

I do hops that the right hon. Gentleman in the course of his observations will be able to explain away that mistake and that misunderstanding, and that the conditions under which many of those men joined originally in the New Army are not to be swept away, and that there is to be no embargo on promotion in those particular regiments.

I am not here to find fault with the difficulties of the officers commanding. I perfectly understand their position. I perfectly understand that they do not want to see their battalions depleted of the efficient officers under their command, but I also see a very distinct danger if all promotion is stopped, for not only is there injustice caused and discouragement given to the men, but there is also stagnation in those regiments. I cannot say what takes place in other regiments besides those. I have mentioned, but I am told that this embargo and veto does exist, and I suggest it should be removed and that there should be the possibility of promotion for able and capable men wherever they are serving. That officers are wanted, we all know, and the right hon. Gentleman I notice bows his assent to that We know, too, that many colonels are applying for men, and the necessity is also indicated by the "Gazette," which shows that 500 commissions are issued weekly. I am informed that several of these men who are applying for these commissions are men who, as I say, purely for patriotic motives at the beginning joined the New Army instead of going into the Officers' Training Corps. Many of them are men who have been very distinguished both at school and in college, both in learning and in different fields of sport. Several of them are blues of our universities besides being scholars, and some of them captains of our best football and athletic teams.

Why are those men coming forward? They know there is a shortage of officers, and they feel perfectly confident, while they are in this struggle to take their part in the service of the State, that they are not giving their best services in the ranks when they have the training, character, and ability, and the power of leadership to enable them to serve the State better in positions as officers. The right hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, do me the justice of agreeing that I have not attempted to bring this matter forward in any contentious spirit. I know perfectly well that the War Council in the formation and creation of this New Army have had terrible obstacles and difficulties to get over. They have got over those difficulties with the greatest credit to themselves, but I am equally certain that it is not right, as a matter of justice, as a matter of common sense, or as a matter of good business working, that you should close the avenue of promotion to any capable man in any single battalion in the country.

There are men serving in the battalions in the humblest spheres to-day who have all the capacity for leadership, men who come from the public schools and who had the self-sacrifice in the beginning to join, and those men should not be sacrificed for any red tape. I may tell the right hon. Gentleman that I have in mind several cases of men who joined quite early after the War broke out who had been in the Territorials, and in positions in the Territorials. The very instant they joined the New Army nolens volens they were given promotion as corporals or sergeants. Those who were with them in the Territorials, or who were serving with them in the Public Schools Officers' Training Corps before the War, and who by a different approach are giving their services to the country, have got their commissions, while the men who were their leaders and instructors, because they went into the New Army units early, still remain in those positions, and the door to promotion is entirely barred. That cannot be right and cannot be good for the Army, and it cannot create the spirit which you should have—namely, that every single man in the Service is to be given the opportunity of sewing his country to the best of his ability. I am perfectly willing to give the right hon. Gentleman some of those names. They are not few, but there is a great number of splendid fellows resting to-day under this injustice. They wish to get the opportunity of giving the full advantage of their ability to the country. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman when he comes to reply will say that there is no truth in the statement that the Secretary for War has stopped Commanding Officers from signing the necessary recommendations for commissions for men who are in their opinion capable of promotion.

I desire to mention one or two points. The first has been dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand (Mr. Walter Long) and refers to the placing of wounded officers on half-pay. I know a case where an officer gave up a very good staff appointment to go out to the front, where he was badly wounded, and he is now put on half-pay. He is a very poor man, and it is a material matter to him, quite apart from the injustice. The other point I wish to mention is with regard to the promotion of what are known as Special Reserve Officers. In my own experience, since the War started, many of these young officers have joined, men of twenty-eight, thirty, thirty-five, perhaps even up to forty years of age, who form most splendid material, and are the very men well qualified to lead men in the field. They are men who, though they joined for the purposes of the War, would in many cases wish, now that they have taken up the soldiering career, to remain on as officers after the War. We may very likely want those officers very badly after the War. How are you persuading them to stop on? You are saying that they are to get no promotion at all. A man of perhaps thirty-two or thirty-four years of age may have joined on the 5th of August on mobilisation as a second-lieutenant in the Special Reserve, and may have gone out in September or October. Meanwhile he gets no promotion, while boys who may be at Sandhurst in October or November go out also, and, since promotion is very rapid, some of them may be promoted as lieutenants, and thus take command of the company over the head of the older man, who is far more qualified to do so. That is not an encouragement to the men to whom I refer to stop in the Army. It may be perfectly true that you do not wish to block what I may call the higher ranks of lieutenants and captains with men whom you may not wish to retain after the War, but in that event you could give them temporary rank and make them temporary lieutenants or captains, and if either they are not satisfactory or you do not wish to retain their services after the War you could dispense with them. I know that, unless you do something of this kind, you are going to lose very valuable officers for the future, in addition to inflicting what is certainly a grave sense of injustice in their minds by not giving them the temporary rank to which they are entitled.

There is one other point which I have some diffidence in mentioning, because it is perhaps an administrative matter, and it may be said that I am not as well qualified to judge of it as those who are on duty at the front. I do, however, think that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman may pay some attention to it. There are a certain number of men, I am sorry to say, not as many as we would wish, who have gone through the whole campaign, and I am now speaking of private soldiers and noncommissioned officers. Those men have had to undergo a strain unequalled in any previous campaign. That nerve strain through which they have gone has, in many cases, made them physically unfitted to continue at the front without some rest. I had a case of the kind brought to my notice only the other day. There are a few men allowed back on five days' leave. It was reported to me by a lady who works in connection with the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association that there was a man in my regiment back on five days' leave, that he was due to return last Saturday, and that he was absolutely unfitted to go back to the front. He seemed to be in a half-dazed condition, suffered from most acute headaches, and really was broken down. Acting on my own responsibility, I said that the man should go and see my regimental doctor. The man himself said he did not wish to go, because his spirit was so good that, he said, having got the five days' leave, he did not want to abuse it. I sent word to him that I was sure the matter would not be treated in that way if the medical officer certified him unfit, and that they would give him further leave. The man did not appear to be examined, and I presume his spirit was so good that he returned on the Saturday. I wrote to the commanding officer, telling him that I understood that the man was not physically fit, and suggesting that he should have him examined by the doctor. I think it would be a very great matter if those men could get a furlough of one or two months at least, and I believe there is a considerable number of men available in all regiments to take their places. If they got that furlough, you would have the men better fitted for their duties on their return, and you would not be losing your trained soldiers, but would get better work out of them when they went back to join their battalion. While the matter may not come quite within the Department of the right hon. Gentleman, I trust that he will mention it in the proper quarter, as I think it would be a very valuable course to adopt, and I am sure the Army would not lose by it.

The subjects dealt with this afternoon so far have been of interest, I think, to everybody in the House. I felt very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand (Mr. Walter Long) for again putting the case for promotion. Although I am not as interested as he is in the subject, I do feel very strongly on the point that promotions should be given to amateurs over the heads of men who have given their life to the Service. I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not be discouraged even by the failure of his third attempt to secure something on this question from the War Office, but that he will pursue the old Scottish tradition of the Scottish king who tried six times before he got what he wanted on the seventh attempt. With regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Goulding) with regard to promotion, while he named a certain number of regiments, he certainly did not name any regiment with which I was familiar, and I myself know a great number of other regiments where the men are exactly in a similar position, and where they have a further disadvantage in endeavouring to secure a commission which was not mentioned by the hon. Member. That disadvantage is this: In some cases where they have persuaded the colonel of the battalion to sign the commission paper, the colonel of some other battalion denies the opportunity to the men to get a commission in that battalion, so that there is a double barrier put upon the man applying for a commission and who enters the ranks with the idea of serving his country and taking a commission when it came along. The subject to which I want to address myself particularly to-day is a subject for which I have been responsible, certainly in questions in this House, for some time past, and that is the affairs of what is known as the Empire Battalion Committee. The hon. and learned Member for Ealing (Mr. Nield), speaking last night, deprecated my taking any interest in this question at all.

I rise at once to correct the hon. Member. I took no objection to his interfering. My comment was that it was strange, the City of London having two Members, and this being a City of London battalion, that those for whom the hon. Member speaks had to go as far as Edinburgh to get a champion.

That is what I was going to say, and to remind the hon. and learned Member that not only had they to go as far as Edinburgh to get me to interfere in this business, but they had to go as far as Edinburgh to get the Member who represents the City. So if it is necessary on the part of the constituents of the City of London to go to Edinburgh for a Member to represent them in this House, surely there can be no complaint if another Member from Edinburgh takes up a subject of interest in that particular constituency. However, I do not put my argument on that ground. I base it upon the consideration that we, as Members of the House of Commons, are responsible for the expenditure of public money. The right hon. Member for the Strand (Mr. Long) this afternoon spoke about the question of recruiting. He knows, and we all know, that we are still attempting to get recruits for the Army. This particular battalion has been recruited for six months; it is not yet ready, or nearly ready, to go to the front; it is not yet under the direct control of the War Office, although the War Office is responsible for the military training. Therefore, it suggests itself to me that, instead of at one end of the system attempting to secure new recruits, it would be more effective if the War Office would take over every fancy service battalion at once, and make these men efficient and ready to go to the front. I do not complain at all of what has been done towards training these men; I presume that they have the same opportunities as others. Their position may be due to the fact that they have not been able to get all the equipment necessary. What I emphasise is that you have a large body of effective and efficient men. I understand that a large number of these men—several hundreds—have already seen active war service, and would be particularly efficient. It is high time the country understood that these special battalions are not yet under the control of the War Office, and that the only thing for which the War Office is responsible is their military training.

