asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that Form F 1, respecting the Royal Fleet Reserve, immediate class, has given rise to misunderstanding, and that men who expected to receive 1s. for every day in the year in any event find that on being called up after general mobilisation they receive only 8d. a day; and whether he can state that the payments now being made to this class of men are those to which they are entitled and nothing less, and that the conditions of service in the immediate class were fully understood by the men on volunteering for transfer to this class of the Royal Fleet Reserve?

It is definitely stated on Form F 1 that when serving after general mobilisation men belonging to the immediate class of the Royal Fleet Reserve will draw a war retainer of 8d. a day. All such men are being paid retainers at that rate at the present time.

Has the right hon. Gentleman read the circular itself, and is it quite clear?

I have the actual circular here, and, if it is read with the qualification that follows, it shows that 8d. a day is paid after mobilisation.

If an earlier statement needed to be qualified by a later statement, is it quite clear to ordinary men?

It is quite clear if the whole be read together.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the present position of the children of men who lose their lives under circumstances which make their dependants eligible for assistance under the Injuries in War (Compensation) Act?

The awards in the event of death are as follows:—

• For a widow, one-third of the normal peace pay of her husband's rank at the date of death, or 10s. a week if greater.
• For a child, one-twenty-fourth of such pay, or 2s. 6d. a week if greater, subject to a limit of four children.
• For a motherless child, one-twelfth of such pay, or 5s. a week if greater, subject to a limit of what might have been awarded in respect of a widow with a similar number of children.
• For any other dependants, such sums as may, after investigation, be considered suitable, provided they do not in the aggregate exceed the amount of a widow's pension.

Then in the case of the dependants of a dockyard man who went down in the "Princess Irene," if there are more than four children in the family there is nothing for those in excess of four?

That is so.

Will the right hon. Gentleman see if something cannot be done to assist families where there are more than four children?

The mother and children get £1 a week, and under the Workmen's Compensation Act a man who is totally disabled cannot get more than £1 a week.

asked the First Lord of the Admiratly if he will state the increase in the price of coal supplied by the South Wales collieries for Admiralty purposes for the month of May as compared with the price paid in July, 1914?

As the prices paid under contracts for Welsh coal are, in accordance with the usual procedure, treated as confidential, I regret that I cannot give the information asked for by my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the method of traders and manufacturers getting themselves on the lists of his Department before being able to offer their wares to his Department has undergone any change since the outbreak of the War; and whether it is intended that the formation of these lists will be handed over to the new Munitions Minister?

Where applications are made by contractors for admission to the Admiralty list the normal procedure in times of peace is for the firms in question to be asked to give references. These references are inquired into and, if satisfactory, an Admiralty officer is sent to inspect the firms' works with a view to seeing whether they are competent to supply the articles for which they desire to tender. This procedure is still being followed in the case of ordinary stores and in cases where the quality required is such that inspection is a necessity. Where, however, in the present national emergency, it has been considered in the public interest to do so, we have dispensed with the usual preliminary inquiries, and in some cases we have issued invitations to firms who appeared likely to be able to assist us without waiting for them to apply to us. As regards the latter part of the question, it would in any case be our duty to keep the Minister of Munitions of War closely advised as to our operations, so that there may be complete co-ordination between the Departments purchasing munitions of war. But my hon. Friend must wait for the precise administrative powers and duties of the Minister in question in relation to the supply of munitions until the Order in Council prescribed in Clause 1 of the Ministry of Munitions Act is issued.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Mr. Zangwill's play, "The Melting Pot," has been withdrawn from performance at Edinburgh owing to the intervention of the Foreign Office; and on what ground this action has been taken?

also asked whether, seeing that the play has frequently been performed in England and is conciliatory, more particularly towards Russia and the United States, whether the prohibition of this play will be reconsidered?

The performance of the play in question was not prohibited, but, at the request of the Foreign Office, it was suggested informally through the Scottish Office to the producers of the play that, in present circumstances, they should replace it by another play. This they were good enough to do.

Is the Noble Lord aware that this play has been witnessed by a Member of the Cabinet, who expressed approval of it? If I give the Noble Lord the name of the right hon. Gentleman, in confidence, will he make inquiries on the point?

I am not responsible for the literary tastes of the whole of the Cabinet.

asked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether any reply has yet been received from the American Ambassador in Germany as to the treatment of the thirty-nine British officers interned in Germany, in view of the change in the treatment of German submarine officers interned in this country?

Telegraphic information has just been received through the United States Ambassador to the effect that steps will be taken at once to return the thirty-nine British officers to their former places of internment and a list of names and places will be sent as soon as the transfers take place.

Does the Noble Lord not consider a most unfortunate precedent has been created by the Government in allowing themselves to be blackmailed by Germany?

I do not consider that the Government have been blackmailed.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War what the Government is doing to combat the asphyxiating gas employed by the enemy; whether any adequate protection for our troops has yet been devised; whether any disabling gas, not cruel or inhuman in its effects, has been adopted by way of reprisal; and to what extent has the aid and advice of scientific men, chemists and others, been called in to meet this new and deadly weapon of warfare?

I am afraid this is not a matter upon which I can give my hon. Friend full information as that would not be in the public interest. But I may assure him that effective measures for protection against these attacks have been and are being taken. The assistance of scientific men has not only been freely offered, but is also being fully utilised.

Can the right hon. Gentleman make any observations about the phrase "not cruel and inhuman in its effects"?

No, Sir, I am unable to say whether the proposals of His Majesty's Government will be effective and whether their efficiency will entail cruelty or not.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any complaints have been received respecting the illegal selling of Army boots by un-authorised persons; whether certain traders have purchased illegally this Government property; and what steps the War Office propose to take in the matter?

Allegations have, I understand, appeared in trade journals to the effect that Army boots were being illegally sold by troops returning from the Expeditionary Force. The matter was brought to the notice of the military authorities in France, who have taken steps to obviate such improper transactions. No information has been received that certain traders have purchased illegally such Government property, but if my hon. Friend will furnish me with any information he possesses, I will, of course, consider it.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if the enclosure which the War Office is making upon Clapham Common is for the purpose of an internment camp for alien enemies; if he is aware that although work was commenced on the ground a fortnight ago the fencing is not yet completed; if any limit of time has been imposed upon the contractor for the completion of the work; and at what date does he expect that the camp will be ready for occupation?

No, Sir, the enclosure is not for the purpose of an internment camp for alien enemies. This being so, the remaining portions of the hon. Member's question do not, I think, arise.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, considering that between the 31st July, 1914, and the 31st March, 1915, only fourteen captains in the Royal Army Medical Corps were promoted majors, and during the same period some ninety-seven majors were promoted lieutenant-colonels, he will now take steps to have a corresponding number of captains promoted to the rank of major?

The majors were promoted to the rank of lieutenant-colonel to fill appointments for officers of that rank. The promotion of captains will be considered as and when majors are required. There is no fixed establishment of the latter rank, and, under ordinary circumstances, promotion to it goes by time qualification.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very large number of these captains have for months past been filling posts occupied by majors?

No, Sir, I do not understand that to be the case as regards the Royal Army Medical Corps.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to whether that is not the case?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War what quantity of the arms and ammunition privately imported into Ulster in 1913 and 1914 have been placed at the disposal of His Majesty's Government for the purposes of the War; by whose authority and for what purpose stores of arms and ammunition are kept in the mansions of certain landlords in Ulster; and what action the Army Council propose to take regarding them?

No arms and ammunition purporting to have been imported into Ulster during the period mentioned have been placed at the disposal of the War Office. I have no information on the second part of the question, and I am not aware that any action is called for.

Will the right hon. Gentleman seek information?

Of course, I am always open to receive information.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will consider the possibility of uniting the various volunteer training corps and bodies of national and town guards formed for the defence of the country in one comprehensive force and to entrust them with the duty of resisting air raids and supplying them with weapons for that purpose, seeing that these corps exist in almost every town and village and would be everywhere available?

This matter is under consideration. I cannot make any statement.

Is there not a large amount of excellent material in the shape of old Volunteers and Territorials, and, if some comprehensive scheme could be adopted would it not be of great advantage?

That fact will be borne in mind in arriving at a decision.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can make arrangements which will enable the British wage-earner to invest in the next war loan in sums of £5 and upwards?

The suggestion is receiving careful consideration.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the money recently seized by the police in a London gambling house has been confiscated for the service of the State; and, having regard to the sums of money changing hands in bets and other forms of gambling and the other uses for which money is required at the present time, whether he will consider the advisability of imposing a heavy tax upon all such transactions?

The question of the disposal of these moneys is one primarily for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but I understand that it is not possible to apply them as suggested. I am afraid it would be quite impracticable to collect a tax of the kind proposed.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he can make a statement as to the progress of the arbitration between the Post Office and the postal servants on the demand for an increased wage to meet the rise in cost of living?

Sir James Woodhouse has undertaken to act as arbitrator, and the proceedings will start on Monday next.

asked the Postmaster-General (1) if he can make a fixed charge for parcels to the men in the Navy, in order to avoid parcels being returned as insufficiently charged owing to the removal of His Majesty's ships into foreign waters; and (2) if he will issue instructions to sub-postmasters of proper charges on the presentation of parcels, thus avoiding the return of parcels as insufficiently charged, and so preventing delay and duplication of labour?

It is not possible to apply the inland rate universally, because payments have to be made, in many cases, to shipping companies for sea conveyance and credits have to be allowed to Colonial Administrations for handling the parcels, and the inland postage rates would not nearly cover the Department's actual disbursements. In ordinary circumstances parcels addressed to one of His Majesty's ships in foreign waters should be prepaid at the rate proper to the station on which the ship is serving. But as in present conditions the senders of parecls for His Majesty's ships cannot know where the ships are, my predecessor arranged to establish a general rate for all parcels to ships in foreign waters. The scale of rates now in operation is 1s. for parcels not exceeding 3 lb., 1s. 9d. for parcels over 3 lb. but not exceeding 7 lb., and 2s. 6d. for parcels over 7 lb. but not exceeding 11 lb. In the case of parcels for ships in foreign waters which are insufficiently prepaid—for example, at the inland rate only—the instructions are that the parcels should be sent on and the deficiency on the general rate collected from the sender subsequently. Full instructions are issued to all post offices as to these regulations, but if instances have come under the hon. Member's notice in which parcels have been returned, I will make inquiry on receiving the particulars from him.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mrs. Michael M'Hugh, of 30, William street, Shettleston, the wife of a soldier, against whom a warrant for ejectment within forty-eight hours has been granted for arrears of rent; whether he is aware that the woman's husband is lying wounded at a hospital in Rouen; that a son is home on sick furlough, having been twice wounded; that two of her five children at home are ill with pneumonia and whooping-cough; that the arrears of rent, which are under 20s., are largely due to the necessity for providing extra nourishment for her sick children; and that the Shettleston branch of the Miners' Union, of which the soldier is a member, was arranging to pay the arrears; and whether he will consider the possibility of the War Office taking steps to deal with such cases?

