asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a large part of the work of nursing in the Royal Naval Hospital at Chatham is being done by male orderlies, members of the St. John Ambulance Corps, most of whom have no experience of attending to the sick and have no natural aptitude for the work; whether he is aware that there are numbers of women better qualified for such duties who are anxious to undertake any work for the nation; and whether he will take steps to replace the male orderlies at the hospital in question by women?

The nursing at Chatham and in all our naval hospitals is performed partly by fully trained nursing sisters and active service sick berth staff, and partly by the auxiliary sick berth staff reserve who are members of the St. John Ambulance Corps. These orderlies, who perform only a subordinate part in the nursing, are quite well trained for the work. They form, in addition, a reserve under training for our nursing service afloat—a most important consideration.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that there are a number of military officers at Woolwich Arsenal and other places connected with the War Office who are performing duties that could be performed efficiently by civilians; and whether, in view of the requirements of the Array abroad, he will transfer the duties these officers are performing to civilians who are over military age?

The substitution for military officers of other persons competent to perform their duties at Woolwich Arsenal and elsewhere is a question which is continually under review, and if it is found possible to substitute civilians for officers who can render more useful service abroad the Army Council will not "hesitate to make the change.

asked the Minister of Munitions what is the percentage increase of men employed in the Enfield Gun Factory and in Woolwich Arsenal, respectively, between the last completed working week in June, 1914, and the last completed working week in June, 1915?

The percentage increase of men employed in the factory at Enfield and in Woolwich Arsenal between the last completed working week in June, 1914, and in June, 1915, was 269.42 per cent, and 194.15 per cent., respectively.

asked what is the average number of hours worked by the whole of the men employed at Woolwich Arsenal and Enfield Gun Factory, respectively, during the last completed working week in June, 1915?

The average number of hours worked by the whole of the men employed in the factories in Woolwich Arsenal and at Enfield during the last completed working week in June, 1915, was 68.68 and 62.16 respectively. Work is stopped at Enfield on alternate Sundays, and for the week in question Sunday was not a working day.

asked how many women were employed in Woolwich Arsenal in the last completed working weeks of June, 1914, and June, 1915, respectively; and how many of the women in each of these weeks were employed in the actual output of munitions in any stages of the work?

The total number of women employed in Woolwich Arsenal during the last completed working week in June, 1914, was ten, and in June, 1915, thirty-eight. The total number of women employed in addition as outworkers in connection with the output of munitions was in June, 1914, 116, and in June, 1915, 157.

asked the Minister of Munitions whether he will say how many women were employed in the Enfield Gun Factory in the last completed working weeks of June, 1914, and June, 1915, respectively; and how many of the women in each of these weeks were employed in the actual output of munitions in any stages of the work?

No women are employed in the factory at Enfield, but the number of women employed as outworkers in connection with the output of munitions were in June, 1914, nil, and in June, 1915, forty-one.

asked the Minister of Munitions what is the cause of the delays in inspecting material and work in progress of munitions of war; and whether he is aware of the decreased production due to this cause?

If my hon. Friend will furnish me with specific instances of what he has in mind, I will cause inquiry to be made into them.

asked the Minister of Munitions what steps are proposed to be taken in Scotland by the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic)?

I am afraid I cannot at present add to the reply given to the hon. Member on 7th July. The Board only returned from Scotland yesterday.

May I ask have the Central Control Boerd taken any steps for the provision of restaurants or canteens in the shipyards and factories?

I think that is a problem they were considering when they visited Scotland. They have returned now, and I have no doubt will present their Report in a very short time.

Is there any truth in the rumour that all Scotland is to be made into one area?

asked the Minister of Munitions if he will state who is the Mr. H. S. Morgan who is constantly making communications to the Press with regard to his Department, all of which no doubt reach the enemy; and whether he can arrange that all announcements which it may be desirable to make public shall be made in this House by one of the Ministers representing his Department?

May I ask if it is the fact that Mr. Morgan is one of the most successful organisers in London, and that his communications largely helped the right hon. Gentleman to obtain the result he was aiming at?

My hon. Friend (Mr. MacVeagh) is perfectly accurate in his information. Mr. Morgan is a gentleman of business experience who has volunteered his services to help the Ministry of Munitions and the trade unions in the enrolment and organisation of the War Munition Volunteers, and I take this opportunity of acknowledging the valuable help he has given in this connection. Mr. Morgan has acted entirely within his instructions in the communications made by him to the Press in his highly successful efforts to appeal for volunteers and I am not aware that any such communication has been made which it would be desirable to withhold from the enemy. I do not propose to make any change in the arrangements for publicity

Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the statements made in the Press that thousands of men would be brought from Vancouver, apart from those arranged for by the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division, should be made in that way, and in a large matter of that kind should not the House be consulted?