The matter I have mainly to deal with is certain practices in connection with this battalion which I consider have been particularly reprehensible. The hon. and learned Member for Ealing dealt last night with the nature of the committee. He pointed out who were on the committee, and gave their names. I myself reminded the House, in the questions which I put on the subject, of the large number of officers of the King's Army who are serving on this committee. The hon. and learned Member also reminded the House, which I did not intend to do myself, because we regret that death has removed him from our midst, that Field-Marshal Earl Roberts himself was a member of this committee. There were on the committee, in addition to Field-Marshal Earl Roberts, one general, four major-generals, two colonels, two majors, two captains, the Lord Mayor of London, and two Members of this House. The original intention was to raise a regiment to be called the Imperial Light Horse, but owing to the War Office making a different suggestion it was changed into a battalion of Infantry, and is now known as the Royal Fusiliers (City of London) Regiment. On the committee, which had its offices at 3, St. James' Street, there were two gentlemen named Devereux and Watson. Mr. Devereux was made honorary secretary of the British Empire Committee. The affairs of the committee were put into the hands of a sub-committee, presumably in order that the arrangements for the battalion should be made on a more businesslike basis. I mean by that, that the whole committee could not be expected always to be present, and it was easier to have the business done by a subcommittee. Mr. Devereux was honorary secretary of that particular sub-committee which consisted of General Sir Bindon Blood, who was chairman, Colonel Lumsden, General Herbert, Lord Calthorpe, and Messrs. Watson and Devereux.

The sub-committee proceeded to arrange for the contracts for the battalion. The equipment contract was given to a contractor named Hand, and when that contract was secured—and I do not suggest that it was secured in any but a proper business way — Messrs. Watson and Devereux, particularly through Watson, blackmailed that contractor. If the House wishes for it, I have the evidence and can produce it. The hon. and learned Member knows that it is true; therefore that is common ground between us. They blackmailed the contractor, as the hon. and learned Member admitted last night, to the extent of £285 out of £3,000 at that time. That is to say, on 24th October last year, Hand had received £3,000 out of something over £4,000, and out of that Devereux and Watson had £285. Naturally, that came to the ears of certain members of the committee, and as a result an inquiry was held, presided over by the hon. and learned Member for Ealing. That inquiry lasted the whole of one day and was continued for a second day in the chambers of the hon. and learned Member. I understand from my own friends on the committee that the hon. and learned Member conducted that inquiry as if he were conducting a strictly legal inquiry, and did it remarkably well. I mean that he set aside for the moment his private function as a member of the committee, and acted as if he were in a judicial capacity. I did not intend to suggest anything else. At that inquiry evidence was taken from Hand, the equipment contractor, and from Watson and Devereux, who were members of the committee, and one of whom was its honorary secretary. The committee came to certain conclusions which, so far as I have been able to ascertain—and I think my information is fairly accurate—were four in number. The first was that they decided to remove Messrs. Watson and Devereux from the British Empire Committee.

I think I ought to point out that both of them had resigned on the 4th October on the ground that they were holding Government contracts, that their resignation was accepted at the first meeting of the committee subsequent to that date, on the 6th, and that Devereux was asked to remain honorary secretary until a successor could be obtained. At that time the committee knew nothing at all about these transactions.

I am sorry to differ from the hon. and learned Member. I hold in my hand a letter from a member of the committee who was present at the committee meeting on the 6th October, after the date given by the hon. and learned Member on which these gentlemen were supposed to have resigned, in which it is quite clear that they had not resigned. As this is a copy of a letter addressed to the hon. and learned Member for Ealing by another member of the committee reminding him of the fact, he himself not being present at that meeting, it is quite conceivable that the hon. and learned Member is misinformed on that particular point. But that is one of the questions which I am going to suggest to my right hon. Friend ought to be inquired into—as to whether or not these gentlemen had resigned from the British Empire Committee or the 4th October. If they had, it is a curious fact that it was found necessary towards the end of October to conduct an inquiry into their conduct.

I should like to ask the hon. and learned Member for Ealing if he will explain, when he takes part in the Debate, what power they had, if any, to compel the attendance of Messrs. Devereux and Watson at that Committee of Inquiry if those gentlemen had resigned from the committee and ceased to be members of it. However, that is a point in dispute. The second conclusion was that the committee should remove its offices from 3, St. James' Street; the third was that they should strongly recommend that all the contracts held by Devereux and Watson should be cancelled; and the fourth, that General Sir Bindon Blood should be asked to convey to General Woollcombe, in charge of the Eastern Command, the result of this particular inquiry. Reference is made in the conclusions arrived at by that committee to other contracts hold by Devereux and Watson, and there are one or two very pertinent questions that I want to put to my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War with regard to that particular point. I deprecate, and I hope the House deprecates, in all these committees in charge of special battalions, the giving of any contract whatsoever to any member of the committee. The moment you give a contract to a member of the committee responsible for the battalion you open up possibilities which may lead to considerable and regrettable results. Will the House believe that despite this report of that sub-committee of the British Empire Committee, which presumably was put in the possession of General Woollcombe as far back as the 14th October, and in spite of the fact that Mr. Devereux was removed from the honorary secretaryship of the committee because he had been convicted of blackmailing a contractor—

As a member of the committee I really must correct the hon. Member. That is not so. Mr. Devereux had resigned long before that date. His resignation was in before that transaction. He was not dismissed from the committee. He was acting at that moment as temporary secretary while we were finding another, he having already resigned, but at the request of Sir Bindon Blood he stayed on for a short time.

I have already discussed that point and as to whether my hon. Friends are right in regard to it. It can be settled by the production of the minutes of the British Empire Committee. My hon. Friend will bear in mind that I am talking of these facts with knowledge that I have from these members of that committee, all of whom have resigned from the committee on account of practices which they deprecate. If it is, as the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Colonel Bowden) says, the simple production of the minutes will show it. In any case, perhaps the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire, if he takes part in the Debate, will explain, or will assist me in deprecating, to the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for War the continuance in the contract from the War Office of the man who has been convicted of the blackmailing of another contractor. If my hon. Friend will give me assistance on that point I shall be infinitely obliged. I will repeat to the House that, despite the conclusions of this committee, those two men were continued in the hutting contract for the battalion and in the messing contract. It is only within the last fortnight, or seventeen or eighteen days, that Mr. Devereux has ceased to be responsible for the victualling of the Royal Fusiliers.

I understand that since he has ceased to be responsible for the victualling there has been obtained a very great economy on the feeding of the battalion. Perhaps the colonel, who happens to be present, will be able to tell us whether that is true or not. If my information is correct, it is going to be a very wise arrangement for his battalion, and he is going to save money. If it be true that the man was convicted by the sub-committee of the British Empire Committee of blackmailing the equipment contractor as far back as October, 1914, is it not a remarkable circumstance that he was still in possession of the victualling contract for the battalion a fortnight or so ago? The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ealing (Mr. Nield) suggested that I was casting aspersions upon public men. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman regard it as an aspersion when I say that an appeal can be made to the public by men of the type and status which the hon. Member read out to this House, and that those things can be allowed to go on under their name—because so long as they continue and are not rectified they are as responsible as everybody else?

I could give my hon. Friends opposite quotations from newspapers. I could read a quotation from the "Globe" newspaper months ago, in which they were asked to take decisive action so that they could persuade the public that what they wore doing was with a single eye to the public service. These rumours have been going on in the public Press, and not a single member of the British Empire Committee has taken the trouble to deny them. What is the result. In those circumstances the general public either believe that they are not true or they get the impression that those big names stand for something which is above suspicion, and that nothing is really going on. It is not in the mouth of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ealing to suggest that I am casting aspersions on any public body. What I am seeking to do is to clear these people—some of them friends of my own—of the aspersions which have been cast upon them by the committee on account of the fact that Messrs. Devereux and Watson in particular had used the committee for purposes which should bring them within the Prevention of Corruption Act passed in this House in 1906.

There happens to be, or did happen to be, in the Royal Fusiliers a lieutenant and quartermaster whose name is Willard. That man is an old soldier. He has served his King and country in more than one war. Whilst he was with the Royal Fusiliers he was an efficient quartermaster. He was liked by the men, and he looked after the interests of the men. I have not yet found any man in the Royal Fusilier Battalion—and I know many of them—who has anything but the highest opinion of Lieutenant and Quartermaster Willard. This man reported to the colonel of the regiment that Mr. Devereux had attempted to bribe him in connection with the messing of the battalion. Lieutenant and Quartermaster Willard, for that and other reasons—which I do not know, but which we may hear in Debate—was brought before a Committee of Inquiry—the names of which I could give the House if it were worth while—and as a result of the inquiry he has been dismissed the Service. I would ask hon. Members to bear in mind what that means. This man, after serving his country as an ordinary soldier in the ranks, is thrown neck and crop, bag and baggage, out of the Army, with no prospects at all in life, or his prospects, at all events, entirely damaged.

I want the members of the committee who happen to be present, to tell me, if either of them, or anybody in connection with the committee, knowing, as they knew, that Mr. Devereux was continuing the victualling contract, being convicted of obtaining illicit commissions already from Hand, the equipment contractor, informed any member of the committee that that was the man who had attempted to bribe the lieutenant and quartermaster? I think it iniquitous that a man in the ranks, who has nobody to champion him, should be so dealt with. The result will be to deprive him of every opportunity hereafter. Everybody knows what it means when a man is cashiered from a regiment, after he has been brought before a Court of Inquiry, with nobody to make it plain that the man who brought one of the charges against him was the man who himself ought to have been prosecuted by the British Empire Committee! Having said that, I do not want to elaborate the case more than need be.

There is a practice obtaining in connection with these battalions by which the contractor pays, or refunds, some of the profits to the battalion fund. It is on record that Mr. Devereux, convicted of obtaining illicit commission, paid over to the battalion funds of the Royal Fusiliers as much as £400. That money had come out of the ration allowance of the men, which for every battalion is 1s. 9d. per day. That amount is what the War Office consider the men ought to have. Any profit that is made is made by persuading the contractor or caterer to accept the contract at a lower figure than 1s. 9d., the remaining money going, as in this case, into the funds. I do not know whether it was all the remainder of the money, or a certain portion of it. I consider that system wrong. I consider it an iniquitous practice. I consider that when you are training men for the front, when those men come to you—not as a matter of fact in this case, because this happens to be a particularly fine body of men—in some cases not altogether physically fit, that they require to be made physically fit, and their food is one of the chief necessaries for that purpose.