I will have inquiries made into the case referred to by the hon. Member. I am afraid that the general question of relief from payment of rent is not a matter which falls within the competence of the War Office.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some people have received notice to quit their homes for no other reason than that their sons have joined the Colours?

I could not quite catch what fell from the hon. Member, but I am having full inquiries made into the case, and if I can do anything to help I will do it gladly.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War when the new scale for the pensions to widows of officers will be issued?

I am afraid I am unable to name a date, but the urgency of the question is well understood.

Will these particulars be included in the new Pensions Bill?

I should like to have notice of that question.

Is it not a fact that the officials of the War Office cannot act upon the instructions of the Committee until the Bill becomes law?

I would rather have notice about the whole question.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will urge local pension committees to expedite investigations into the circumstances and necessities of soldiers' dependants, in order to reduce the present delays before payment of allowances to such dependants?

Such instructions were given by the Local Government Board some months ago. If the hon. Member is aware of any cases of undue delay, I shall be glad if he will communicate with me.

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that in some of the cases the investigation has been made, and that people entitled to the money in January last have not received it yet?

If my hon. Friend will give me particulars, I will inquire into them.

Would it not be possible to take away the power from the local pension committees and give it to a more responsible committee?

That would open so large a question that my hon. Friend must give me notice of it.

I have been continually sending the hon. Gentleman these requests.

This is not a time for making statements. The hon. Member should make that representation in the Lobby.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that orderly room quartermaster-sergeants, a rank given in certain cases of seniority to orderly room sergeants, are not receiving the extra pay and pension of quartermaster-sergeant's rank as warrant officer, second class; and, in view of the important battalion duties required of officers in the orderly room, will he consider the advisability of granting the same concessions in both cases?

It was decided, after careful consideration, not to include orderly room quartermaster-sergeants in the list of appointments, the holding of which qualifies for the new rank of warrant officer, second class, and they are ineligible for any of the financial conditions attaching to such rank.

asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the rapid multiplication of voluntary agencies dealing with various phases of war relief; whether any attempt is made at present to prevent overlapping or the dissipating of effort or to insist that all organisations of this character shall be genuine and above reproach; and whether to this end he will consider the need for a scheme for registration, co-ordination, and public control in connection with these collecting and distributing agencies?

I am aware that there are a large number of voluntary agencies of this character, and in many cases excellent work is being carried out by them. The policy of the Government Committee for the Prevention and Relief of Distress has been consistently directed to the prevention of overlapping and of the dissipating of effort, and I will see whether any further action can be taken in this direction. I hope that the coming establishment of authorised bodies for dealing with pensions, allowances, disabled soldiers, etc., will do away with the necessity for the separate existence of many of the present organisations. I will consult with my right hon. Friend as to what measures can be adopted for investigating and controlling organisations which appeal for public subscriptions and donations.

Is the right hon. Gentleman now in a position to answer my questions with regard to the Prince of Wales' Fund? There is a White Paper submitted to Parliament dealing with that.

The White Paper in question was not presented by my Department, and whether I am in a position to answer any question is an interrogation so wide that I should hesitate to reply to it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire, in view of the fact that a Paper has been presented to Parliament as a Parliamentary Paper, and that before it was presented we were not allowed to make inquiries?

Certainly I will make inquiries.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the increasing price of coal, there is any other reason but the influence of the coal trade for not developing and using the cheaper and, for many purposes, superior fuel obtainable from bogs; and whether the Board will at once give consideration to this latent source?

I can assure the hon. Member that the coal trade has no influence over the Government, but I have nothing to add to the replies I gave on the 9th instant, in which I dealt fully with the considerations which arise in regard to the development of the peat industry in Ireland, and with the efforts which are being made to encourage it.

asked the President of the Board of Trade on what date the Committee was appointed by the Admiralty, with the concurrence of the War Office and the Board of Trade, to co-ordinate naval, civil, and military requirements at Liverpool with the object of reducing the congestion of the port; if he will give the names of the gentlemen forming this Committee and their previous and present occupations; whether he is aware that the number of vessels awaiting allotment of berths, which had fallen to forty-five on the 5th instant, had on the morning of the 10th instant risen to sixty-one; and whether he can state on what date the Committee started work?

The Committee appointed by the Admiralty to deal with the congestion at the port of Liverpool was formally constituted on the 8th inst. The members of the Committee are as follows:—

• Mr. A. A. Booth, Chairman (Chairman of Liverpool Shipowners' Association).
• Sir Helenus Robertson (Chairman of Mersey Docks and Harbour Board).
• The Senior Naval Officer, Liverpool.
• The Divisional Naval Transport Officer, Liverpool.
• Major E. K. Essel (Deputy Assistant Director of Railway Transport).
• Mr. L. A. P. Warner, Secretary (Assistant to General Manager of Mersey Docks and Harbour Board).

I understand that the number of vessels awaiting allotment of berths was sixty on the 5th inst. and fifty-nine on the 10th inst. The Committee held its first meeting on the 9th inst. and is now meeting at frequent intervals.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that shortage of labour contributes to the congestion of the port, and that the Committee would be strengthened by the addition of a gentleman intimately associated with labour and acquainted with local conditions?

I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for making the suggestion. It shall receive consideration.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Messrs. Simonis and Company, fire engineers, Park Royal, engaged on aircraft fittings, informed a workman who desired to leave their employment that he was as much tied to them as if he had joined the Army, that they had power from the Board of Trade to prevent any other firm employing him, and that they would refuse to give him his insurance card; whether the firm had any authority for making such statements; and whether he knows that the workman in question has an opportunity to do similar Government work for another firm, and to save himself three hours travelling daily?

The Board of Trade have not given this company any authority for making such statements, nor have they the power to do so. Nor would the company have the right to retain the workman's insurance card or unemployment book in such circumstances.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is possible to locate the wrecked "Lusitania"; if so, seeing how much the present inquiry would be assisted by ascertaining impartially what arms and ammunition were on board that ship, whether he will have the wreck examined by divers from a neutral country not financially interested in the ship?

I doubt whether it would be practicable to have such an examination made as is suggested in the question, and I hope that the Court of Inquiry into the loss of the "Lusitania" will find no difficulty in ascertaining all material facts by other means.

Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to find out whether it is practicable or not?

Yes; I should not have said it was not practicable unless I had taken some steps and made inquiries. There is also the fact that those seas are not altogether free from enemy craft.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the total number of special constables enrolled in the Metropolitan area; and whether, in view of the work done by these volunteers and the assistance and relief given by them to the police force, it is necessary to maintain the police force in the Metropolitan area at its present strength?

The total figure is 32,617; but more than a fourth of that number are enrolled for the protection of their employers' works, and the others are largely employed on duties which arise out of the War and do not exist in time of peace. The help given by the special constables is invaluable, but the regular police force explained yesterday, been diminished by several thousands owing to enlistment, and to the demands of the War Office and Admiralty, and the Commissioner of Police is satisfied that its further depletion could not with safety be permitted.

asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that within the last nine months upwards of thirty-five fires have occurred in various parts of the country at docks, stores, camps, and in factories engaged upon Government work; if any special inquiry has been instituted by the Home Office or other Government Department into the origin and significance of these outbreaks; and if he can state the results of such investigation?

I have not got separate figures for factories engaged on Government work, but the returns which I have received from factory inspectors throughout the country show that the number of fires which have occurred since the outbreak of war in factories, docks and ware-rouses generally is not in excess of the normal, and in a number of districts is below the normal. In view of the exceptional conditions under which work is being carried on in a great number of works, these figures cannot be regarded as unsatisfactory. As regards fires in camps, I am informed by the War Office that all such fires have been investigated, and that in no case was there any evidence of incendiarism.

Does the Home Office inquire personally into the origin of those fires, or is the inquiry left to the local police?

In any case where there is any cause to suspect an incendiary origin arrangements are being made for the best and most skilled inquiry to be made in connection with headquarters.

Is there any objection to making public detailed information as to the number of fires which have taken place in similar areas during the corresponding period last year?

I will consider it.

asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that a number of persons with surnames indicating German nationality or origin have recently by advertisement in the Press announced their abandonment of those surnames and their assumption of English surnames instead thereof; whether such substitution of English for foreign surnames by public advertisement is valid; whether, in view of the importance of facilitating supervision over all persons of hostile origin or association, in pursuance of the Regulation issued by Order in Council on the 12th of June, he will give instructions that all persons advertising such a change of surname shall be kept under close supervision by the police; and whether, if legislation be necessary for the purpose, he will introduce a Bill to prohibit such changes of surname for the future?

Legislation already passed has secured that alien enemies cannot change their name during the War. Other persons have made public advertisement of their change of name since the War began, including persons of long British descent and unimpeachable loyalty, whose only desire is to repudiate the remotest connection with the enemy. Proper attention will be paid to any suspicious case, but public notice of change of name is the last step likely to be adopted by persons desiring to escape the attention of the police.

asked whether sympathy with the enemy and with his violations of the laws of civilised warfare, openly expressed by persons of hostile origin or association, is held to be sufficient reason for rejecting claims by such persons to be exempted from internment or repatriation?

Claims for exemption are considered by the Advisory Committee, who inform me that they have never advised exemption in any case where the applicant is known to hold or has expressed views in sympathy with the enemy.

asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of a German woman named Kehrein, living at 15, Shrewsbury Road, Bayswater, whose insulting be haviour to her English neighbours and open exultation over such German achievements as the destruction of the "Lusitania" and raids by Zeppelins is likely to cause breaches of the peace; and whether he will take steps to accelerate the removal of this woman from the country?

My attention had not previously been called to this case, but I have now made inquiry and received a report from the police which shows that the woman in question is a respectable and inoffensive dressmaker and that the allegations with regard to her behaviour emanate from a single neighbour and appear to be entirely without foundation. The question of her repatriation will be dealt with in ordinary course after consideration by the Advisory Committee of any application which she may make for exemption.

If I lay before the right hon. Gentleman information which conflicts with his answer, will he consider it?

I shall be very glad if the hon. Member will communicate with me. I should like to show him my information and should be very glad to see his.

had given notice of the following question: To ask the Home Secretary whether a public meeting called by the Sherborne Town Council was held on 10th June to protest against the continued employment of Fraulein von Bissing, a relative of the German military governor of Brussels, as a teacher at the Sherborne Ladies' College; whether he is aware of the feeling amongst the parents of students of the college against the retention of this teacher at the present time; and if he will say how soon arrangements can be made for the removal of Fraulein von Bissing from the country under the recent Order for repatriation of women alien enemies?