I saw that statement. I think my right hon. Friend is quite wrong. He did not say so. I think he said that the matter was left in the hands of the hon. Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) and some other gentleman, and that they were acting on behalf of the Board of Trade. That is all Mr. Morgan said.

asked the Minister of Munitions whether, as a result of the organisation of his Department, he is now in a position to say that he possesses all the powers he feels may be necessary; and whether, in the event of further powers proving essential, he can state how these will be obtained during the forthcoming Parliamentary recess?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I made in the House on the introduction of the Munitions of War Supply Bill on 23rd June. Since then I have arranged with the Secretary of State for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty to take over important additional powers. The powers given by the Munitions Act are very wide, and I do not anticipate any need for strengthening or extending them.

asked the Minister of Munitions who are the business men of high standing and great practical experience forming part of the staff of the Ministry of Munitions, at the central office in London, whose presence was officially announced would be a guarantee for business direction and business advice?

I propose to issue a statement of the names of the directing staff of the Ministry of Munitions as soon as it is complete.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that trustees and others are unable to determine whether the discount payable to subscribers to the War Loan on payment of the instalments in advance should be treated as capital or as interest; and whether he will make a statement on the subject for the guidance of investors?

This is a question which arises in various forms, and is a matter for legal advice according to the circumstances of each case.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet arranged for attaching to all dividend warrants issued under the new War Loan a notice showing that, in the case of persons not liable to Income Tax, the amount deducted in respect of Income Tax may be recovered; and indicating by what method this may be done?

I fear I am not yet in a position to add anything to the answer I gave the hon. Member on 5th July, but the matter is receiving active attention.

May we take it that the principle of giving such notice is accepted by the Government?

Yes; we wish to do so practically if we find it possible.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade a question, of which I have given private notice, namely: Is it to be a condition of the aircraft insurance scheme that any person desiring protection under it must effect the insurance through the company which already holds the fire insurance; if so, is this not interfering with the right of the individual insurer to select the channel through which his business shall be placed?

I am afraid I have not received a copy of the question.

May I say that I placed it at the top of the question the answer to which the right hon. Gentleman has just read out?

I think my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. I obtained the answers to my questions not in my private room, but behind the Speaker's Chair.

May I inquire if the premiums charged are net, or is the usual commission allowed to the agent?

It depends entirely upon the point of view from which my hon. Friend speaks. If he speaks as an agent, I should say they are gross, for out of the premium the commission will be paid. If he speaks as an insured person, or one who wishes to be insured, they are net.

asked he Home Secretary whether he will institute an inquiry into the circumstances which led to verdicts of accidental death being returned at coroners' inquests upon the bodies of Beatrice Mundy, Alice Burnham, and Margaret Lofty, whose deaths were subsequently shown to have been caused by murder; and whether he can state the legal or medical qualifications of the coroners which is now pending.

I will look into this matter, but its consideration must stand over until the Court of Criminal Appeal has dealt with the prisoner's appeal against his conviction which is now pending.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state the total amount paid out of local rates in Ireland for extra police in the last completed year; and, if any extra police are employed now, will he say where and for what purpose?

The total amount paid out of local rates in Ireland for extra police in the year 1913–14, the last for which payments have been completed, was £20,317 18s. 9d., of which a sum of nearly £14,000 represents the charge for the permanent extra forces in Belfast and Derry City. The balance consists of payments for detachments and for the temporary extra forces in the proclaimed counties of Clare and Galway, in which counties the retention of the latter was still necessary for the preservation of the peace.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the sole business of these extra police is political espionage?

No, Sir.

asked the President of the Local Government Board if any decision has been come to with regard to arrears of pay of vaccination officials; and whether he intends to issue a general order for their payment, by salary or otherwise, on a scale equivalent to their receipts for the years 1903–7, before the operation of the Vaccination Act and Order, 1907?

I may refer my hon. Friend to what I stated on this subject in my speech on the Vote for the Local Government Board on the 24th June. My right hon. Friend, though agreed that a good case has been made out for the change of payment from a system of fees to a system of salaries, feels that the present is not an opportune time for a general change in the method of remuneration of vaccination officers.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the loss of income which these officers are sustaining, which has been in force for many years, and is now a greater hardship than in times of peace?

That is the basis of the argument for the change, and my right hon. Friend is giving consideration now to the possibility of dealing with the matter.

I beg to move, "That for the purposes of concluding the business of Supply for the present Session, seventeen days shall be allotted under Standing Order 15 for the consideration of the Annual Estimates for the Army, Navy, and Civil Services, including Votes on Account; and, as respects the present Session, that Standing Order shall have effect as if in paragraph 7 of that Standing Order the sixteenth day were substituted for the last day but one of the days so allotted, and as if in paragraph 8 of that Standing Order the seventeenth day were substituted for the twentieth day so allotted."