I deprecate very much that anything should be taken off the allowance to these men and used for the purpose I have described. I want now, practically in conclusion, to put some deliberate questions to my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench who represents the War Office. Since I came into this House this afternoon, I have had sent to me a letter which I have not been able to show my right hon. Friend—I have, as he knows, sent to him a large number of questions—a letter from Captain Parsons. There are a great many men on the other side of the House who know Captain Parsons. He is one of the greatest exponents of anti-socialism that we have in this country I see my hon. Friend opposite (Colonel Bowden) amused, but he will remember, of course, that when they removed the battalion offices from St. James' they went to the offices of the Anti-Socialist Union—to show, I suppose, that the party truce was still on. I presume the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire felt quite clear that he would not there be impregnated with any anti-socialist doctrines, and that he could safely go there. Captain Parsons, this well-known public man, a member of the British Empire Committee, writes to me as a result of having been at the committee yesterday. Presumably the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ealing was present. He must therefore have known that at least three members of the committee had resigned. Despite the fact that he knew that he read out to the House in the Debate last night the names of those gentlemen as being members of the committee—

No, no; that is wrong. I read them out as being original members of the committee. I said that some of them had died, and that it was possible that even some of them had never attended a meeting.

The one that died was the name, regretfully given, of the late Field-Marshal Lord Roberts. I accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman says, that he read the names out as being those of the original members of the committee; therefore I will put it that he omitted to mention the fact that three of them had resigned. The gentleman to whom I referred, dealing with the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech last night—in arguments which I will not take from him—winds up his letter to me with a desire that I now put to the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for War:—

"I feel that all the honourable and distinguished men who have so ungrudgingly sacrificed their time and ability to further the patriotic tasks of this committee—and none have done so more than Mr. Nield, K C.," —

There is no animus there, you see.

"however much they may differ one from the other as to the methods of procedure, will at once welcome the establishment of some machinery by which all the facts in connection with the committee can be dragged into the public light, and those guilty of disgraceful conduct brought to justice."

That is a letter from a member of the committee, a distinguished officer, and a man who has seen war service; one who is disgusted with the disgraceful conduct which has obtained in certain instances. I want to ask the War Under-Secretary a few questions. If the sub-committee of the British Empire Committee removed Messrs. Devereux and Watson from the committee, or, if I accept the interpretation put upon it by my right hon. Friends opposite, if they resigned from the committee, and if the committee removed from 3, St. James's Street, will the War Office tell me, or the House, why Messrs. Devereux and Watson were continued in the hutting contract? They got the contract from the War Office, according to General Sir Bindon Blood before the British Empire Committee. They are on the War Office list. The War Office knew, or ought to have known, from General Woollcombe what had been the report of the committee presided over by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ealing. Yet they were continued in the hutting contract. I should like my right hon. Friend at the same time to tell me if he has looked into the price that was given for that particudar hutting contract. If he does he will probably find that no higher price was paid by the War Office for any huts that had been built than for the huts built in connection with this contract.

Then I should like to ask my right hon. Friend if he has ever inquired whether, in spite of all that I have said being true, Mr. Devereux was an honorary member of the mess of the Royal Fusiliers; whether, for instance, on 1st January, he was an honorary officer of the mess on the occasion of the inquiry into the conduct of Lieutenant-General Lowe; and will anyone tell me why Devereux, convicted of those offences, and the colonel of the regiment knowing he was convicted of those offences, should be made at any time an honorary member of that particular mess? Will my right hon. Friend tell me why the committee did not prosecute Messrs. Devereux and Watson? Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman who presided over the Committee of Inquiry will tell us. There is an Act of which they know—the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906. I understand that if the facts are placed before the Attorney-General he can advise on a prosecution. Does my right hon. Friend know whether those facts were placed before the Attorney-General or not for the purpose of the prosecution? He knows perfectly well, and even the hon. and learned Member for Ealing (Mr. Nield) has admitted in this House, that Devereux and Watson obtained £285, or 7 per cent.—much better than the Meyer contract—on this particular contract by blackmail, and yet nothing was done by anybody. Nothing was done by the sub-committee of this Empire Battalion which ought, in the public interest, to have done something, and was entitled to do something, knowing those facts.

I want to know from my right hon. Friend why no prosecution took place. I have asked already whether it was true that the highest price paid for huts was paid in connection with these huts. I should like him to find out where the materials were obtained, and to whom they were invoiced. In pursuance of an inquiry of that sort he will find some distinctly interesting information. He will find that firms from which the material was ordered were not the firms to which it was invoiced. Then I should like to ask him whether Devereux or Watson, or both, in any capacity, are on the Army contract list now? Have they been removed? Are they in possession of any contracts? I would also like to ask him if he knows whether a very careful attempt has been made to cover up the tracks of this particular incident by the contractor Hand, who was blackmailed, issuing a writ for the return of his money; whether he knows if that money has been returned or not; and whether he knows, if the writ has been issued and the money paid, that that constitutes an admission on the part of all throe of an illicit transaction?

I think I have given the House enough material to demand from my right hon. Friend a very searching inquiry into this particular case. He tells me that he is having a Departmental inquiry. I do not think that is really sufficient. I think there ought to be a public inquiry—a judicial inquiry. If there is nothing to hide in connection with the affairs of this battalion, let them be brought into the light of day. Things have been hidden since the end of November, and would never have been dragged into the light of day but for the questions I happened to put on the Paper; and I say again it is the duty of any public man, knowing those facts, to bring them to the notice of this House. The use that is so frequently made of the names at the top of the list by the people who come in on the ground floor for their own purposes is a practice which ought to be deprecated in public life, and it is perfectly obvious that two men, with antecedents that will not stand investigation, by some means or other got themselves constituted the executive part of this committee, and have been making money. If there is one thing more abominable than another in public life it is improperly trying to make money out of contracts in equipping our soldiers. This has occurred in connection with this battalion.

I make no reflection on the two hon. Gentlemen opposite who happen to be connected with the committee. I have made specific charges against two men who remain on the War Office Contract List, and I say the War Office ought to remove them from that list, that they ought to be prosecuted for what they have done, and that if you want to restore confidence in these special battalions you ought to have an inquiry. I also strongly plead with my right hon. Friend that he will immediately take the step of putting all those battalions under the direct control of the War Office. It ought not to be possible for any Committee to be responsible for the equipment and the housing and feeding of soldiers who are going to the front. The War Office is responsible for their military efficiency; let the War Office come in now and take over every special battalion. There are enough of them in the country to form one of the divisions which an hon. Member has said were necessary for the front. It is fine material and it is ready to go. In this case it is being exploited by men who have no right to exploit it, and from whom we in this House ought to protect it.

I have no complaint to make about the tone of the hon. Member's speech. From the information I gave to the House yesterday, it is perfectly clear that the Committee admitted that at a certain date they became aware of a certain fact, and they proceeded to hold an inquiry. I fully acknowledge the reference the hon. Member made to myself in relation to that inquiry, and I can only tell the House that I and others who were associated with me, on 27th and 28th October, when that inquiry was held, desired to probe the whole thing to the bottom, and, having probed it, made a report and passed resolutions which I will read in a few moments to the House. I think the House will be perfectly satisfied that the honour both of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Colonel Bowden) and myself, and those distinguished gentlemen who are members of the committee, will be amply vindicated in the proceedings which we took. I will ask the House to keep in mind the dates which are of importance in determining whether the proper course and the prudent course was followed. I yesterday sketched the constitution of this committee and sub-committee. I pointed out that we had received the War Office circular of the 29th September directing all communications to be made not to the War Office, but to the Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Eastern District, General Woollcombe. It was General Woollcombe who, on the 12th September, inspected the battalion in St. James's Park, immediately before it went into its camp.

Although I am not concerned to-day to minimise the conduct of the two men whom the committee found to have received this money, nor the contractor by whom the money was paid, I do say that Mr. Devereux, before that unhappy event, had rendered signal service to this battalion—I do not say it was not for what he might ultimately get out of it—but those who are acquainted, as I am not, with the details of the management of the battalion since it has been in camp, will, I think, bear testimony that, at any rate, Devereux was responsible for considerable additions to its comforts. I feel sure that the fact is that Devereux had sent in his resignation—I think I am right in saying both Devereux and Watson, but certainly Devereux, had tendered his resignation on 4th October, and on the 6th October the committee had the matter brought to their attention. I was not present myself. General Sir Bindon Blood was in the chair, and the other members present were: Colonel Harland Bowden, Major Cosmo A. Little, Lord Calthorpe, Major-General C. W. Robinson, Mr. J. A. McCandlish—who, I think, is the hon. Member's informant—Captain Parsons—

I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will not assume that. I do know Mr. McCandlish.

Perhaps the hon. Member will give the name of his informant. However, we will psss that. Mr. Watson and Mr. Devereux were also present. A question arose at that meeting as to the propriety of Mr. Devereux holding the messing contract of the battalion. The only connection the committee had with the messing contract was to provide in advance for the men when they arrived in camp on the 20th, and the liability to pay for the provisions supplied to that battalion, so far as the general committee was concerned, was limited to a period of one week, from the 10th to 17th September, so as to cover the date when they would get into camp. From 17th September the messing contract was purely one between the War Office, through the commanding officer, and the contractor. No money passed through the general committee's fund, which had been kept in such order that, if the hon. Member chooses to examine the vouchers and pass book, he will realise at once that every payment made through the committee has been a regular payment and proper.

The hon. and learned Member must not take it that I made any observation about that. So far as I know, what he is saying is the case. That is not the point I was making. It may be true that the messing contract was at that date in the hands of Mr. Devereux. My point was that if the hon. and learned Member knew that about Devereux, did the War Office know when they were continuing his contract?

That I shall show in the course of a few minutes, but the minute relating to the 6th October states that the question of the propriety of Mr. Devereux holding the messing contract of the battalion while a member of the committee was raised, but, on it being explained that Mr. Devereux was receiving no profit from the contract, the committee unanimously approved of the arrangement. The members whose names I gave you just now were present at that meeting when that minute was signed. Mr. Watson and Mr. Devereux tendered their resignations from the committee, but Mr. Devereux was requested to continue to act as honorary secretary until somebody could be found to replace him. I am informed that the resignations were sent in on the 4th October. The first committee meeting after that date was on the 6th, and at that meeting the resignations were accepted. It was on the 22nd October, which was the day on which the notice convening the meeting to inquire into these alleged irregularities was passed, on a communication sent by a member of the committee, whose name I mentioned a few minutes ago, that Major-General Herbert took over the temporary duties of secretary in order that we might deal with the whole matter in the inquiry. The hon. Gentleman wants me to answer certain questions. One of them was what power had we to bring about the attendance of Messrs. Watson and Devereux at the inquiry. We had no power, but we made a request, and both of them attended. We made a similar request to the contractor, and he also attended and produced his documents. It has been said that what we did on that day ought to have prevented the War Office from having any further dealings with these men. I will not take up the time of the House by reading more than I am obliged to, but as I stated last night, the committee had to decide a question in which there was a conflict of statements between these men. On the one hand, the contractor alleged that he had been compelled to grant a share of his profits, amounting to £285, to these men. The prices had been settled by tender, and there is no member of the committee, past or present, who will allege that in regard to the quality of the goods supplied the battalion has in any way suffered. The goods were carefully examined by experts, and they were in the main right, although there was a few trifling rejections.