Since giving notice information has reached me which leads me to believe that the residence of the lady mentioned in this country is unobjectionable. In these circumstances I will not put the question unless the right hon. Gentleman thinks it would be more just to the person concerned to have his answer on record.

No. I am very glad the hon. Gentleman has said what he has. My information coincides with his own.

asked the Minister of Munitions if it is intended to offer inducements to inventors to devise new and improved methods of offence and defence, and to set up an advisory committee of experts to test and report upon inventions?

My right hon. Friend cannot at present say more than that the question of the encouragement of inventors is receiving careful consideration between the Ministry of Munitions, the War Office and the Admiralty.

asked the Prime Minister how many persons of hostile origin or association, within the meaning of the regulation issued by Order in Council dated 12th of June, 1915, are in employment at the Treasury, the Foreign Office, the Admiralty, and the War Office, respectively; and whether such persons are to be retained in their employment during the continuance of the War?

I am informed that British-born subjects alone are employed as Civil servants in the offices named. There is no case to which the regulation referred to applies.

Is it not a fact that one of the clerks in one of these Departments has a father who has been naturalised since the War; that the father was a German and has been naturalised since the War?

How can I tell that without notice?

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it important that in these particular Departments it is due to public feeling in this country that the employment should be restricted not only to British-born subjects but to those whose origin and associations are free from objection?

I have no reason to doubt that all the gentlemen who are employed at these various offices are most loyally serving the country. If the hon. Gentleman can bring any specific case to my attention, I will look into it.

asked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to relieve municipalities from the position in which some of them have been placed by the restriction of borrowing powers in the following circumstances: Some municipalities have the option this year of purchasing the local tramway system, the Corporation of Bristol being a case in point, but, owing to the refusal of the Treasury to grant public loans, it is impossible to exercise this legal option, with the result that the private tramway companies will be reinstated for a long term of years, and the public rights will thus be rendered invalid, and that the loss of the power to exercise the option of purchase will, in the case of Bristol, involve a loss of £20,000 a year for seven years, as well as the advantages of public ownership, and also heavier cost if purchase should be exercised at the expiry of the extended lease; and will he consider the desirability of special legislation entitling the municipalities to exercise the right of purchase now, but to postpone the raising of the loan, say to twelve months after the end of the War?

I understand that an application from the Corporation of Bristol has been received by the Treasury in the course of the last few days relative to the question of the purchase by the Corporation of the local tramway system, and that this application has been referred to the Committee on Fresh Issues of Capital. Pending the receipt of their report, it is premature to consider in this particular case what steps, if any, should be taken in the contingency to which the hon. Member refers. The general question raised is, I think, best dealt with in relation to specific cases as they arise.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that of the owners of large tracts of bog in Ireland some refuse to allow any peat to be got for fuel and some nominally allow but in practice prevent it by a prohibitive charge; and, in view of the urgency of this matter at the present time, whether he will introduce a short emergency Bill to make all unsold and unused bogs available for getting and saving peat for fuel during the continuance of the War?

I have no information in regard to the statements made in the first part of the question, and, in any case, I do not anticipate that any legislation of a compulsory character will be necessary to secure a plentiful supply of bog during the continuance of the War.

I do not propose to travel over the Debate which took place yesterday on this Resolution, but I desire to make a few observations in regard to a subject in which I have taken a great deal of interest in times of peace, and that is, the sufficiency of the number of aeroplanes for our air services both by sea and land. I would like to make a preliminary observation in connection with the speech made by the Prime Minister yesterday. I did not conceive it to be my duty to join in the Debate in criticising the action of the Prime Minister in forming the Coalition Government. I have from time to time been rather a keen critic of the late Government and its Departments during the progress of this War, but the formation of the National Government has made me feel that any criticism directed from this side, or at all events from myself, must be constructive criticism of a patriotic character and not destructive criticism. I therefore feel that it is not in my power in any sense to criticise the formation of the new Government. I accept it as a patriotic National Government, and in the few observations I make this afternoon in regard to the supply of our air machines I desire to speak purely from the most patriotic motive and not in any sense from a party point of view.

We have had very full discussions in regard to the supply of munitions, but there has been no discussion in this House in regard to the supply of what is of equal importance to shells, and that is the aeroplane service and the bombs which our aeroplanists are able to use. Perhaps it is not unimportant that we should discuss such objects now, because of the constant raids of Zeppelins which are being made in this country. I agree entirely with what the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief at the Front has said from time to time in regard to our Air Service. The Air Service, as far as the men are concerned, is absolutely perfect. It is perfectly clear from the Field-Marshal's reports that our men are not only equal but superior to the airmen of our enemies. There were a certain number of airmen sent out with the Expeditionary Force. I do not propose to enter into the actual figures this afternoon, because I do not want to say anything which could in any way be of assistance to our enemies; but it is clear, and it has been clear throughout the prosecution of the War that the Field-Marshal and those who have control of our Air Service at the Front could have done with the assistance of a very much larger number of aeroplanes and airmen than they have had at any time and at any period during the War. There are three purposes for which our airmen are useful. For the purpose of reconnaissance I think it is clear they have fulfilled practically all the requirements of the Commander-in-Chief. At the present time it is almost impossible to carry on artillery fire with any real effective purpose unless there are aeroplanes of a sufficient number—in the first place, to locate the enemy batteries, to locate the object of our attack, and to make reports to headquarters of the result of almost every shot as it is fired from time to time. Information is coming from the Front—and information is bound to come across from wounded officers and others who have come direct from the front, and their information is that while our airmen are able to do practically all that is required in regard to reconnaissance, the airmen of the German enemy are, in many parts of our lines, still greater in number than our airmen. I heard only last week of a particular part of our line where there were no less than eight German aeroplanes circling above it, with the natural consequence that a vast explosion of high explosive shells took place on those trenches over which the German aeroplanes had manœuvred. In this particular instance there were none of our airmen there. If it is possible for eight German aeroplanes to go over any particular section of our trenches I think we are entitled, while we are asking the Minister of Munitions to give our soldiers more shells and more guns, to ask him to give our Air Service more aeroplanes and more high explosive bombs.

These aeroplanes are not merely used for reconnaissance; they are essential for defence against Zeppelin air raids. I am not one of the alarmists in regard to the raids that have taken place, that are taking place, and that undoubtedly will take place in the future by enemy Zeppelins. The House will remember that two years ago at least I urged that we should have large airships and have at least one of the Zeppelin type in order that we might meet like with like. Lieutenant Warneford has shown perfectly conclusively that in certain circumstances it is possible to deal with Zeppelins by means of aeroplanes, but in this particular instance it is only fair to observe that the Zeppelin was going home; it was down very low, and our aeroplanist was able to get on top of it. But the Zeppelins which have come over here recently have flown at such a height that I believe it has been practically impossible for our aeroplanists to get up high enough to be on top of them, so as to attack them. It is quite clear that you cannot attack Zeppelins through an aeroplane except from above, because they are armed with several quick-firing guns, and it is therefore almost impossible for an aeroplane to deal successfully with a Zeppelin except from above.

I do not want to pass comments, but it was thought wise that our country should not be armed with Zeppelins. We have got to face the fact—and I think that it would be much wiser that the Government should let the people know exactly what they have got to expect in regard to Zeppelin raids—that we, in London, must expect a Zeppelin raid within the next few weeks. I do not know whether the House knows, but the Germans must know it, and there is no reason why people here should not know also, that quite recently there were over our coasts no fewer than five Zeppelins of the latest type. I do not suppose that anybody in this country knows how many Zeppelins Germany has, but that she has at least five of the newest type, ready for use against us, I think there is no possible doubt. If we are to meet those Zeppelins it will not be by one aeroplane; it can only be by what the present Chancellor of the Duchy referred to as a "swarm of hornets." I do not want to complain of the ill-success of the defence against the German air raids which have taken place up to the present time, but I do want the Government, and particularly now the Minister of Munitions, to give us the assurance that while he is dealing with munitions he will deal with, and will regard even as important, the provision of a very much greater number of aeroplanes than we have had up to the present. We want them, not merely for the front, not merely for the purpose of reconnaissance, not merely to attack hostile German aeroplanes in Flanders, and, of course, the Dardanelles also; but we must also have them as a means of defence at the present moment against the invasion of German Zeppelins.

Then we want, and I think that we ought very shortly to have, some aeroplanes larger than those we have had up to the present time, or capable of carrying larger bombs. We were all delighted at the Cux-haven raid; it was most effective for the purpose for which it was designed. But we have never had a raid on Cuxhaven harbour. In the course of the War we ought to have a raid every week into German territory, instead of having a raid, as we do, of four, five, or ten, or possibly twenty aeroplanes, possibly every three months, or every six months. It would be practically possible, if this matter of the provision of sufficient aeroplanes had been taken in hand at first, and even if it were taken in hand at the present time, to have a continuous attack every week on some German town. I for one do not hesitate to say, after the attacks which have been made on our undefended seaports, after the murders of their undefended citizens which have taken place, that I would not be too particular as to the German town upon which I dropped my air bomb; that is my own personal opinion. But, if we could establish an aeroplane service, there is no reason why we should not have a raid, not of ten aeroplanes, but of fifty or a hundred, taking place every week, instead of every six months, which would go a very long way to carry the idea of war home to the people in the towns of Germany. What we want is to make them realise in their territory what war is, just as they have made the people of France and Belgium, and the people in the towns and villages on our East coast realise what war is.

There is no reason why we should not have far larger aeroplanes than we have been able to use up to the present time. Everybody knows that a large aeroplane was designed and perfected in France just before the War, and, moreover, that a large aeroplane has been not merely designed and completed, but has been brought into use by our Russian Allies in the course of the War. That aeroplane is not merely one of the small things which carry a few bombs of 10, or 20, or even 50 lbs. weight, but is a machine with five motors of 100 h.p. each, which measures 121 ft. across from the tip of one wing to the tip of the other, and can carry, and has carried, sixteen men; and a machine of this type—and there is no reason why we should not have many of them—is perfectly capable of carrying four or five bombs, each containing 400 or 500 lbs weight of high explosive. Suppose that we were to provide our men at the front with a considerable number of these large Russian machines, armed with these heavy, high explosive bombs. I do not propose for a moment to suggest the particular use to which they should be put, for the Army would know how they could be used, and the War Office and the Navy would know how they could be used. Everybody in this House realises the immense benefit which they would be to our Army in attacking the German Army and German communications, and getting behind the German line. My hon. Friend asked me how long they would take to make. It is certainly possible that several of them could be turned out in less than three months.