The House is aware that Standing Order No. 15 provides that not more than twenty days, being days before the 5th of August, shall be allotted for the consideration of the Annual Estimates, including Votes on Account, and that those days do not in- clude Supplementary Estimates or Votes of Credit. In the Motion which I am about to make I am proposing that in this part of the present Session, for the purpose of concluding the business of Supply, we shall be content with seventeen days instead of the twenty which are normally allotted under Standing Order No. 15, and that consequential Amendments of the Standing Order, so far as this Session is concerned, shall be made. I may point out that the Votes for all the large Departments of State have been discussed, with the exception of the Foreign and Colonial Offices. We have had discussions on the Army and the Navy —and a number of questions were raised on the Votes on Account — the Office of Works, the Post Office, the Board of Agriculture, the Treasury, the Board of Education, the Scottish Office, the Board of Trade, the Home Office, the Local Government Board, and the National Insurance Commission. With regard to all these matters the House has had an opportunity —in all cases in Committee I think, and in one or two cases, on Report — of discussing the Estimates.

The outstanding Estimates that remain to be discussed, or could be discussed, are these: Law Charges, Superannuation— already mentioned — Old Age Pensions, Public Works, the Diplomatic Services, the House of Commons, and the Foreign and Colonial Offices, together with some of the Revenue Departments. In regard to those, so far as I can gather from such information as I have received, one subject which the House would desire to have an early discussion upon is the Colonial Office. That will be provided for. The House will observe that in addition to the seventeen days which, under my Motion, will be allotted to Supply, we shall practically have had twenty days of Supply, because three days during the Session has been devoted to discussion on Votes of Credit. I agree that under the terms of the Standing Order Votes of Credit are not included in the twenty days, which is not the minimum, but the maximum allotted by the Standing Order for Supply; but the circumstances in which we are now living are very anomalous. On the proper Votes of Credit most questions, or a large number of questions in which the House and the country are peculiarly interested, have been the subject of, I will not say repeated or adequate, but of considerable discussion. Time has also been given for the Report stage of these Votes. In effect the discussions which we have had under the Votes of Credit may be taken as equivalent, for all practical purposes, to additional days in regard to the Army and Navy, and for the most part they have been devoted to those two topics.

I must say that we expect to have to ask the House for another Vote of Credit before it adjourns. Of course, there will be a further opportunity for a continuation of such discussion, or initiation of discussion, on new or revelant topics. I may point out further what may be in the recollection of hon. Members in every quarter of the House that during the fifteen days which have been devoted to Supply the House has very rarely sat the appointed time. In most cases we have adjourned about the dinner hour. I am not complaining of it; it is perfectly natural, but hours under which the conditions of a normal Session would undoubtedly have been occupied with further discussion and elucidation of the various questions presented by the Supply of the year, by the deliberate wish and decision of the House have been foregone. I may add that I think it is very desirable, if possible, that we should bring the necessary proceedings of this part of the Session to a conclusion before the end of the present month. There is no intention, I need hardly say, to withdraw from the House of Commons the proper opportunities of supervising and criticising the action of the Executive; but I think we shall all agree that a reasonable interval might well be allowed to elapse before we resume our Parliamentary activities. It is in view of these questions that we ask the House, abnormal as the conditions are, to be content, so far as this part of the Session is concerned, and so far as the business of Supply is concerned, with the seventeen days which under this Resolution we propose to allocate for the purpose.

The Prime Minister said that all the great Departments of State had been the subject of debate. I suppose it is because of the peaceful condition of Ireland that the right hon. Gentleman no longer treats that country as in any sense a great Department of the State. While I do not object to the course the Government propose to take, I must, I think, make one reservation, that the days which have been retrenched are, to a large extent, days which would have been devoted to Irish discussion. I do not, at this time, ask for those days, nor do I desire to obtrude any needless controversy upon the attention of the House, but there are some matters connected with Ireland, even during this War, that in my opinion need discussion. One of them is, the intimation that the Government no longer intend to have a revision session for the registration of voters. If there is to be an Act abolishing revision for the present year, there will be no necessity for a discussion on that point, but I am bound to make this declaration, that we have need of some protection against partisan appointments, especially since this Coalition Government was formed.