Did you take the tenders for the huts?

No, we had nothing to do with the hutting which was done with the War Office. These goods were delivered and the full value has been received by the battalion. The mischief was that these men went to the contractors after the placing of the order, and then induced him by some means—he said by saying they would make it awkward for him to get payment of the money—to concede them a share of the profits amounting to £285. Messrs. Devereux and Watson's story is nothing of the sort. They say that they received the money under a limited partnership which was contained in a letter of the 17th September. I am sorry that last night I misstated the division of the profit. The letter suggested three-fourths to the contractor and one-fourth to these two men. It was alleged that it was stated in this letter that any sum the contractor might advance to the men was to be regarded as an advance under profits made under this contract. That is the issue we had to determine, and looking at the two statements and the documents as I would look at them in my own profession, the conclusion was irresistible that the money was paid in accordance with this statement of the contractor, and not in accordance with the letter of the 17th September, the existence of which the contractor denies, and there is no satisfactory evidence to show that the letter was ever posted. Under these circumstances the committee reported as follows:—

"The committee are of opinion that in considering the conflict of evidence between the parties they must have recourse to the documents, and so fat as they are admitted, it appears to them that they support the statements made by Mr. Hand. They cannot but express a strong opinion that Mr. Hand ought not to have made any of the payments without acquainting the committee of the circumstances, or, at any rate, of bringing the facts to the notice of Lord Calthorpe, who was the chairman of the executive sub-committee, who had the arrangements in hand for the clothing of the battalion. In the opinion of the committee, the matter, while not involving any loss of public money or operating to the immediate detriment of the battalion, is indefensible and ought not to have taken place. It was of a character which was and is calculated to give rise to criticism which cannot fail to injure the work of the committee, which has been undertaken purely upon patriotic grounds."

Very proper.

That was the conclusion which the committee arrived at. This report was adopted upon the motion of General Sir Bindon Blood, seconded by Colonel Lumsden. Upon the proposal of Major Cosmo A. Little, seconded by Major-General Abadie, it was resolved—

"That the committee, upon the facts admitted by Messrs. Devereux and Watson, consider it obligatory upon them to show their strong disapprobation of the transaction by requesting Mr. Devereux to retire from the temporary secretary-ship, and, further, that all connection with Messrs. Devereux and Watson and the British Empire Agency, Limited, should be forthwith severed; and that in future the meetings of the committee be held and its business conducted at some address otherwise than at 3, St. James's Street."

On the proposal of General Abadie, seconded by Colonel Lumsden, it was resolved:—

"That Sir Bindon Blood be requested to personally interview the authorities at the War Office (or the Horse Guards) and explain the circumstances of the case, and the course which the committee have been obliged to take in order to preserve the position of the committee and the battalion in relation to the authorities. That he be also requested to place before them the question of the existing contracts."

On the 30th October, immediately after the passing of that resolution, Sir Bindon Blood did call, together with the commanding officer, upon the admittedly proper officer, General Woollcombe, and he explained the whole of the circumstances. I am not sure that he did not read a copy of the whole of the Report which I have quoted—at any rate, he read a summary of the evidence of the Report. General Woollcombe had that in his possession on the 30th October. I am told that at that time the question was discussed how far the messing should be continued in the hands of Mr. Devereux. The general inquired how the men were being fed, and satisfied himself by visits to the camp that the men were having good value for the money. The contract was for 1s. 11d. per head, and this was afterwards reduced to 1s. 9d. I am bound to say, in fairness to everybody, that Mr. Devereux, on the completion of the contract, which was in formal War Office form, wrote a letter to Colonel Bowden, in which he said:—

"You are fully aware of the part I have taken in the raising and equipping of this battalion and of the increased interest I have in the progress and welfare of the men, who have so readily and quickly subjected themselves to discipline and willingness to become efficient soldiers. I am pleased to send you copies of letters I have from wholesale suppliers of provisions and meat, friends of mine, from which you will gather that I am in a unique position to buy at the lowest possible price the best articles. I wish to give the battalion the benefit of the position I am in the market and would ask you to permit me to hand over to the battalion for the men's extra comfort and for their general welfare 85 per cent. of my profits, if any. I estimate that 15 per cent. will repay my working expenses, and I repeat I am delighted for above reasons to give the benefit of my position for use of the men under your command and for their future welfare. The best of luck and good wishes to all in your charge, and may the Empire Battalion succeed and prosper."

The colonel commanding acknowledged that letter and thanked him for his generosity, and the result was that one penny per head per man was put into the regimental funds, which produced a sum of £400, which has been of inestimable advantage, and has enabled the regiment to get what the War Office would not allow them to have. It is only fair to remind the House that at the end of October the hutting contract was only partly completed, the materials were not on the ground, the weather was wet and the men were under canvas and suffering great inconvenience, and after a full consideration of the whole of the circumstances General Woollcombe came to the conclusion that the proper thing to do was to allow the contract to go on. It is only fair to say that the Chief Engineer of the Eastern Command, after paying a visit to this camp, found that the huts were satisfactory, and stated that they were, in his opinion, superior to any he had seen. It is a matter between the War Office and the contractor whether or not the War Office thought under the circumstances that General Woollcombe should have disregarded the convenience of the battalion by the cancelling of this contract, necessitating going to arbitration, and interminable delay with regard to the new contract. This is a matter upon which I think General Woollcombe exercised common sense in allowing the contract to continue. That is the only point that can be made by the hon. Member.

6.0 P.M.

It is said that the War Office, having had notice of these facts, ought to have had no further transaction with Devereux or Watson. That is for the War Office and not for the committee to decide. We have nothing to do with it, and the bulk of us knew nothing about it. I think I may say, with every justification, that the War Office have indicated their obligation for past services by asking them to raise two Field and one Heavy Artillery brigades, and that would not be entrusted to the committee if the War Office entertained a shadow of doubt as to the propriety of their conduct in regard to the Infantry regiment. I am anxious to keep within certain limits, but I must complain about the method in which these questions have been put, and the circumstances under which they came to be put. The hon. Gentleman opposite has not called attention to the publication of paragraphs in the "Globe," spiteful little paragraphs, for which they could have taken proceedings. Any member of the public, or the "Globe," in the exercise of that beneficent duty which it wants to discharge towards the British public, could have had the documents, and could have called upon the Empire Committee to produce the original documents and put the law in motion. I have always expressed my obligations to the "Globe" in the past for many years, but I am not quite sure that the "Globe" is not in search of a policy like Japhet in search of a father, and is bestowing its filial affections on the affairs of the Empire Battalion. There is nothing like getting something to run. I know that the "Globe" has not put these papers before the Public Prosecutor, and the reason they have not done so is that they wanted the committee to play the cat to their monkey, and pull the chestnuts out of the fire for them. On the 26th January in the present year the "Globe," acting through its editor, wrote to the secretary of the committee as follows:—

"When last you called upon me, at the request of General Sir Bindon Blood, to discuss the question of the Empire Committee's action in connection with certain alleged irregularities they had investigated, I made a suggestion to you which you promised to consider. I have not yet had an answer, and, if the committee is still to meet, may I ask you to formally put it before them. I told you that a certain clothing trade society was desirous of instituting a prosecution for the alleged payment of illicit commission and were anxious to be supplied with the names of the parties concerned. I suggested to you that, if the committee still hesitated themselves to take the course I venture to think they should have taken three months ago, a way out of the difficulty might be found and the ends of justice served by placing the names and facts before this society. You asked time to consider the suggestion. Perhaps the committee have already had it placed before them, in which case would you be good enough to let me know what they decided?"

The following day this answer was sent to the editor of the "Globe":—

"The committee have had before them your letter of the 26th instant, which has received their careful consideration. Their one object is the interests of the battalion, and they are satisfied that nothing has taken place which has caused any pecuniary injury to the committee or battalion, nor has the public been prejudiced. I am to inform you that the committee do not consider that they are justified in acceding to the request you make; but if, unfortunately, litigation of any character should result (and in the interests of the battalion the committee will much regret it), whatever documents the committee have in their possession, or any evidence which would be material which members may be able to give will, under subpœna, be forthcoming at the proper time. The proper military authorities were made acquainted with the whole of the facts immediately after they were ascertained."

In reply the committee received a letter which was a distinct threat as to the course the "Globe" would take. They indicated that there were three courses open to them. They might publish the correspondence. Curiously enough they had incorporated in the correspondence the terms of a confidential interview, so that is the reason, I think, why, when it was called to their attention, they abstained from that course. Secondly, they might place the facts before the Trade Protection Society. And, thirdly, the matter might be raised in the House of Commons. The House will hardly believe that the editor of the "Globe" was furnished with a copy of the statements of the contractor, independently of the investigations made by the committee. The member of the committee whom I suspect has been responsible very largely for all the trouble which has come upon this battalion in relation to this matter had, himself, originally taken the statement of the contractor. It was he who brought it to the notice of the committee, and it was he again, we find, who was in communication with the editor of the "Globe." The result of all this is that they have from time to time introduced very mischievous paragraphs in their paper. One has only to look at to-day's issue to see in a little leader, written in satirical terms, that they "await the explanation" which may be offered to the House of Commons. They have now got it. I have never attempted to justify the taking of that commission, but if ever a circumstance of that sort was misused to abuse other people and to cover other people who have done their best in the public interest with scorn, it is the case of this alleged illicit commission in the Empire Battalion.