I do not want to say whether I think it is quite possible that some arrangements are being considered at the present time for making larger aeroplanes. What is wanted here is exactly the same as has been wanted in regard to munitions. That is, somebody who will take the thing in hand, who will do for aeroplanes what the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Munitions is going to do for shells, and which I suppose he will probably do in regard to aeroplanes, because he has included in the definition of the word "munitions" the bombs necessary to use in those aeroplanes. Officers have told me that they see no reason why, as we have openly discussed the lack of ammunition in this House, we should not mention that our existing Air Service has been short of large, high explosive bombs, or, as we are speaking much more freely now than we have done in the earlier part of the War, why we should not suggest that this matter might be taken in hand by the new Minister of Munitions. There is no good giving the Government £3,000,000 a day to spend on the War unless it is spent to the best advantage.

Possibly in years past hon. Members in this House may have thought that I was a crank on this point of our Air Service, but the Air Service has been proved now to be absolutely essential both to the Army and to the Navy, and I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Munitions—of course one knows that he is too busy to do it himself, but he could appoint someone who could work under him—should take charge of this matter, and put himself in consultation with the head of the Air Service in the Navy, who is one of the ablest men in the Service, and also with the gentleman who is in charge of the Air Service under the War Office, and get from them what is absolutely required, not merely what they require at the moment, but what they would consider to be the type of absolute efficiency if they had all the money which they could desire at their command. Let them have the money. We are giving an enormous amount of money to-day. I am convinced that if the right hon. Gentleman opposite, or the Minister of Munitions, would take counsel with the heads of the Air Services, both in the Army and in the Navy, they would tell them that they could employ to-day not far more, but three or four times as many aeroplanes as they have got at the present moment.

Let me give one fact which came within my own knowledge, and the mention of which cannot benefit the enemy, and it shows how eager our young men are to join this perilous Service. I went to the War Office about a month ago to see whether I could not get an active young officer into the Air Service. What was the answer? "We have already 500 men waiting to get into the Air Service. We will put your friend's name down on the list as 501." If there are 500 men waiting as volunteers to enter the Air Service then you should increase your means of training at Farnborough and other places, and you should double and treble the number of machines for training purposes in order that these young men, so keen and eager to enter this dangerous Service, may be properly qualified to become members of it as fast as possible. You cannot have good training unless you have got a large supply of machines as well as a further supply for the use of these young men when they get to the Front. I did not want to let this opportunity pass without saying a word upon this subject. I hope the House will feel that I have not said anything which could be of use to the enemy and that I have endeavoured not to give facts or figures. I earnestly ask the Minister of Munitions to realise the importance of this matter, a matter as important as is the provision of high explosive shells, and I trust that he -will have it in his power also to deal with this subject to which I have called attention.

I ask permission for a very little while to call attention to a matter of importance in connection with this Vote of Account and in connection with the continued and successful prosecution of the War. But before I touch on that one point the House will not think it improper if I take this opportunity of warmly thanking the Prime Minister for the speech which he made yesterday and for the way in which he presented to this country the condition of things with which the Government of this country is at present concerned. No Coalition Government in this country can rouse the same feeling which a homogeneous Government does, and the fact of the Coalition Government having been created in the middle of a great War is bound to make Englishmen think, and wonder, and realise more greatly the gravity of the situation. But I must say that both in the House and outside there is confidence, not only in the Prime Minister's speech, but in the Prime Minister's reticence, and we are willing in this House, and the people outside are willing, to take his word when the public interest necessitates his not explaining any detail. While this Coalition Government will command universal support, and will command the support of everyone who considers what sacrifices have been necessary to compose it, the very fact that this Government is presided over by the present Premier ensures for it confidence, and that it will retain that confidence whatever be the fortunes of the country during the next few months or years.

But there is one thing which appears to me to be of the highest importance, if the national confidence is to be maintained and stimulated in the Government, and in the conduct of the War. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in sentences which will not soon be forgotten, spoke of his reliance on the willing support of the country both in fighting and in work. No doubt that confidence is well founded; yet are there not many Members in this House who agree that it is not easy, in many parts of the country, where trade is prosperous, and where there are few signs of distress produced by the War, for every person to realise as fully as he ought the greatness of the War in which we are engaged, and the imperative character of the call upon every citizen to do the best that he can. One cannot but wonder whether it is not to the advantage of recruiting, and maintaining and increasing a true kind of public interest in the War, to have further information given than has been given up to now on many details of the War and on many details of achievements of important regiments, or of men who come from different localities. No one would want to know anything about any matter before it should be divulged; that would be lunatic. No one wants to be given in public any details of what the War Office and Executive are to do. But again and again it is found—and it must have been found by all Members of this House engaged in recruiting or organising locally—that any particular detail of any fight which has occurred, and any particular act of heroism which has been made known, is of high importance not only in getting men to come forward with the greatest ardour to join His Majesty's Forces, but to make it clear to the locality, and to every one who hears of it, the nature of the struggle in which we are engaged.

If there be one characteristic of the English people which is open to criticism—I do not speak about other races, I simply speak of the English people—it is that their imagination is not excessively quick, and they do not find it easy to realise fairly the gravity of matters which are not brought home to their doors. We are told from time to time of valuable though not overwhelming successes in this long conflict of endurance on the western front. Are we always told equally of similar occurrences which go against us and which we only hear of incidentally after a time? I would take this first opportunity given to me to appeal to this Government, which represents all forms of thought and patriotism in this country, whether, entirely in consonance with military requirements, it is not yet possible to give far more detail as to what has happened to the public generally in order to secure that this willing support of the country, in its time of trial, may be given by an informed public and not by an ignorant public—may be given by persons who have all the opportunities to realise that now is the time of their life, when they ought to do everything they can for their country.

I wish to address a few words to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a subject which must shortly come before him. Following on this immense Vote of Credit there must come a loan in due course, and I wish to ask him, as I have often asked his predecessor, whether there will not be an opportunity, when this loan comes before the public, of its being so introduced as to reach the working classes, and cause them to take an interest in it, just as is done in France and in other countries? I think if the loan could be introduced in that way to the public, the results would convince the right hon. Gentleman that he had been given an opportunity of doing more good in this country than had ever fallen to the lot of any previous Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hold a very strong opinion on this subject, and I have put numerous questions about it. When we hear talk of the savings of England, I would point out that we are spending the savings of fifty years. The accumulative savings of this nation during forty or fifty years will be dissipated over this War in a year or two. While those savings are being spent, it causes an absolutely fictitious prosperity in many places. The greater that prosperity is at present and the greater the expenditure, the greater must be the reaction in the future. It is against that reaction that I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will in some way provide. I may mention one short experience which I had in France. I was going round a small town with the mayor. He showed me a very large building, which he mentioned was a savings bank. I asked how could a small town like that afford a savings bank of that kind. He told me that two or three thousand pounds were paid into that savings bank every week in excess of withdrawals. I remarked how could that be with a population of from twelve to fourteen thousand. He replied that there was not a person in the town, rich or poor, who was not saving a third of his income and paying it into that bank.

If the Chancellor of the Exchequer could make any arrangement by means of which some portion of the extravagant payments which are now being made could be returned to the Government in investments, he would be conferring not merely a benefit on the people affected, but on the community and the country at large. It might be possible at the big arsenals and great factories to arrange in some way when the wages are paid that the men, if they liked, might apply a certain portion of their wages towards the purchase of bonds of the value of £4 or £5. We might have £10 bonds, and the men might put aside some portion of their wages each week until they had paid for them, and then they would experience the pride and pleasure of holding bonds with coupons on them which they could cash in the future. They would have that pride of saving which is the backbone of the prosperity of France. I am convinced that something can be done in this way by offering bearer bonds of small amounts. I am always told that people have the opportunity of investing in Consols through the Savings Bank. I ask is it a success, and how much is invested in that way? The amount is very small indeed, and the working classes do not avail themselves of the Savings Bank for investment in Consols. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to try and do something to facilitate this proposal. I know the bankers will be against it. On the last occasion when it was suggested to them the large bankers said that the amount received in these small sums would be very small indeed and not worth taking into consideration. I think the bankers were wrong, and since the loan has been at a discount—since I think it is clear there was something wrong in the form in which it was issued, and you did not get the small investor in that loan. I do strongly urge on the Government and on the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they would be conferring a great benefit on the working classes and on the community at large if they could induce the working people to take some share in these loans, and thereby show some interest in the country and feel that pride which necessarily follows from having investments and from having a share in the stock of the country. By doing so the Chancellor of the Exchequer would confer a benefit on the country such as no previous Chancellor of the Exchequer had done.

I do not intend to cover the ground so fully debated yesterday and to-day, but I rise to call attention to a matter which came to my notice this morning and which I am bound to say caused me a little disquiet. I think the House has shown, both yesterday and to-day, that it is animated by a very great desire that this vast amount of money which is being voted should be properly spent and that the country should get full value for the money. Secondly, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained yesterday so clearly, it is desirable that economy should be practised not only by Government Departments, but by the community as a whole. In connection with the question of getting full value for the money there is the important question of time, because unless you get the article you require at the time you want it, then it is not worth paying for and the money is badly spent. Before the Coalition Government was formed I suppose some of us had complaints made to us about the delays incurred when applications and representations were made to Government Departments, and especially with regard to this question of munitions. I myself had the opportunity of mentioning this matter in the House not very long ago, and there are many others who did the same thing. We felt with this new Ministry of Munitions established that, at all events, that cause of complaint would disappear. But having regard to what I see in one of the newspapers this morning, I cannot help feeling that in this respect things are going on very much as they were before. I read in this morning's issue of the "Daily Express" these few words which I think are material:—

"On Friday last the 'Daily Express' sent to Dr. Addison, Mr. Lloyd George's assistant in the new Munitions Department, particulars of fifty factories on our register of munitions firms. All these factories are fully equipped with the necessary machinery for making munitions, or are in a position to acquire such machinery at once, and the desire of the owners is to help in supplying the Army with what is needed. No reply to our otter has yet been received, nor has our letter even been acknowledged."