The Member for East Edinburgh also suggested that the committee had been wrong in not at once putting an end to this contract. They took the only step possible. They put the whole of the facts before the competent authority, General Woollcombe, and, if he has not handed them on to the War Office, then I can only regret that the system of public business is such that there is no communication, not only between Department and Department, but even between a General Officer Commanding and the War Office. They had the facts on 30th October. They had this typewritten précis which I hold in my hand, containing a careful history of the whole of the dealings of the committee. The resolutions passed by the committee, the whole of the correspondence, and the contract relating to the messing were lodged with General Woollcombe on 9th February, and I regret that the system should be such as to enable the Under-Secretary of State for War to say, as he has said again and again during the early part of this month, that he had not received a report on the matter. I commend the inquisitiveness of the hon. Member, because I think he has probably mistaken his vocation. He would have done very much better where cross-examination always brings an advocate to the front. Under these circumstances, I regret that the system did not enable this communication when male to General Woollcombe to be promptly sent to the War Office, so that they might have been able to answer in such a manner the first of these inquiries as to allay at once the suggestions made against a number of honourable and gallant gentlemen who are trying to do their duty by the State.

I trust that hon. Members will grant me the customary indulgence on such occasions, because in attempting to answer as fully as I possibly can the statements made by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, I want also to make a protest of which I wish the right hon. Gentleman to do me the honour to take notice. My protest is in regard to these questions, and the manner in which they have been brought up in relation to the Service. I do not blame the hon. Member. No doubt he thought that he had sufficient facts absolutely to justify his questions, and therefore his asking those questions was perfectly justifiable, but I do think that he did not take sufficient trouble to compare the characters and histories of the men from whom he was getting his information and on which he based his questions, with the characters and histories of the men who were doing the constructive work. There is such a difference between construction and destruction at such a time.

It is so easy to stand in the background and criticise men hard at work night and day. It is the easiest possible thing. I say this, and I say it to the right hon. Gentleman: One does not know what harm these questions are going to do. Now we are talking about it and letting the men of the battalion know the truth, but until they know the truth, what is the relation between the men in the ranks and the officers? It is bad for the Service. It is very bad indeed for the officers, and it is worse for the men. It is injurious to the battalion. I do protest, and I think, if it can be shown that any such agitation has been worked up on a malicious foundation and that work has been delayed and efficiency impaired in consequence, the right hon. Gentleman should give some expression of opinion that at such a time of national crisis these people are deserving of punishment and should have it.

I submit to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh that if anybody really interested desired to ask a question or two, or had a doubt in his mind—this was a time when the committee and all concerned deserved assistance and not to be hampered—he had only to go to that committee, a body of gentlemen doing a great patriotic work, and they were able and would have been willing to answer any honest inquiries. Surely the fact that on that committee were distinguished soldiers like General Sir Bindon Blood, Major-General Herbert and Colonel Lumsden daily doing their work would have assured anybody desirous of making fair inquiries that he would find, as he certainly would have found, that the very best was being done in the interests of the men and the Army to which they belonged. There is no doubt about it. I shall never forget that first month or six weeks. We were formed in a week. The first recruit was enlisted on the Monday morning, and we marched a thousand strong on the Saturday.

My battalion has sent out 300 men for commissions, and I can raise another battalion at once. The men want to come to us. At a time when we were working at that pressure, night and day, on construction, on finance, and on organisation, our work was made doubly hard by a system of organised revengeful agitation, founded on a little fact which gave a little ground for it, by people who stuck to it with a tenacity worthy of a better purpose. They hampered the committee, they hampered me, they worried the battalion, their action affected discipline, and they made it every day a part of my duty the writing of reports and the answering of reports, to the detriment of the battalion and to the delay of national work. That is my plea for saying that these people, if it is proved malicious, should be punished.

I will endeavour to answer the points mentioned by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh to the best of my ability. He referred, somewhat humorously, to the committee going to the anti-Socialists' premises. It will probably interest him to know that when we had to find premises suddenly it was through Mr. McCandlish, his friend, we went there. His friend Mr. Parsons also works there. It was Mr. McCandlish who introduced us there, and we are delighted to be there, because we have in our new secretary, Mr. Urwin, an organiser who is working night and day in our interests and doing the very best work possible.

I have no objection to the committee being in the office of the anti-Socialist Union. My point was this: Why did the committee remove from 3, St. James's Street? They removed because they did not want to be associated any longer with Devereux and Watson.

I have no objection to your humour either. You made a humorous suggestion why we went there, a reference which I certainly grant was humorous, and which in the serious Debate which was going on I enjoyed. I have endeavoured to return it in the same strain. I am sorry if I have failed. The only thing in the hon. Member's remarks to which I object was the calling in of that unfortunate individual and mentioning his name—Lieutenant and Quartermaster Willard. If the hon. Member is a friend of that man, he has done him the most unkind action he could possibly do him. I will tell the hon. Member and the House at once that in Lieutenant and Quartermaster Willard, up to a point and up to a period of time, I do not think any commanding officer could possibly have had a better quartermaster, but I am compelled, in my own defence, to say that I had to have that officer put under close arrest for a serious breach of discipline. The whole matter was fully inquired into, and he was dismissed the Service. I am sorry to say that, on inquiry, I find that it is the second occasion it has occurred. He is one of those from whom the hon. Member has got his information.

I do not even know the man. I am not making any comment upon the reason the hon. Member brought him before the inquiry, but Lieutenant and Quartermaster Willard alleged that he had been attempted to be bribed by Devereux.

That was the point. I am sorry the hon. Gentleman mentioned the man's name. It was one of the points I had against him—that he reported the suggestion to my own personal secretary, and not through the battalion. I heard it outside, and I had to send for him and ask why he did not report to me. He replied that he was pressed for time, and further that he could not prove the statement. I have inquired in an unofficial way, to the best of my ability, and it appears to me that it was a counter-charge, and he had asked for it. What could we do under the circumstances? Later I heard of written documents flying about my battalion among the men, and presumed to be official documents sent to me in regard to that incident. It was one of the matters which was brought forward when he committed an act I could not possibly excuse. If I had excused it I would not have been worthy to hold my command, and I had to have him promptly arrested.

I come next to the question of the catering for the battalion. Mr. Devereux, on the whole, did what he had to do in this connection very well indeed. With regard to the man being an hon. member of the mess, while I do not object to the way in which the hon. Member for East Edinburgh mentioned this point, I am sorry he thought it necessary to bring it in. I would ask him to remember how this committee, with its secretary, was looked at from the battalion point of view. It was deemed to be a step between the War Office and ourselves. This man was its secretary. He was the first member of the mess. Hang it, he got the mess ready for us! What could we possibly do? This incident cropped up weeks afterwards, and till it was proved and acted on nobody could take any step. As secretary of the committee the man naturally carried some weight. We looked to him a good deal. He had much to do with it in the early stages. He provided our food for us the first time we went down. He got into touch with the contractors, and therefore when the time came when we had to arrange our own contracting, what could be more reasonable than that we should go to the man who had the whole matter in train? The higher military authority decided that it was best, in the interests of the men, that the feeding should go on as before. Our General Officer came down three times and personally went through the kitchen, saw the men feeding, and questioned them as to whether they had any complaints. Since the first fortnight in camp—I should think even since the first week—when we were under temporary conditions, and had temporary cooking houses, and when the men were being trained to do the carving, we have not had one single complaint as to the way in which the battalion is fed.

I have two samples of the menu here, and if it were not that I might make the mouths of hon. Members water, I would bring more here. From the first the feeding has been extraordinarily good, and I have heard the boast that the battalion is the best fed battalion in the English Army. Here are samples of the menu at the end of January. For breakfast—porridge, bread and butter, and coffee; for dinner—curry stew, roast beef, boiled meat, cabbage, potatoes, and jam roll. For tea—tea, bread and butter, and cake; and for supper, a most unusual thing, soup, sausages and potatoes, and cheese. There was nothing wrong about the feeding. There was nothing to complain of either as to quality or as to quantity. More than that, during the time Mr. Devereux was acting as temporary secretary to the committee, and doing the catering, he voluntarily and patriotically gave up 85 per cent. of his profits, and I can assure the House, as the commanding officer of a newly raised unit, that I was very grateful to receive it on behalf of the men.

I hope the hon. Member for East Edinburgh will not think I am applying this charge to him, but I wish to point out that this fact has been made the foundation for a most foul suggestion of the worst kind. The money has been used, every penny of it, for the men in providing extra comforts, in purchasing sporting and training appliances, and providing extra comforts for the sick and needy, and money has even been sent away to help some poor soldier's wife left at home with sick children, on one occasion when the man was absent without leave, because of his anxiety for his wife, and because he failed to realise, not having been a soldier before, what military discipline really meant. The account of the expenditure of the money has been most scrupulously kept. It is not involved. It is kept apart from every other regimental account. It has been the subject of one regimental audit, and another audit is due in a fortnight's time. Yet when this matter has been discussed, an innuendo has been thrown out that the officers were involved in this money. It is a scandalous thing to allege.

I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not suggest that I made that innuendo?

I do not. I come next to the question of the huts. Nobody who lived on that hill from the end of October, through the wet months of November and December, would have dared to suggest the taking of any steps whatsoever that might, even apparently, cause delay in putting in a single plank or brick. The weather had been of the very worst kind. The huts were put up as rapidly as possible, bearing in mind that there was a scarcity of civilian labour, and that carpenters especially were hard to get. I am an engineer myself, and I know what construction is. I went in for road building. The camp is now practically complete. I may be biassed, but I should very much like to show the camp to hon. Members. I am very proud of it. These huts had to be provided. They were part of the War Office specification. One half of the camp has been passed by Major Redway, who has complimented us on it, and given his certificate for that portion of it. As to the other half, there is only one buliding to be finished, and it will be completed in five days' time. All the rest of the buildings are occupied.

Then with regard to the expense. I want to nail a statement on that point down at once. The right hon. Gentleman will find when he comes to look into the question of hutting—and I hope he will see that the information is conveyed to the House—that, so far from the estimates having been exceeded, we are one of the very few battalions which have been able to carry out this kind of work for the amount authorised by the War Office. There is one item of £300 for unforeseen contingencies, cutting down trees, clearing hedges, and levelling up sites, which could not possibly go into the War Office quantities, but, with that exception, the work has been completed for the authorised amount. I am sorry I should have had to delay the House so long, but I did feel that the honour of the regiment and of myself, as commanding officer, was at stake, and therefore I was bound to take part in the Debate.

I am sure the House listened with much interest to the vivid and picturesque speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I will, if I may, congratulate him on it, and I may add it is not surprising that he should have used some warmth of language in repudiating charges which he considers have been made against the honour of his colleagues on this committee. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) say that they had not been made by him. The House is aware that this matter is now in a position which renders it impossible for me to make anything like a full statement. But I wish to say a word or two because I do not desire that anything in the nature of charges should lie against either hon. Gentlemen in this House or gallant gentlemen outside, when those charges cannot possibly properly so lie. I should like to state categorically that the charge brought by Lieutenant and Quartermaster Willard did not and never has involved any suggestion of corruption or personal misconduct against any existing member of the committee. The charges were made in September last, and the then secretary of the committee and the other member concerned have ceased to hold their positions in connection with it. There is a controversy between my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh and the two hon. Gentlemen opposite who have spoken as to the actual date. The statement is, I believe, that these gentlemen resigned their position on the committee on 6th October last, but I am unable to vouch for the date.

I rather deprecate discussion on this matter at the present moment, because the whole question will have to be gone into by the committee which I have promised the House and my hon. Friend to appoint. The inquiry will be of a very searching kind. It may take the form of a military court of inquiry with a legal assessor, but probably the House will be content to leave it to the War Office to decide on the form of the inquiry. My hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh asked several questions, and I may be able to reply to some of them. With regard to the contract undertaken by Mr. Devereux, of the execution of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite spoke in terms of such enthusiasm, I think the House will agree with me that it is usually considered irregular, and it certainly is undesirable for any member of a committee to obtain a contract from that committee. My hon. Friend asked me whether Mr. Devereux was still one of the contractors on the War Office list. I should like to disillusion his mind on that point. He is not.

You have taken him off.

He was never on.

If he was never on, how did he get that contract from the War Office?

The information that reaches me was that a company called the Construction and Contract Company, which, I believe, is one of Mr. Devereux's companies, applied to be put on the War Office list, first for huts and then for palliasses. They were not put on the War Office list for huts owing to their uncertain position and standing; and as to palliasses, bedding, etc., they were informed in December that their application must be declined. That was not upon the same ground, although I dare say the same ground would apply as well, but upon the ground that we did not require any more, as our requirements had been met. My hon. Friend went on to ask whether Mr. Devereux was made an hon. member of the mess before the inquiry. I am uncertain as to that. The hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Bowden) said he was, but I think it was after the inquiry. Again, my hon. Friend asked why did the committee not prosecute Mr. Devereux? This matter will be before a court of inquiry; it may be considered as being sub judice, and it would be premature and undesirable for me to make any statement here on that question. As to the price of huts, I would say that we, at the War Office, have no control of the prices under contracts entered into between raisers of battalions and the contractors whom they employ. That is the business of the raisers. In this case I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Bowden), and the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Neild) were both mistaken when they said that the messing contract was made by the War Office and not by the committee.

I said it was for the first ten days only, between the 10th and 17th September, but that the contract that is dated the 17th September, a copy of which I had in my hand at the time, was made between the officer commanding—it had nothing to do with the committee—and the contractors.

That is a different thing from making it with the War Office.

It was made through the Paymaster of the Eastern Command at Hounslow, where the payments are made. After a given time it is all put down through the paymaster, and, of course, the War Office is the head of it. It is a regimental matter purely.

I think we all understand how it was made. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says quite truly that it is a regimental matter. Because it is a regimental matter in connection with a regiment not taken over by the War Office, but under the management of the raising committee, it becomes perfectly clear that, however much you may desire to bring in the War Office, it is very difficult to bring the War Office into this contract. I do not believe that either of the gentlemen mentioned by my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) are in the Army List. There is an Ernest Devereux in the Army List. As to the name of Watson, there are a good many Watsons in it, and I do not know whether this is one of them. I am not able to give an absolute answer upon that point. That answers all the questions he put, except the last, which was: Has Mr. Hand recovered the commission paid to Devereux and Watson since the date of the inquiry? From the documents we have in our possession, I believe that is not so, but, as the matter is so doubtful, I consider it much better that the matter should be left to the searching inquiry which I have promised, and that I should say nothing which would at all prejudice the case either for or against. Before leaving the matter I should like to say how greatly we should regret it if any of the actions which have occurred, or any of the charges made, should impair the efficiency of the battalion which is under the command of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Bowden), and how much I hope that may not be the result, because we feel that the men who have joined this battalion are most patriotically serving in the best possible manner and are deserving of all praise. We should regret nothing more in the world than that any action taken by us or any Member of the House should do anything to impair their efficiency or discourage them in their patriotic action. I would like to say the same thing about Sir Bindon Blood and the other gentlemen who have done so much work on the committee.

May I ask a question to clear up doubt about one point? Are we to understand that, instead of a Departmental Inquiry, the matter will be the subject of a Military Court of Inquiry, with legal assistance?

My hon. Friend is very anxious to pin me down to a definite form of inquiry. I say it is quite within the competence of the War Office to order such an inquiry. I think very likely that may be the course we shall adopt, but I ask my hon. Friend and the House to have confidence in us and to believe that we shall not burke an inquiry, but that we shall have an inquiry which will be the most suitable and the most certain to bring out all the facts and satisfy the feeling of disquietude which may be, and probably is, in the public mind as to the transactions that have taken place. I do not wish it to be said that I definitely stated that there would be a Military Court of Inquiry. It may be so, but, if it is not so, there will be some other Court which will be equally efficacious. If I may, I would return to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Long) and the speeches upon various matters connected with War Office policy which have been made. The right hon. Gentleman prefaced his speech by informing the House, and me in particular, that not only he but all his Friends have been most desirous of helping the Government in everything they have done. I am very grateful to them and to him, as I have said before in this House, for the help they have accorded to us. He went on to say that the Government had not treated him and his Friends with that amount of consideration which he expected and they deserved. I was amazed to hear that. It is desirable that we should remember that he has stated he was anxious to help us, because we may be in danger of forgetting it. Therefore, I would ask hon. Members always to bear that fact in mind. He painted all of us, including my Noble Friend the Secretary of State, in somewhat gloomy colours. He talked about the incompetence of the War Office and said we were, generally, hardly fit to remain outside Bedlam.

I did not say anything of the kind. Let us be quite clear. I never suggested that the right hon. Gentleman or Lord Kitchener ought to be in Bedlam. What I said was that certain arrangements had been made and obviously by people who had charge of that particular duty. I did not suggest it was either the Noble Lord or the right hon. Gentleman. That is a gross travesty of my statement.

I am within the recollection of the House. I do not wish to enlarge further upon that. I only suggest this to the right hon. Gentleman. It is not very desirable at the juncture in which we find ourselves that the kind of aspersions which have been cast by him upon the War Office methods and policy should be made, because there is nothing less likely to encourage us, the Army, or the good administrators who are responsible for the Army, than the kind of language he has used, which is much more likely to encourage the enemy.

Nonsense!

It is not nonsense.

I rise to a point of Order. This is a charge which should not be made by a Member of the Government in circumstances under which he knows that no answer can be made to him. I am entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman to state here and now upon what grounds he charges me with making a statement which would encourage the enemy.

I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what I mean. He said, for instance, that we were gravely and unduly remiss in our action. He said that we were breaking the heart of our soldiers in the trenches and in the field.

Hear, hear.

He said we were taking the heart out of them.

Hear, hear. In certain specified cases.

He charged us with breaking the hearts of wounded men who came back from the front. He said our recruiting officers were perfectly absurd. I do not wish to be unduly controversial, but I really must remind the right hon. Gentleman that he hit very hard at the War Office, and he cannot expect us to take it lying down. I do not think he ought to get up on points of Order, and say that I am taking an undue advantage because I knew he would not have a chance to answer me. We work very hard at the War Office. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that. I do not think he will deny it.

Deny what?

That we work very hard at the War Office.

If the right hon. Gentleman wants a certificate of good character from me, I have given it often and often in this House. I said to-day that the War Office works extremely hard. If that gives any satisfaction to the right hon. Gentleman, I will repeat it.

I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps I may be allowed, after having said so much to endeavour to answer the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman. He asked us to provide a co-ordinating authority as between the various Departments of State, and he gave as an illustration a certain defect as between the Local Government Board and the War Office. I can only refer him to the fact, which is very well known to him, of Cabinet responsibility and the co-ordinating authority of the Cabinet. That is the only way I conceive it would be possible to deal with cases of that kind. I feel quite confident that if he will bring to the notice of the President of the Local Government Board the case he has in mind my right hon. Friend will endeavour to put the matter right. The right hon. Gentleman asked me, as representing the War Office, if I could not give the numbers we should require for the War; whether I could not give the numbers of the enemy. The numbers we have asked Parliament to vote must be considered a good index of the numbers we think we shall require for the War. Further, I have given, in answer to a question, the numbers of the Germans, as far as we knew them. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has seen those figures, but they have been given and published. It is desirable not to rely on any figure which we can get of that kind, because the enemy is constantly taking large numbers of divisions and Army corps from one front to the other. It is their business, and they do it with great skill, to try and confuse us and the Allies as much as they possibly can. Therefore, as I say, no figure that one could give would be a figure upon which you could rely.

To come to the case of recruiting officers, recruiting officers of the Regular Army are retired officers who have volunteered their services. They are, I should say, in 90 per cent. of the cases, men who are not fit to fight from age or infirmity of one kind or another. I am so informed since the right hon. Gentleman spoke. Not being on the active list we have of course no control over them. If they should by any accident happen to be within the age limit of men fit to serve and of physical capacity to serve, it would be within their competence to volunteer for service; but not being on the active list we have no control over them. Territorial recruiting officers are officers in charge of depots, and the depots are in the hands of the Territorial Force Association. I believe they, as a rule, also are men who have served a considerable time and are not of the right age to serve at the front. I should like also to inform the House that instead of having half a crown and one shilling, I think the right hon. Gentleman said, as a contrast between the Territorial and the Regular recruiting, I do not know when it was changed, but the figure is one shilling per head for both. We have called for a return of all the recruiting officers in the Regular Army, and I think the Territorial Force too, to see whether there should be among them any larger proportion than the 10 per cent. When the return arrives I will communicate with the right hon. Gentleman.

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why we have two recruiting offices?