The Ministry of Munitions has not been very long established, but I should have thought it was sufficiently long in existence to have some Department which could answer the letters which were received. What would be thought of any business house which had a letter sent to it upon any kind of business and which did not send an acknowledgment by return of post, and what would be thought of any professional man who received a letter about his business or profession, and who did not acknowledge it by return of post? Very strong things would be said. Here you have an obviously bonâ fide offer, and I submit an important offer. The owners of fifty factories are prepared to equip their factories with machinery at this moment for the manufacture of shells. An important offer of that kind should not be left for five days without an acknowledgment, and to do so is not business. The statement does not stop there. It goes on:—

"In addition to offering these factories to the Government, we also offered to staff them with 2,000 skilled workmen if extra men were wanted. This offer is also still awaiting acceptance or refusal. It has not yet even been acknowledged"

I quite agree with what was said by one of my hon. Friends just now, namely, that we are not here to offer any criticism of a destructive nature, but to offer criticism of a constructive nature. I am perfectly certain that business of this Department cannot go on smoothly and satisfactorily unless some drastic steps are taken to put it on business lines. I only mention this matter in order that steps may be taken at once to see that a thing of this kind should never occur again. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking yesterday, referred to the question of economy. I had not the opportunity of hearing his speech, but I read it this morning. He hoped hon. Members would impress on their constituents the necessity for individual economy.

4.0 P.M.

I shall be very glad indeed to carry out his request. But I do not think it is much use talking about economy. Every person is so apt to think, "Oh, well, my little bit does not matter; I will let somebody else practice economy"; or, "The little bit that I can economise will not matter; it is so small." The Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to do something more than ask Members of Parliament to talk to their constituents. He will have to do something to make them economise, or to tempt them to do so, as my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth suggested. Another suggestion made yesterday, that wages should be paid partly in cash and partly in scrip, is, I think, an excellent idea; or the right hon. Gentleman might go further, and take an article of luxury such as motor cars. Anybody living near a main road at Whitsuntide would have seen the enormous number of motor cars that were obviously being used by their owners solely for pleasure, and it would have made him think. It made me think of the wear and tear that was going on, of the number of people employed in cleaning and repairing those motors, and of the amount of petrol being used for pleasure which might well have been used for national purposes. Is it possible to put an end to that sort of things? That is simply an instance. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer could see his way to say that motor cars are not to be used except for business or on national work it would make people think at once, and bring home to them how essential it is that everybody should save where they can.

I should like to support the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell). It is important that we should encourage wage earners to save as much as possible at all times, but in the present circumstances it is especially important. I understand that in Germany they have had for many years a system for encouraging national savings. A fair rate of interest over and above the ordinary interest on Government securities is given on savings up to a certain amount. I believe the amount is £200. In the past the German Government have allowed 5 per cent. on savings up to £200. Whether or not that is possible here I do not know, but I think that something of that sort might be done with advantage. The working classes ought at the present time to be encouraged to save in every possible way. After the War there will no doubt be a time of great depression, and those who are getting good wages now should understand that they ought to make some provision for the future. They might also be encouraged to put what they can spare into Government securities, so as to help raise the funds necessary for the prosecution of the War. With regard to raising the necessary income, I think it very advisable that a special tax should be put on incomes larger than those made during, say, the previous three years. I do not think it possible to differentiate between incomes which are larger on account of their being derived from the manufacture of munitions and other war requirements and incomes derived from other sources. Incomes are increased for different reasons, but I think that those who make larger profits during the War should bear a special tax. If it were possible, I should be inclined to put a heavy special tax on incomes increased by more than a certain percentage, say, 5 per cent. It is only fair that those who are making larger incomes should bear a heavier burden than those who are suffering more. I think that this is a practical suggestion, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find some means of carrying it out, so that the burdens of the War may fall upon the shoulders of those who can best bear them. It would show the working people, who are doing their best now to increase the supply of munitions, and otherwise help their fellows in the field, that, if they are feeling the pinch of high prices, those who are getting the advantage of high prices will not benefit by their exertions to any undue extent.

I venture to go back to a matter which I raised yesterday, namely, the form in which this Supplementary Vote of Credit is put forward. The Vote is drawn in the very widest terms, and is apparently intended to give the Government power to spend any amount of money in any possible direction. I am not against giving the Government a perfectly free hand, but I would call special attention to the fact that there are actually Members of the present Government who, in 1885, on the occasion of the Vote of Credit for the Soudan operations, protested very strongly indeed against the Votes not being strictly limited in the terms of the Supplementary Estimate which was then put before the House. I have read the Debate which took place on that occasion and I wish the financial authorities on the Treasury Bench would do the same. An Amendment was moved by Mr. Arthur O'Connor complaining of the way in which the Estimate was framed, because it mixed up the money to be spent on increasing the Army and the Navy with the money actually being spent in the Soudan. He was supported by Sir Henry Holland, by the right hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin), by Mr. W. H. Smith, by Sir John Gorst, and by Sir Stafford Northcote. Last, but not least, he was supported by the present First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Balfour), who protested, in his usual vigorous language, that he had never heard a weaker or more confused case put forward on behalf of an Estimate than the one put forward on that occasion by the late Duke of Devonshire. There can be no doubt that the principle has been established, not only in practice, but by the constant assertion of authorities in this House, that if you have a Vote of Credit you ought to define as clearly as possible not only the amount, but the object to which the Vote of Credit is to be devoted. With regard to one matter, at any rate, there is the greatest amount of uncertainty as to the direction in which this money is to go. The Prime Minister yesterday said that we had to add to the £200,000,000 which will be wanted for the Army and the Navy £50,000,000 at the rate of £500,000 a day—

"to meet other expenses such as advances to our Dominions, and to Allied Powers, and other foreign States."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th June, 1915, col. 555.]

The Prime Minister therefore stated that out of this Vote we are going to advance money to other Powers with which we are not actually in alliance. I think that is perfectly clear. In the course of the Debate I called attention to the Prime Minister's statement, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer took it upon himself to correct me and, by implication, his worthy chief. He also called attention to the note at the foot of the Estimate, in which it is stated that this money will be required for loans to His Majesty's Dominions or Protectorates, and to Allied Powers, but in which note there is no reference, as there was in the Prime Minister's speech, to other foreign Powers. I am inclined to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether a note added without the signature of any official person is at all binding upon the Treasury? The implication or suggestion made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that this note was as good as if it stood in the actual terms of the Vote. It is surely a new doctrine if a mere note added to a Resolution as an explanatory gloss, and nothing more, is to have as much effect and authority as the words of the Vote itself. Personally, I have no objection to giving the Government a perfectly free hand; but when you have one Minister implying that the advances will be given either to our Colonies or to our Allies, and the Prime Minister intimating that other foreign States will also receive advances, I think we as a House have a right to know exactly where we are. This House—and I share the feeling myself entirely—is willing to give to carry on this War even greater latitude than it has ever given before to any Ministers. Personally, I feel the very highest confidence in, and respect for, the Prime Minister, and indeed for many of the other Ministers, some of whom are to me more or less untried. But so long as the Prime Minister is in the position he is, I shall certainly feel the very greatest respect and inclination to support to the utmost of my power any policy that he brings down to this House. May I ask you, Sir, on a point of Order, whether the note at the foot of the page of the Supplementary Estimate is as much a charge as are the words of the Vote that was actually voted in this House?

In reply to the hon. Member, I should say "No." He is committed by voting for this Resolution to the terms of the Vote as passed by the Committee yesterday, and to be shortly passed by the House to-day, and nothing more. Sir Albert Spicer—

I did not necessarily mean to sit down, Mr. Speaker.

I should not have given my ruling at once on the point put by the hon. Member had I not understood that he had finished his remarks.

There are just two points in this Debate on which a great deal has been said by various speakers, especially by Ministers, and that is the question of thrift. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it would not be possible at this stage for the Treasury to issue some popular leaflets on thrift. There are, I believe, an immense number of people in this country at the present time, belonging to different classes, who are prepared to do their part. In the case of many, their expenditure has been carefully arranged for a long time, and they do not see their way quite where they are to begin to save. We all know, for instance, in certain classes of houses, whatever their size, that a great deal of the expenditure during the time the house is occupied is not voluntarily, but compulsorily, in conformity to, in harmony with, and in proportion to the rent paid or the value of the house occupied. I cannot but think that the Treasury would do a real service to the country if they could have prepared a set of popular leaflets on the subject touching the various classes of the community. I believe there are an immense number of people only too willing to begin making a reduction in their expenditure if they can have a clear lead. Take the matter of servants. If a household employs a number and dismisses one, it may be that that person would find it very hard to get another sphere of employment.

Take again the question of alcohol. If some hints were given it might lead to a great many more people following the example of His Majesty for the time being. I believe a lead on the subject would make all the difference and would be a great advantage to the thrift of the country. Another point is that I would like to inquire whether for the period of the War the limit in regard to investments in the Post Office Savings Bank could not be increased? The suggestion has been made that there are many people who, though the banks will take their money, prefer the security that the Government gives. Would it not be advisable during the period of the War to allow the annual amount invested to be increased from £50 to £100, and the total amount from £200 to £500?

I have been engaged since the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) made some observations earlier in the Debate in getting some answers to questions put to me. Therefore I have not been able to attend the House and hear the Debate which, I understand, has taken a different course to that to which the hon. Member directed it at the outset. The hon. Member informed the House that it is the opinion of most people with regard to the Air Service generally that the men are perfect. I am glad to acknowledge that; it is universally admitted by everyone who has had any intimate knowledge of the great services performed in the air by our military in France. But, said the hon. Gentleman, there are more men and more aeroplanes wanted. I do not know if the hon. Gentleman limits his criticism to that particular service, but it might equally be said of the Artillery or the Infantry that the pity is that we have not more. That is perfectly true. If, however, the hon. Member reflects at all he will see that the Air Service is in very good proportion indeed to the rest of the Army. What I want him to realise is that since the outbreak of the War there has been no smaller expansion of the Air Service in proportion to the rest of the Army. On the contrary, the expansion of pilots has been in a ratio of ten to one. Where we had one before we have ten now engaged in the Air Service, while the expansion of men generally is in proportion of five to one. These are the very latest figures, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is a very large expansion indeed. I am glad to say in spite of that very large expansion the; organisation which has been set up is working harmoniously, smoothly and with great efficiency. The hon. Gentleman stated that there was a deficiency of high explosive bombs for use at the front. I am not able to answer the hon. Member as to whether there has been cases where there was a shortage of high explosive bombs, but I can inform the House and the country that there has been no shortage of such bombs since February. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not shells?"] At the present time there is an ample supply, with an efficient and ample reserve. I am glad to be able to make that statement, which I hope will be reassuring to hon. Members in all quarters of the House. The hon. Member also spoke of a larger aeroplane which was in use, or contemplation, by Russia.

It is in use.