The fact that we have two recruiting offices, one on one side of the road and one on the other, happens to be fortuitous. In time of peace the Territorial Force Association does the whole of the recruiting both for the Regular Army and the Territorials, but now the Regulars are doing their own recruiting, and they happened to want an office, and it happens to be just opposite one belonging to the Territorial Association. It is not an inconceivable thing nor one quite so absurd as has been made out that they should be one opposite the other. I quite agree that the differentiation as between the half crown and nothing is an undesirable condition, and I am glad to say it has now been cancelled.

Does the right hon. Gentleman really say that the Territorial recruiting agencies recruit for the Regular Army?

Yes, in time of peace. I now come to the question of purchasing horses. The right hon. Gentleman considered that we were extraordinary foolish in our methods of purchasing horses because he considered we were sending out so many officers. I should like to disabuse his mind of that. The truth is, of course, that an enormous percentage of our recruiting officers are civilians—men of the type of masters of hounds, and of a man like Sir Alfred Pease, who was well known in this House and one of the best riders to hounds, I believe, in the North of England, with a great knowledge of horses. He took the place of Major Dixon, and allowed him to go to the front. With regard to purchases in the United States and Canada, General Sir F. Benson writes that "horses are to be bought at many different kinds of prices, even as low as 125 dollars" (£25). The average price paid by the commission is 175 dollars (£35) for riding horses and 210 dollars (or £42) for draught and Artillery horses.

The commission of which Mr. Alec Parker, the well-known horse authority, is a member agree among themselves that a lower price would not secure the horses we require, that is, broken in and in good condition. They are satisfied that they are getting full value for their money. They are buying from the large firms, and there is no doubt that they could not get the proper type of horse at a lower rate in any other country. To represent that we are being swindled in America because we do not understand their methods is not, I think, a true description of what has occurred when I tell the House that we are only paying these comparatively small sums of £25 to £35 and £42 for draught and Artillery horses, which cost more in this country. I am informed further that, out of thirty-one buyers of horses in America, only nine are officers at all, and of those nine only two probably are fit for service, so that it is not correct to suppose that we are employing large numbers of officers who might be fit to fight for us in the purchase of horses. I now come to the question of the promotion of officers. I should like to be able to impress on the right hon. Gentleman that by conferring an immediate benefit on a certain number of juniors you do not necessarily create justice amongst the larger number. In fact you very likely create injustice to a large number.

How?

I have already given the right hon. Gentleman the illustration of the brigadier-general which he enlarged upon so much in his argument. A brigadier-general who was a lieuenant-colonel before he was appointed brigadier-general, immediately hostilities cease, if his place is filled up by a lieutenant-colonel with substantive rank, is reduced from £1,000 a year, which he gets as a fighting brigadier-general, to the pittance of half pay, which comes to 11s. a day—rather less than £200 a year. That being so, it cannot be to the advantage of the Service to produce a system by which you place a man, singled out for his ability to be a brigadier because he is really a fine soldier, in so happy a position after the War is over as that would be. I know I am wholly unable to convince the right hon. Gentleman, and if he has decided it in his own mind it does not seem really necessary to argue the point with him. I submit that that would be a very hard case. The question of granting temporary rank, with pay, to an officer who is a major and is promoted to be a lieutenant-colonel is one which I told him was engaging our attention. I am not able to give a definite announcement because I think he understands that it is impossible for the Department to make promises of that kind before the Government has given its decision upon the question.

I quite understand that, and I am the last person who would desire to ask for undue haste, but what I tried to impress upon the Government is that every day these men are risking their lives. A man who is doing the work of a colonel dies as a major, and his widow receives the pension of a major, although her husband has died doing the duty of a lieutenant-colonel. Every day's delay runs the risk of fresh injustices added to the large number of those which have already been incurred.

I quite understand that, and fully appreciate it; and I will expedite the matter as much as I possibly can. I will also admit, quite freely, that there have been a number of promotions of dead officers brought to the notice of the House by the right hon. Gentleman. That was due to the time which elapsed before we got authority to promote them in place of prisoners and missing. We have practically got up to date now. I wish to add my appreciation, equally with that of the right hon. Gentleman, of the services of regimental officers and the gallant and splendid actions which we know they have performed in the military operations. I am not aware of the reduction of pay of wounded officers at home alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman. Is it the case that wounded officers get half pay? I understand not, but I have not had time to investigate that.

After six weeks.

I was not aware of that, and it comes to me as a surprise. I will, at the same time, engage to investigate the case of the non-commissioned officer whom he desires to be restored to his original rank in the case which he had in mind. If he will furnish me with the name and particulars of the case I will see what can be done. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Yate) spoke on the question of insurance. I should like the House to realise what a very large stride we did make in that matter at the beginning of the War. It was really a most remarkable step taken in advance to be secured on the insurance companies. We got the whole of the New Army and the Territorial Force admitted without any extra premium at all, although in the old Army the old officers had a perfect opportunity, if they had only taken it, to pay the extra 10s. per cent. for the risks which their occupation naturally engendered. Of course, I very much regret that they did not do so; and no doubt they do too. The present situation, as I am constantly informed by members of the boards of various insurance companies, does not pay them. So far from paying they are losing money very largely. Anyone connected with insurance work will tell you that. I do not think it is possible for me to press them further with regard to the Regular Army. In fact, I cannot possibly do it. I have done my very best, but I think the insurance companies have behaved most generously, and I would not say anything which could at all be misconstrued as not recognising that and I really do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman should press me to go further into that matter.

The hon. Member (Mr. Goulding) asked me to say a word or two about the very hard case, as I quite agree with him, of the young men who at the outset of the War were patriotic enough to go into these Public School Corps because they properly thought they would get commissions and perhaps larger advantages by that method more rapidly than by any other. I sympathise very strongly with their case, but I ask my hon. Friend to put himself in the position of the commanding officers. I will tell him the history of this matter. It is all recorded in a number of War Office letters from which I will read one or two extracts. I should like him to realise that these public school battalions supply a very large number of officers. The particular brigade he alluded to supplied between 1,800 and 1,900 officers to the two Armies. That is a very large number. They came to the Secretary of State asking him to put an embargo on further officers from their ranks as they were gradually being so thinned that they feared that when they came to be considered as a unit they might prove insufficient or inefficient. On 1st February this letter was written to the General Officers Commanding-in-Chief of various commands, in which we said:—

"It is not in the public interest that any individual should serve in a capacity which affords no scope for his particular qualifications, nor is it advantageous that those in the ranks should feel that they have no outlet for their legitimate aspirations. For these reasons it is not proposed to place any real restriction on the appointment to commissions of candidates from these sources, although it is recognised that some limit must be placed on the number promoted from the ranks of any one un t, in order that its efficiency as a unit may not suffer."

7.0 P.M.

That is all very sound sense I am sure the hon. Member will agree. Then we went on to refer to the pressure on the commanding officers. The gentlemen who are raising this public school brigade wrote to the Secretary of State for War, asking that this might be done, and the Secretary of State replied:—

"As your ranks are becoming very thin, I think it is desirable that no more officers should go at present."

Therefore, when the hon. Gentleman said he wrote letters to two commanding officers, we were both correct in saying that no further officers should be allowed to proceed from the ranks of these battalions. Since then I have had a conversation with Lord Derby. I have asked him whether he would engage that these commanding officers should free a few more men from the ranks of their battalions, and I hope that will be done. I do not wish to encourage unduly the hopes of any hon. Gentleman that all or each of his candidates will be by that means recommended for promotion to the commissioned ranks, for I am sure hon. Members will realise how difficult it is to carry out their wishes. No doubt it will be a very difficult task for the commanding officers. No doubt there are many men who are well qualified for commissions, but if commanding officers were to give to each young man who is qualified the recommendation which he desires, undoubtedly his ranks would be unduly depleted. I would ask hon. Gentlemen to use such patience and indulgence as they can command in this matter, and I hope very much that a modus vivendi may be arrived at.

I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. Are we to understand that the veto against all recommendations is still to exist?

I think the hon. Gentleman should understand that that is withdrawn for the moment. I am only thinking of five battalions and one brigade of the Middlesex.

Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the circumstances of the others?

I will see what I can do. The hon. and gallant Member for Southport (Major White) also spoke about promotion, and especially in relation to the Special Reserve. I am unable to give him an answer at the moment on that subject. I am not really quite certain that I know what he was referring to. He said that there was a differentiation between the Regular Army and the Special Reserve.

The right hon. Gentleman knows better than I do what is the actual latest ruling of the War Office. There are men who are second lieutenants who are having junior Regular officers placed over their heads.

I cannot say as to that, but I will engage to look into it, and communicate with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He will understand that a great strain has been placed upon our troops during this most momentous struggle. There has been, as one result, a very great deal of physical and mental strain and stress. These men are most deserving of all the leave the hon. and gallant Gentleman asked. In a large number of cases they have been given a certain amount of leave, but not such long leave as the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested. I certainly feel with him that it is due to them, and I hope it may be possible, in connection with the arrangements which are being made for the New Army, to allow them the necessary amount of leave, so as to give them the chance for recuperation, which they so splendidly deserve.

I think the speech of the right hon. Gentleman is really most unsatisfactory as an answer to my right hon. Friend. He hardly answered any questions at all. He does not appear to be aware that there is a strong feeling in the Army on the subject of promotion. We talk of appreciation and consideration, but it is time that we began to act. These men are saving the country. They are laying down their lives by thousands, and so far as regimental officers go, the regimental major who takes command of his regiment may save the whole campaign. He may save thousands of lives, though he is not getting the pay and promotion to which he is entitled. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it is very hard on their wives. They do not get half pay or pension which otherwise they would get. It is the same with non-commissioned officers. We are at war, and if these men do the work, they should get the pay. Another point which the right hon. Gentleman never mentioned at all was that in regard to the National Reserve. In connection with that, the men have been swindled out of £5. By the mistake of a War Office official these men did not sign in the way required, and it is monstrous when they believed they would get the £5 that they do not get it. We have given the Government a dictatorship. They are autocrats. They passed a Bill yesterday which might be injurious to the interests of the country if it is not well managed. If we give the Government a dictatorship, it is very unfair not to bring forward in the House of Commons proposals to provide what is required for the men who are saving the country. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was not an answer to the points raised by my right hon. Friend.

I desire to direct the attention of the House to a mysterious document purporting to call itself a prospectus. It is one illustration of the case referred to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, when he complained that the House generally was not taken into very great consideration by the Government. This prospectus has not been distributed to Members. It is not available in the Vote Office. If we want information as to contracts which vitally affect a loan of £1,000,000 of the ratepayers' money immediately, and a further loan later on, we have to go into the City to a firm of solicitors. I decline to go into the City to any firm of solicitors to find out what are the intentions of the Government on a question of this magnitude. The House knows nothing of the whole proceeding, and I venture to say that this is a matter which requires the closest attention of the House. It is perhaps the first time in history when this has been done in this way. It may have been done at the time of the South Sea Bubble, but it has never been done since.

This is the first time of a great British Government forwarding a joint stock company, and with a modesty which does not always characterise them, they decline to state that they are the real parents of the scheme. I looked carefully through the document to see if there was any mention of the promoter's name, and to find out who selected the board, who selected the committee, and who has paid for the printing of this prospectus. There is no information on these points, and I venture to submit that the very cogent statements made in the "Times" were quite justified. What does that great organ say in its "City Notes" on Monday last? I may remind the Government that this is the only London newspaper which, so far as I am aware, was given an advertisement of this company, and I say that it is to the credit of the "Times" that their City editor was allowed to give an independent view, nothwithstanding the fact that in the adjoining pages there was a remunerative advertisement. What does it say about "The British Dyes Prospectus"? I ask the Government if they have any answer—I ask if they will really take any responsibility for this document or not. The "Times" says:—

"If the situation were different, and this issue were being made on the ordinary lines of a new commercial company, we should have to criticise the prospectus rather severely, for on the face of it the document is quite unsatisfactory, and has nearly all the faults that a prospectus can have. The necessary facts are not stated, and what is stated is misleading."

These are not the words of a Back Bencher. They are the words of a great organ of public opinion in this country—one that is specially favoured from time to time by receiving the confidences of the Front Bench. The "Times" further draws attention to the bargain with Read, Holliday and Sons. It complains that proper particulars are not given, and then goes on to use these words:—

"The only point which is really at all clear in the whole prospectus is that a very good bargain was made by Read, Holliday and Sons with the Secretary to the Board of Trade. It gives no proper ilea at all as to how the new company proposes to succeed apart from any State necessity that it should. We hope for national reasons that the money will be provided, but it is regrettable that the issue should have been made by a prospectus which sets so bad an example to company promoters."

I think that those are very important words. It is the Board of Trade which prescribes rules as to the balance-sheets and statements of companies. All these great insurance organisations have to make regular returns and submit to very searching questions. It is the Department of the Board of Trade, who I presume are going to father this scheme, who deal with the rules of limited companies, and one would have thought that they would know exactly what should be done in the case of a prospectus. They are quite aware, as a Government Department, of what the correct thing is when trying to get money from the public. We have looked forward, therefore, with a certain amount of keenness to the issue of this document in order to see the presentation of an ideal scheme, telling the subscribers exactly what the prospects of the scheme were. I also understand that it has had the assistance of some very distinguished lawyers in another place. I ventured, in a previous Debate, to think that the legal fraternity were in a considerable measure responsible for the scheme, but the President of the Board of Trade denied it. I have continued my inquiries, and my friends and foes of this scheme assure me that it has the support of distinguished lawyers connected with the Government. I do think that if those great lawyers and judges who occasionally have to sit in judgment upon company proceedings would just ask themselves the question how they would like to sum up and pass judgment upon a document of this description, perhaps they would realise their responsibility and take responsibility for this document and possibly for the whole of this jejune scheme. We are all familiar with the old lines,

"Take up this child and nurse it well,

For in this house its fathers dwell."

And the point of this will be presented to the Government again and again if they do accept responsibility for this scheme. The disappointed shareholders and the complaining employé will have the right to come to this House and arraign the Government in a way that has not appertained to any other joint-stock company. There are, I claim, three great omissions from this prospectus. The first is that it does not disclose the name of the promoter or say what his terms are. The second is that it does not give the balance-sheet of the large firm to be taken over; it gives a number of particulars of Read, Holliday's, from which one could gather that there is a certain amount of goodwill, which could be arrived at in some measure, and therefore you can make a certain kind of calculation. But there are no definite figures and there is no certification of profits and no auditor's statement. This is an exceedingly bad precedent. The rule is that when businesses are taken over the one thing on which you can rely is that the figures stated of the previous history of the firm are properly certified and audited and can be accepted. The intending investor of course asks himself whether that prosperity is likely to continue or not, but, as a rule, he does not question the career of the firm. I cannot understand this great Government Department being in any way associated with a document which omits so much.

The third omission is the absence of any mention of the manager. The question of the manager is ten times more important than that of the directors in a concern like this. There should be some information as to the management. Who is to run this business? I cannot think that the man's name is unknown. I cannot think that the scheme has gone so far and that there is not some man in view, especially if the matter is so urgent as the Government has stated. Why is not that gentleman's name put in? Where is the necessity for suppressing it? Some of the names put in inspire us with confidence. This is an instance of the slovenliness and in a sense the discourtesy to this House which have been shown. It is not conscious discourtesy, but is an instance of that discourtesy with which the Government seem lately to be getting into the habit of treating this House. This is such an instance of forgetfulness that they make no mention at all of such an important position as that of manager. I think that it is generally recognised throughout business circles in this country that the best service which boards of directors can render to their shareholders is to select the most capable manager obtainable and give him their support, knowing that the directors of a company cannot do anything which is at all commensurate in importance with the selection of a capable manager; and I regret very much to find that there is no indication on this paper as to who the gentleman is to be. The only little light thrown on the subject is that two gentlemen not connected with Read, Holliday's are to receive £10,000 each for the option of employing them, which is one of the most wonderful bargains ever made.

This prospectus, having mentioned the capital, goes on to say that the Government loan, which, if this issue is subscribed, will be a million pounds, will not be cumulative as regards interest and the interest is to be contingent upon the net profits, so that it is quite possible—and I should rather say that it is probable—that the taxpayer will get no return whatever for that million pounds except in some indirect way through the effect of the manufacture and distribution of dyes. We have got to risk it. There is another kind provision, that for twenty-five years there shall be no compulsory sinking fund. There are very many concerns which have a rigid sinking fund, but this is simply an invitation to slack finance. There are many concerns which would like to accept debentures without being compelled to pay interest or to put up a sinking fund for their repayment. Then we come to a delightfully poetic phrase. I venture to say that no playful company promoter in a wild flow of poetic imagination ever coined a phrase like this. After describing what may be done by the Government and so on, here is the last sentence in the principal paragraph:—

"It is thus seen that there may emerge in time, and if circumstances justify, a company whose resources might be £3,000,000 in subscribed capital."

I do not know whether these Caledonian lawyers were thinking of some Scottish cattle-lifters emerging from a Scottish mist and sweeping down on the Lowlands, but I believe that never has any company promoter invited subscriptions to a public issue on such a statement as that. You are not merely to put up your money on the merits of the scheme and the history of the firm which is partially disclosed, but this also is given as an attraction, as a lure to the public to subscribe towards this hybrid scheme. They say that

"there may emerge in time"—

I suppose it must emerge in time and space; I do not see where else it could emerge—

"a company whose resources might be £3,000,000."

It is a statement like that on which people are to invest their money at a time of national emergency when the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants it all for the manufacture of explosives. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. M. Robertson) is a great literary scholar, but I do not think that even he, with all his literary reading, which is almost encyclopædic, can quote from any previous prospectus a precedent for this. No doubt he can say from what particular classic this phrase is taken. What is a German submarine? It emerges from the mist and the waves showing only its periscope. That is not a prospectus. This is a commercial periscope, an indication of what may emerge in time. The next phrase is that—

"The users of dyes who are shareholders in the company will have priority in the available supplies of the company."

I presume that means that they are to have priority in the obtaining or the purchasing of the available supply. I do not see how they can have priority in the supplies themselves. It is an important point, because points like this, in reference to a prospectus, show carelessness. This document is a compromise, and persons of different views, in my opinion, have put it together. This particular portion is in the blackest ink. Probably the persons who drafted it know what it means, but it is simply an instance of how the prospectus has been drawn up.

Considering that the Government are fathering it, the prospectus ought to be an example in all respects to those who study it. Next we come to an intimation that the capital cannot be available for twelve months. There is to be 2s. 6d. payable on allotment, then the calls are not to be more than 5s. each, and no call shall be made for six months after allotment. That will bring the shares up to 10s. Then at intervals of not less than three months the subsequent 5s. calls may be made, so that it is only a year from now that the money at present being subscribed will be available to the company. That is a very excellent way of dealing with an evil which demands instant treatment, because the trade of the country and the occupation of the people are endangered. I will leave it to the Government to reconcile that point and pass on to one feature which is not merely an innovation, but a very dangerous innovation, in the history of joint stock enterprise. The Government, who are to subscribe this million pounds although they are promoters of the scheme, have decided that the money shall take the form of debentures. I do not think that any promoter of a scheme has ever had the audacity to put himself in that position. He generally takes an interest, if any, either in preference or ordinary shares. I have never known a case where the people responsible for the origin of a scheme decided that their interest should be confined to the debentures. Here they are to hold a mortgage or a monkey on this concern. But they make two conditions: one of them has practically no meaning—that this company shall remain British. As it was formed ostensibly to fight Germany and make dyes available in this country, presumably it will be a British company, but there is no security as to that.

If it is meant to be a protection against Germany buying it up after the War there is no protection whatever. If Germany came in to buy up the shares after a time of peace—suppose it was allowed by a complacent Government—to try to re-establish themselves in this country, and if they bought the shares, surely they would do it with the knowledge that their Government would back them, and their Government would find a million pounds to replace that of the British Government and they would get the company. It is therefore quite illusory to imagine that the condition made by the Government as a mortgagee is going to keep the company British. It must be British so long as their money is in. Do the Government contemplate actually taking a million of money out, and deserting the company, which would then cease to be British? Surely, if they are going to take the money out of the company, they should see that it is not to be left in the hands of aliens. According to a further clause, there are to be two Government directors, with power of veto. If only one of them should be there, he is to have power of veto over many things which his colleagues might do. I submit that the fitful intervention of two men, however clever they may be and however great their qualification, is not going the way to make a business prosper. Where is there a company which could work amicably under those conditions? Are those two men to sit there as Government spies? So far as I can see, that is their principal duty, as defined by this article. They are to see that the other men are not doing anything false to the principles on which the company is founded. I do not think that is necessary.