There again it may perhaps reassure the House if I state that we have in contemplation—actually in process of manufacture—a similar article. I do not want to go into too great detail, because I do not think that would be in the public interest, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter is in hand. My last word is in regard to the increase of the service in order to create a sufficient personnel to cope with this most important part of our service. Whilst at the moment of mobilisation there was only the Central Flying School, which, I believe, as hon. Members are aware, was only able to train twenty pupils at once, we have now eleven such schools where we are able to train, and instruct generally, upwards of 200 pupils. I have intervened early in the Debate in order that there might be no misconception following the observations of the hon. Member for Brentford, and that the House might be reassured that these most important matters are engaging our constant and our earnest attention.

I would like to ask a question, which, I think, is of some little importance, of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Throughout the whole of the Debate upon the Vote of Credit there has been constantly urged upon the public, and upon Members of this House, the necessity for economy in all branches of the services. So far as the public services are concerned, the principal agent in promoting economy, as all Members of this House know well, in the expenditure of the various Departments, whether of the Army, or the Navy, or the Civil Services, is the audit by the Comptroller and Auditor-General of the accounts of the various Departments. Every Department has within it a representative of the Treasury, and that representative exercises the most careful control over the expenditure by the head of the Department for the various purposes for which the Department exists. After all, this control is limited, and it is supplemented by examination—previous in most cases—by the Treasury, of the various objects which the Department puts forward annually for expenditure. After all is said and done however, the real control exercised over the expenditure of this House is that of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who is, for this purpose, an officer independent of the Government, and of the Departments, and is the representative of the economy which can be exercised by this House in respect to this expenditure.

We have got a Vote of Credit for £250,000,000. That, added to the expenditure of the Vote of Credit for £250,000,000 already passed by this House, represents an enormous sum, probably the average expenditure of about three years. All of this has to be examined, or ought to be examined, by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. What I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer is whether, in respect of the expenditure which is covered by the late and the present Vote of Credit, the items of expenditure will be so examined by the Comptroller and Auditor-General for the purpose of keeping a check upon the expenditure of the Departments? He is of all men in this House, I think, a notable example of financial purity and financial fitness in relation to expenditure and the examination of expenditure. Therefore, not merely in the public interest but in his own interest, I suggest—and if necessary the staff of the Department of that officer should be strengthened—that steps should be taken in order that there may be a real control somewhere over these vast sums which are gladly voted by every Member of this House for the purposes of the Government. It is quite plain, when you have an expenditure on the Army and Navy under present conditions, that they must have what they want at once, regardless of the cost in most cases, and they must have it of the very best. When half the examiners of stores are taken up with duties which are sometimes twice in amount those of their ordinary duties, the control of expenditure, which in some cases is ridiculous at the present time, could only be general and, as it were, only over a percentage of the amount to be expended. But it is most important in the interests of economy, and in the interests further of the sums of money which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to raise from the market, that every possible form of economy, of which I believe this to be most important, should be exercised. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give the House an assurance in the direction which I have suggested.

Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, I would like to refer, by way of support, to the question raised by the hon. Member for Somerset. After your ruling, Sir, there can be no question that the footnote on the Supplementary Estimate does not in any way limit the Vote of Credit itself. I think it is clear that the Government can use this £250,000,000, or part of it, for any purpose they like, and that they can advance it to any country in Europe, or anywhere else. Under the circumstances, I do not want in any kind of way to be captious or critical either of the present Government or of any Government, but I am not quite sure that I put such enormous confidence as the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway seems to do either in this Government or in any Government. I have always been brought up to consider that the control of finance should be in the hands of Members of the House of Commons itself. I have not looked it up, but I think I am right in saying that on every occasion in the past when a loan has been made to a foreign Power an Act of Parliament has been passed. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain) shakes his head. Then there ought to be. My right hon. Friend below (Mr. Lough) says there was only one exception, the Persian Loan, which is a bad exception, and to which I raised objections. It was brought in by a Government to which my right hon. Friend did not then belong, and I have not the slightest doubt that if my right hon. Friend had been a Member of that Government at the time there would have been an Act of Parliament for that loan. That being so, I do ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if it is possible to bring in a Bill, he will do so, and can he state that this is not to be considered in any kind of way as a precedent for any future Government? What I am very much afraid of is that somebody later on—it may be the Government of my own party, or the Government of any party—may make an advance, not only in war, but on some other occasion to a foreign Government. Somebody may then get up and say that this is unusual, and that there ought to have been a Bill, and he will be answered by the statement that on this particular occasion very large sums of money have been advanced. I do not want to say anything improper, but I am not sure an advance has not been made. I do not want that to occur again, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give an assurance that a Bill will be introduced bef ore these advances are made.

The point I desire to make is one, I think, of very great importance to the country. We have been talking a great deal about providing money for a Vote of Credit, and we have ignored the great principle that the best way of paying for your imports is by having sufficient exports. So far as I have found out, both in the case of my own business and from representations by other manufacturers, the Government have entirely ignored the principle that, in order to prevent this country being impoverished by war, and in order to keep the balance of exchange in favour of this country, it is necessary to protect and further, as far as possible, the exports of this country. I am not speaking of coal, which, of course, is as good as gold and silver in paying for imports, and, if we are going to cut off the supply of coal for any purpose, we are going to leave a large vacuum which will have to be filled up by other means, and it will not only be a disadvantage to us in the matter of exchange, but of great disadvantage to countries entirely outside Germany which require British coal to carry on the trade. I am speaking of electrical concerns—iron concern—which deal all over the world.

At present I have in my mind an order which has been stopped—an order quite outside any question of going to Germany—and it is to the value of £60,000. It is possible that after some little delay it will be passed. That is only one of numerous export orders coming to this country, which the Government, no doubt with the desire of preventing anything going to Germany, has stopped. I do appeal to the Government to treat this in a generous spirit, if they can be satisfied goods are not going to assist the enemy. None of us who are traders want to do anything that can assist the enemy, but we do want to keep on our export trade. We must have our trade back again at the end of the War. We talk as though it matters not what happens to our export trade, because exports and imports have gone by the board. We shall be in a sad plight at the end of the War, and I do appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ask the various Committees with which he is connected to deal with this in a liberal spirit, so as to provide funds to pay for this Vote of Credit as far as possible by exports against imports, instead of at present talking economy. Economy is all very well in its way, but it does not provide work, or keep this country strong at the end of the War.

There is one other matter to which I would like to refer, also as being a large manufacturer, as well as doing a good deal of work in one way or another for war purposes. I had the satisfaction, the other day, of listening to the present Minister of Munitions, in Manchester, and I heard the course he suggested in his eloquent speech, but, in spending this money out of the Vote of Credit, we shall do it most ineffectively if we only bring the manufacturers and the trade unionists into it, and not our own officials at Woolwich Arsenal, the War Office, and the Admiralty. They must concur as well in supplying manufacturers and workmen with the plans and specifications on which they are to work. Without that assistance it will be impossible to carry out with speed and efficiency what is required. I give this one illustration as regards that matter. At the meeting in Manchester the engineer of a very large manufacturing concern got up and asked the question, "Will the gauges be provided for making the shells?" The head of Woolwich Arsenal was requested to reply. He said, "Oh, certainly." Then this engineer, knowing what he was talking about, asked, "Will the shop gauges be provided? The other gauges are no use unless shop gauges are provided." I am bound to say the answer from the head of Woolwich Arsenal was a shuffle; it was not practical. The result was that, whilst we were all asked to do our best the officials were not quite as eagerly in the swim as the manufacturers and workmen. The same has taken place, to my knowledge, in specifications for aluminium, in specifications for steel, in specifications for copper, and all other work. You do not get from the heads of the Departments of the Government that information, that specification, that help which is requisite to answer truly and faithfully the appeal of the Minister of Munitions, and, therefore, while he waves the Defence of the Realm Act at manufacturers and workmen, I say distinctly that it is absolutely useless unless he waves it at his own officials and says, "You must help without jealousy, and without the retention of any detail of plans or of any assistance required. You must, even if they are outsiders, give loyally of your strength and ability in order that their work may be equal to your own, and in order that they may give to the nation as quickly as possible those munitions which are so much required."

I quite sympathise with my hon. Friend who has just sat down with regard to encouraging exports. There is a Department called the War Trade Department, which was established for the purpose of granting licences. I do not blame the Government, and I do not blame this Parliament, but I think of all the chaotic offices I ever remember, that is about the worst. I think they have a very difficult task with which to deal. There are a great many licences which run very close to the border, as they cover contraband, and I can quite conceive that they have the very greatest difficulty in coming to a conclusion as to whether they shall grant a licence or not. I will go the length of saying that where there is the slightest risk in the case of Sweden, Denmark, or Holland—

How does that come in under the terms of this Vote? I do not quite follow the connection.

Of this £250,000,000 a good deal is going to be spent on the Department of which I speak. There is a large staff—a whole building of people—and I presume the Vote is affected, inasmuch as this is a matter of sending contraband through those countries.

I should have thought that would come under the ordinary Board of Trade Estimates. Of course, if the hon. Member says he knows it is covered by this, I will not contradict him.

I feel sure it is. The War Trade Department has an enormous building, and an enormous staff, all paid, I presume, out of these funds. I do not wish to complain beyond this: that it is chaotic, and that the facilities for granting licences are very bad. I think they ought to make up their minds much more quickly, and if there is any doubt at all that the goods will ultimately reach Germany, they ought to refuse a licence. More particularly do I say that for this reason: I happen to know that none of the British Consuls, with one or two exceptions, in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Holland, are British, and I know what the Swedish Consuls are. They will certify for merchants; they meet together in the clubs and cafes and arrange it amongst themselves. I will give an instance. A large quantity of permanganese was passed the other day for Sweden. The goods were going to Germany undoubtedly—there is no question about it We know, of course, that enormous quantities of copper and other things must have gone to Germany, because Sweden cannot possibly use them up for themselves. The quantity of copper and other things which have gone through has been enormous, and, so far as this War Trade Department is concerned, there ought to be some definite instructions that, wherever there is the slightest doubt about the destination of the goods, they should shut them down at once and refuse, and I am sure the exporters in this country would be quite satisfied. I have gone there myself on several occasions for licences or not — I do not care which, so long as I know where you are in the matter. So long as you keep this thing open, and it has been kept open for months, I am bound to do my best to get this matter through. Refuse it if you like, but the result would be that these firms for whom I am acting would refuse to take those orders because there is so much difficulty about them. I would suggest that some hard and fast line should be drawn so as to absolutely prevent any of these things going forward which I know are going forward to-day between those ports.

An important point was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Bristol (Mr. Hobhouse), who asked whether the expenditure of money voted under this Vote of Credit would be subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor-General in the same way as the expenditure of the year in the annual Estimates. I am pleased to say that the Comptroller and Auditor-General will have precisely the same powers with regard to the expenditure under this Vote as he would under any ordinary Vote.

And exercise them?

The Comptroller and Auditor-General is not the servant of the Government, but the servant of this House, and I have no doubt whatever that he will exercise his powers to the full in the case of this expenditure.

Will this expenditure come before the Public Accounts Committee?

Yes. The money now voted will have to be appropriated to the particular services on which it is expended by the Appropriation Bill, and that will authorise the expenditure. Consequently there will be Parliamentary authority under the Appropriation Act for the expenditure of every penny of the money now being voted. The hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) asked me whether an assurance would be given that this wholesale expenditure without any detailed Estimate under the Vote of Credit would not be taken as a precedent, and whether any recognition would now be made of the fact that Parliament was in no way committed to any expenditure under the Vote of Credit, whether made by loan to an Allied Power or not. The hon. Baronet asked me whether Parliament is to be committed to any other practice of voting large sums of money except in the ordinary way by an Estimate; or, in the case of a loan to a foreign Power, whether the usual practice would be adopted of introducing the loan by way of a Bill?

A loan to foreign Powers?

Yes, a loan to foreign Powers. There is no intention by the present procedure of establishing any new practice in this House. It is always more convenient for the House that a loan to a foreign Power should be the subject of a separate Bill. Obviously it is better that a subject of that kind should be separately discussed, and that the House should have full and precise knowledge, which it can only have when the subject is introduced as the subject matter of a Bill. In the present case I am sure the hon. Baronet will be the first to recognise that I could not undertake to give in detail, such as would be necessary in the case of a Bill, every condition in respect of a loan which may be made to an Allied Power at the present time. That would be contrary to the public interest of this country and the Allied Power as well, and it would be a disadvantage to us in fighting the War. We have therefore to ask now for a special procedure which is perfectly legal and constitutional, but which is not so convenient as the ordinary peace procedure by a Bill.

Am I right in saying that during the Napoleonic Wars, when advances were made to the allied Powers and foreign Powers, it was always done by a separate Bill?

I am afraid that is a question of which I must have notice, and I could not answer it without closer inquiry. But whatever the precedent may or may not be, now, in existing circumstances, it would not be in the public interest to introduce a separate Bill. On behalf of the Government I say, after reflection and after due consideration, that the present method adopted should not be taken as a precedent for procedure in peace time, and with that assurance I hope the House will be satisfied and not press me to give more exact reasons why a Bill would be inconvenient at the present time. My hon. Friend the Member for Somersetshire raised a question as to whether it was intended to spend any part of the money voted under this Vote of Credit by means of loans to Powers other than Allied Powers. I would beg my hon. Friend to bear in mind what he said yesterday on this subject. He was speaking of the rumours that were afloat both in this country and abroad as to our intention to make loans out of this Vote of Credit to foreign Powers. He said:—

"I shall not refer to those rumours and statements, but it is perfectly obvious that when they cannot be denied, and when no certainty exists in this country, even in the House of Commons, as to the nature of those rumours, they are widely believed among our enemies, greatly to our detriment, and also in neutral countries."

In view of that statement it is very necessary to say that none of the money voted under this Vote of Credit will be lent to Powers other than Allied Powers, and I hope I have been able to set at rest my hon. Friend's anxiety, and I trust I have put an end to the dangers which he fears will arise by giving circulation to those rumours that we shall suffer detriment not only in our own country but in the countries of our Allies. There is no intention to spend any part of this money on loans to Powers other than Allied Powers. I stated that yesterday, and I gave a reason in support of what I said. The language used in the Note at the foot of the Vote of Credit states the point clearly, and only the words "Allied Powers" are used. I quite recognise that a loan under a Vote of Credit has not the same authority as it would have under an Act of Parliament, but when an assurance is given that the intention is to act upon the terms of that Note, and the terms of that Note are made public in order to give notice to Parliament what the intention of the Government is, I think my hon. Friend might reasonably be satisfied. The Member for the City of London also referred to this point, and I trust I have satisfied him on this subject. With regard to the general question of public economy and domestic thrift, and giving facilities to the working classes to save with profit to themselves, I can assure the House that every word upon that subject which is said in this House gives to me the greatest satisfaction. In this matter it is necessary that this House should give a lead to the country. It is not merely a matter for the Government. I admit that it is the duty of the Government to see that due economy is exercised in the public Departments, but I am not at all prepared to endorse the doctrine that money is no object in this War. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), speaking of aeroplanes, rightly called attention to their importance, but I think he went a little too far when he said that money should not be considered. The moment you get that spirit abroad we must remember that contractors are only human beings, and if they are told that no matter what they charge money will not be considered, you are asking too much from them if you expect that prices will not rise. I am told upon authority which it is impossible to refuse that in the case of certain Government contractors the workmen employed on Government work expect higher pay than when working on private work. I do not say it is true in every case, but I heard in one case that this difference exists. I have no doubt hon. Members in this House could bring to my notice many cases in which pressure is brought to bear on employers to pay higher wages on Government work because it is Government work and money is no object.

Is it highly skilled work?

Yes.

The firms engaged in highly skilled work for the Government take the pick of the skilled workers, and that is the reason why they have to pay more.

I quite recognise that these contractors take the pick of the workers, but there are cases in which other workers expect it, and I do not blame them. If a workman sees money being thrown about with both hands, naturally he expects to get his share; therefore we should be a little more cautious in our language. We have to remember that our money resources are not inexhaustible. You have to practise and encourage a due spirit of economy, and I am sure that we shall not be one whit worse off because we have practised a little economy. My experience is that thriftless expenditure never gets into the best hands. The habit of thrift brought into our expenditure, I am sure, will be a real advantage in securing the objects we desire. Our organisation must be carried through economically, and I hope I shall have in this difficult task the support of every section of the House in endeavouring on every hand to practise economy.

I am a great admirer of the industry of the hon. Member for Somerset (Mr. King) and of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), but I do regret the question which they have raised to-night. When the hon. Baronet and the hon. Member for Somerset undertake to compare the present situation with the question of the Soudan Loan and the Loan to Persia, I think that they are lacking in a sense of proportion. For my part, I think that it is unfortunate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer tied the hands of the Government in the statement which he has just made. The Prime Minister said to the House yesterday that they desired to have liberty to use this £250,000,000 for loans according to their discretion. These are exceedingly delicate matters, and I do not think it wise for the House to tie the hands of the Government at all in regard to these foreign loans. We all know what has happened. It has been the subject and has caused a deal of evil. The Empire of Germany has lent £10,000,000 to Bulgaria, Why should not we keep the same liberty in dealing with these matters as Germany has already exercised. The Government ought to be perfectly free to use this money according to their discretion, and it would be a most unfortunate thing if the Government were required to introduce a Bill.

After all, there is no precedent for the situation in which the country is now placed. We are faced with a new situation, and, no matter what the precedents are—and I have been a stickler for precedents—having recognised that loans should be made to foreign countries, we ought to leave the hands of the Governments free. This House has agreed to trust this Government and the country has agreed to give it fair play in matters on which the very existence of the country depends. It might be in these very delicate and dangerous times that a loan to some foreign Power which is not an Ally would be an extremely desirable thing, and it might also be extremely desirable without consulting the House at all, or without having any discussion about it, or without even making it public. Once you admit the principle of making loans to foreign Powers, then to ask the Government to introduce a Bill before the loans are made is a most imprudent and absurd demand.

I never asked that the Government should introduce a Bill in this particular instance. I was particularly careful to say that this is a very exceptional time. I asked that the right hon. Gentleman should make some statement that this was an exceptional time, and that therefore exceptional powers had been given to him in this particular case.

I apologise. I misunderstood the hon. Baronet, and he is such a high authority on finance that I really thought it necessary to deal with the matter. I understood him to press the Government to introduce a Bill.

No.

In spite of my great respect for the hon. Member for Somerset, I do not think that it would be desirable to follow precedent in this matter, or to press the Government to introduce Bills. I think it was unfortunate that the Government were asked to give a declaration that they would confine advances to Allied Powers.

I wish to associate myself with what fell from the hon. Baronet the Member for the Everton Division (Sir J. Harmood-Banner), and I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his reply said nothing at all upon the point of the discouragement of exports. It is a most serious matter for this country at present to diminish the exports in any way whatever. There is an enormous balance of trade against us, and the exchanges of several countries, especially the United States of America, are so severely against us that we shall be in very great trouble later on in order to make our exports and imports balance. It will be impossible to do it without sending away very large sums of gold or selling vast quantities of securities. Under these circumstances, it appears to me most disastrous to discourage exports in any way whatever. It has the additional disadvantage that if you discourage exports of the nature of which the hon. Member spoke—electrical machinery, and machinery of various kinds, you only throw the demand for those articles into the hands of Germany, who had almost a monopoly in the supply of electrical apparatus to foreign countries until this War began.

I have never understood why the Government at the beginning of this War treated in a curiously differential way the firm of Siemen Bros. The firm of Siemen Bros, were allowed to trade in this country, largely, I suppose, because they were supplying the Government, although the capital is entirely German, and they are now using their name in this country as a means of retaining and holding together the whole of their business over the world. Orders are taken now in the name of Siemen Bros., of London. They are not supplied from London, because this Committee of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would probably not give them a licence to export, but they take the orders in the name of Siemen Bros., and they supply the goods from Germany. The case which the hon. Member raised is a most excellent illustrative case. I am perfectly sure that the goods which the Chancellor's Committee is refusing to be allowed to be exported in that particular case will be supplied from Germany and will help the German exchange, whilst the loss of the business will damage our exchange.

I beg to move, in paragraph (a), after the word "which" ["mixtures, compounds, or preparations which"], to insert the words "if they were imported, would."

I am sorry, and I must apologise to the Committee for the fact, that the Amendment is not on the Paper, and is simply a manuscript Amendment; but, like most of the Members of the House, I did not at all anticipate that we should be taking the Committee stage of the Finance Bill today; and when I say that the Commissioners of Customs and Excise are tomorrow meeting the representatives of the Pharmaceutical Society and those interested in this matter, it does seem rather like putting the cart before the horse for the House to-day to actually deal with provisions which are to be the subject of consultation to-morrow between the Commissioners and those whom they have undertaken to see. I suppose that there is some reason for the Committee stage being taken to-day, but I hope that we are not going to take the new Clauses. There are new provisions entirely which only appeared on the Paper this morning. None of us have seen them until now, and they raise very difficult issues. I therefore hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he feels that he must proceed with the Committee stage to-day, will not go further than the Clauses of the Bill as they stand.

This is not an emergency Bill. There is every excuse for the House dealing with emergency matters. They can be taken rapidly and very often with very little consideration; but this is the Finance Bill of the year, and I cannot help thinking it will be only right that further opportunities should be given to the House to deal not only with this particular Clause, but more especially with the new Clauses which are to-day put on the Paper for the first time. This Clause provides for duties on immature spirits. The only reason why duty has to be placed on immature spirits is so that spirit which is kept the proper length of time should not be prejudiced in the market by spirit which may be immature. I deplore exceedingly the necessity for having to place this small tax upon this form of spirit, because it leads to enormous complications which the Revenue and the House want to avoid.

Would the hon. Gentleman mind telling us what the Amendment is?

I read it out.

I am sorry, but I did not hear it.

Perhaps I may be allowed to make this preliminary comment on what the Section really does in order to show the importance, if my Amendment is not accepted, of this point at any rate being made clear. It imposes a duty not for the purpose of revenue and then it exempts from the duty certain mixtures, compounds, or preparations. They are exempted by two provisions, "A" and "B." "A" says that the additional duty under this Section shall not be charged on "mixtures, compounds, or preparations which, on importation, are charged with duty in respect of spirit contained in them, or used in their preparation or manufacture." There is nothing there about preparations used in medicine. It is "preparations which, on importation, are charged with duty." They are to be exempted from the additional duty. When you come to "B," it is clearly intended to deal not with imported mixtures at all but with mixtures which are made in this country. Then you have got the stipulation that those things are to be for medicinal purposes only.

It is true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to-day got a new Amendment which makes it clear that the mixtures referred to in "A" shall only be mixtures to be used in medicines. Trouble, however, has arisen, and, if my Amendment cannot be accepted, I hope at any rate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will promise that between now and the Report stage he will see whether the words cannot be made clear. The Bill, as it stands, says "mixtures, compounds or preparations which on importation are charged with duty in respect of spirit contained in them." One of the leading technical journals has pointed out that those who will have to deal with this matter in the profession or trade read it in two ways. Does it mean imported mixtures, mixtures which have actually been imported, and which when imported pay duty, or is it a description of a class of mixture which on importation pays a duty? It, of course, makes the whole difference. My Amendment is moved in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may make it quite clear what he means to include by "mixtures" in paragraph (a), and if he is satisfied, as I hope he may be, that there is room for doubt on the point, perhaps he will before the Report stage agree to insert the necessary words.

I must point out to the hon. Member that if these words are accepted they will not read.

I quite understand that it will be necessary to move a further Amendment.

I quite admit that the language of Revenue Clauses is not usually simple, but the explanation here is quite clear. The first part of Clause 2 deals with the additional Customs Duties payable on immature spirits. Then there is a proviso which discharges the additional duty in respect of certain articles. That proviso is in two parts. The first part (a) says that the additional duty—that is the Customs and Excise Duty—shall not be charged on certain "mixtures, compounds of preparations." So far as the Customs Duty is concerned, it is quite easy to let off the additional duty on importation, but, so far as the Excise Duties are concerned, this Clause (a) will not let them off, because the preparations when made in this country are made with spirit which has paid duty, and which would have paid, consequently, under the first part of this Clause, the additional duty. Hence, in practice, while (a) says the additional duties under this Section shall not be charged on certain mixtures, it can only in fact relate to the Customs Duties. We have, therefore, a second Clause (b), which deals with the Excise Duties. My hon. Friend's explanation of the meaning of the Clause is quite simple, and, as he has given it, it is the correct explanation. The additional duties under this Section are not to be charged on certain mixtures, compounds, or preparations which are defined in the rest of the Clause. This relief was given in response to arguments addressed by my hon. Friend to my predecessor, who, however, gave relief which went beyond the arguments of my hon. Friend. We propose now, in a subsequent Amendment, to cut down the relief to the precise point which my hon. Friend intended, and to limit it to those mixtures, compounds, or preparations which are in fact being used for medical purposes. The effect is that all mixtures, compounds, or preparations which are used for medical purposes will, on importation, not pay the additional duty, and, further, all medical preparations and compounds used for medical or scientific purposes will not pay the additional Excise Duty under proviso (b). That is the whole meaning of this Clause. It is really quite simple, and with great respect to my hon. Friend I suggest that his Amendment is not necessary. I hope in these circumstances he will not press it.

I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken a very wise course indeed in restricting the extremely wide words of this Clause. I doubt, however, whether he has gone far enough. He has used the words "medical purposes." How is it proposed to define those words? There are all sorts of wines and other medicated articles—con-coctions of a most villainous kind, which are said to be for medicinal purposes. Are they to be included?

That can be dealt with in the next Amendment.

I can assure my right hon. Friend that this Clause is not clear at any rate to the trade. The right hon. Gentleman says it refers to the additional Customs Duty. The Excise does not affect imported articles. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at these words, he will find that, under this Section the additional duties are set out as Customs and Excise Duties. All I want from my right hon. Friend is an assurance that between now and the Report stage, if he is satisfied there is any ambiguity here which may cause trouble to the trade, he will take steps to make the words quite clear.

Certainly.

I beg to move, in paragraph (a), after the word "manufacture" ["preparation or manufacture"], to insert the words "if the mixture, compound, or preparation is one which is recognised by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise as being used for medical purposes."

I beg to propose, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "recognised," to insert the words "by an advisory body representing medicine, pharmacy, and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise appointed."

I want to move this because it is quite clear the Clause does not say who is to decide what is or is not a medical purpose. However expert the Commissioners of Excise may be, it is clear cases will arise when they will want somebody to assist them in reference to this one point. It might be said, for instance, that everything in the British Pharmacopoeia is an article used for medicinal purposes, and, therefore, ought to be exempt. But who is to decide that? If my Amendment is adopted, instead of leaving the decision to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, they will have the advice of some body which represents medical men and the pharmacists, as well as the Revenue side. I have no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell me that it is the intention of the Department to seek some such advice, but I think it is important this House should see that it goes to a properly constituted body for that advice, for one often finds that people who may have particular interests to serve secure the ear for the time being of a particular official who may be perfectly bonâ fide and yet accept the advice of the expert who has that special interest to serve. It surely would be much better to say in the Bill what the advisory body shall be. Let us see that it consists of representatives of medicine and pharmacy, as well as of the Commissioners. We have a precedent for that in connection with the Insurance Commissioners, who have a large number of technical questions upon which they want advice, and, under the Act, an advisory body is appointed. I quite admit that that body is a very large one, and a large body may not be the best body that can be devised. I therefore do not stipulate for any particular number. You may have a small number if you choose, but I do suggest the House should see that the Commissioners do not take an arbitrary view of what is to come within these exemptions and should have at their back some authoritative body, representing medicine as well as themselves.

How is it proposed to define the words "medical purposes"? I submit that they do require some further definition. One must remember that in the Bible St. Paul told Timothy to take some wine for his stomach's sake. Are the inventors of the various concoctions to which I have already referred to say that they are to be taken for the stomach's sake, and is that to be deemed to be a medicinal purpose?

The Amendment as it, now stands would make the Commissioners of Customs and Excise final arbiters of what is to be properly described as a medical preparation. My hon. Friend raises a question whether the Commissioners of Excise are competent to be the final authority upon this very important medical point. I quite agree with him that, without the assistance of well-trained advisers they would not be competent. I do not think the ordinary Commissioners of Excise are appointed from the point of view of their medical qualification. Would it be wise, on the other hand, to accept my hon. Friend's Amendment and to insert in an Act of Parliament a particular body which at the moment appeals to him or may appeal to us as a suitable body, but which, five or ten years hence, might be most unsuitable? I ask my hon. Friend to accept my assurance that we will set up and consult a body which will not be a statutory body, but which will be a properly qualified medical body to advise the Commissioners of Customs and Excise what preparations may properly be described as medical preparations.

You are setting up another advisory committee.

No, we are not setting up a statutory advisory committee, but we will take steps to see that the Commissioners of Excise are properly advised as to what is or is not a medical preparation, and I hope, under these circumstances my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment.

I am a little uneasy about this matter. Reference has been made to a number of concoctions which have been sold—"Wincamis," "Hall's Wine," and a number of preparations which are advertised very widely—as medical and as medicines, but which do contain somewhere about 20 per cent. of alcohol. In my judgment they are most deleterious preparations, the use of which ought to be discouraged in every way. They are really very strong liquor being sold under the name of medicine. [An HON. MEMBER: "By chemists?"] Yes, by chemists. I am not at all satisfied that they would be excluded by these words, nor am I clear as to whether the decision of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise would exclude them. I do not know whether the people who sell them would have the power to appeal to the Law Courts. That is a matter of law upon which I cannot express an opinion. We all know that these things are advertised and are sent out on the authority and with the support of a large number of medical men. The last thing we want to do is to relieve these preparations from these duties. I am rather anxious on that point.

The wines referred to by my right hon. Friend are not touched by the Bill and are quite outside it. This Bill only deals with spirits.

Immature spirits.

The Clause deals only with spirits, while all the articles referred to come within the category of wines, and nothing in the Clause touches them in any way. In answer to my right hon. Friend's appeal that I should not press the Amendment, it is quite clear that he himself admits the necessity for expert advice. I understand him to say that he will see that a small body, not a statutory body, will be set up which will be representative of the interests named in my Amendment. If that is so, I see no reason to press the Amendment. I would, however, say to the right hon. Gentleman that he is wrong if he thinks we are going to get a Bill that will not want altering for ten years. He says that the advisory body might want altering in less than ten years. I can tell him that there are many things in this Bill which will require altering long before ten years. Personally I should have preferred a statutory body being set up in one year's time, and if next year it was not wanted, it could be altered. In view of the right hon. Gentleman's assurance I will not press the Amendment.

I doubt very much whether this Clause will carry out what was intended in the Debate we had upon the matter the other night. We had instances given of preparations, such as hair oil, which requires spirits in small proportions but which could hardly be said to be used for medical purposes. I hope the Government will look into the matter and see that all classes of manufactures dealt with in the Debate the other night come under the words "medical purposes." I rather support what was said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir T. Whittaker). My hon. Friend next me (Sir G. Younger) has quoted the scripture for his own purposes upon this point.

Why not?

There is a precedent for another person doing the same thing under the same circumstances.

That was not a doctor's prescription.

I remember the hon. Gentleman pointing out on another occasion that that quotation might have meant that the wine was for outside application only, therefore, it does not prove his case at all. I do not think much attention should be paid to that point, or that this Bill will deal with the wines to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite and my hon. Friend object and which are used for medical purposes. A small tax upon the amount of spirit contained in them is not likely to stop their use in any way, and it is no use altering the Clause for the purpose of dealing with them. If their use is to be stopped, and I agree as to the desirability of stopping it, the matter will have to be dealt with by legislation of some other kind.