We all remember the controversy connected with the removal, or the proposed removal, of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. We all know the action which was taken by a particular party in sustaining him in office. I make no criticism' whatever of the action of the Government in that matter, but it does put those who-have taken an independent position under the necessity of making a demand that the partisan appointment of revising barristers in Ireland should cease. I say that partisan appointments have been made in the past, and that some of them have been scandalous appointments. In England, as I understand, there is a kind of truce in the appointment of magistrates. What is the position with regard to the appointment of magistrates in Ireland? Are they to be made on partisan lines? Are particular districts to be boycotted, and are unworthy persons to be entrusted with judicial office? These are matters that require attention, and I do say, while not claiming any time at this moment under the rules of Supply, that if hereafter a desire should be expressed for attention to Irish matters, the Government should give a guarantee that that time will be given. There is one other observation. It is a very remarkable fact in time of war that, for the first time for over half a century, neither the Lord Lieutenant, nor the Chief Secretary, nor his Under-Secretary for Ireland, who is a permanent official, is an Irishman, and I can only say—and I say it solemnly on my responsibility—that any pro-Germanism which now exists in Ireland has been fomented by the folly of those who put the present Irish Under-Secretary into his position.

As I understand, the Prime Minister proposes that the House shall give up two days, and I think three potential days, because I believe it is in the power of the Government, if the House desires it, to extend the number of days that are provided. I also understand that two days will still remain, one to be devoted to the Colonial Office and the other to the Foreign Office.

I should be glad if that is the wish of the House. I understood it was the desire to discuss the Colonial Vote, but I was not aware there was a desire to discuss the Foreign Office Vote.

I understand the extra day has not been given to any particular subject. It is rather difficult for private Members now to convey their views as to the Votes they would desire to discuss. However, I have no doubt there will be an opportunity for discussion of any particular Vote if there is any large body of opinion in favour of it. I think I can say there is no private Member of this House who has on more frequent occasions than I have protested against Motions of this kind; but I recognise these are not ordinary but extraordinary times, and, so far as I am concerned, I do not propose to offer any objection to the Motion. At the same time, I think the Prime Minister fully wishes the House to understand this is not to be taken as a precedent, and will not be referred to in future as a reason for any Government interfering with the Motion regarding Supply. Because the House on previous occasions may not have utilised all the time set apart for Supply, that must not be taken as an indication that the House does not highly value the privileges we have under that Motion. I know the right hon. Gentleman does not mean that. There are some occasions on which Supply goes through in a much more rapid manner because of circumstances, apart altogether from the mere merits of the Vote.

I understand we are to have a Vote of Credit. The right hon. Gentleman has not yet said how much it is for, but no doubt we shall know in the course of time. As I understand from the right hon. Gentleman, we are going to have rather a long Adjournment. I do not know whether the Prime Minister is in a position to-day to give any indication as to the length of that Adjournment, but I would only say with regard to the proposal of the Government—indeed, with regard to all proposals as to business—so far as I am concerned I have not said, nor will I say, anything to oppose them in carrying out their work. What I have contended, and continue to contend, is that there should be more vigorous prosecution and more action, and, so far as this Motion is concerned, it will certainly not have my opposition.

I should be very glad if my right hon. Friend would tell the House what is to be done with the three days. So far as I understand, we have only two-days more of Supply, and I am sure the House would like to know whether any Bills other than those which have already appeared on the Paper will be introduced, and what the nature of them may be. There is one Bill which has been referred to dealing with the postponement of elections. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will excuse my saying that I think in the opinion of many the introduction of that has been delayed too long, and I think it points to a sphere in which economy might be effected. I should be very glad to know when it will be introduced and what other legislation, if any, the Government proposes to take?

These Rules relating to Supply were, so far as I remember, put into existence by my right hon. colleague the senior Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) somewhere about the year 1902, and they were put into existence because it had become a perfect scandal that Supply had been pushed off till the end of the Session. Since that date these Rules have never been altered, and I think, on the whole, they have been found to work extremely well. I am sorry, under the existing circumstances, it has been found necessary to make an alteration, but I do not rise in any way to oppose the alteration, because I think under the circumstances it is necessary; but I wish to emphasise what the right hon. Gentleman opposite has already emphasised, namely, that this will not be taken in the future for a precedent, and that it is really an alteration which is caused by the exigencies of the moment. With regard to the actual alteration at the present moment, I myself, personally—of course I am only speaking for myself—think that the sooner this House adjourns the better, and, therefore, I do not intend to offer the slightest opposition to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman. I would even go further and say that the later the reassembling is put off the better for everybody in this country.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the fact that Supply has not taken very long on the allotted clays, is not to be regarded as indicating that an interest has not been taken in it, and that good results have not taken place. The reason Supply has not taken very long is, as I think the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, the loyalty of all the private Members on both sides of the House, who have gone out of their way not to move reductions in salaries and not to move the Adjournment. Only the other day I, myself, had occasion to make certain observations which the hon. Gentleman in charge of the matter could not answer; in fact, he did not attempt to answer them. He had only been appointed a very short time, and I did not wish to press him, but, under the ordinary circumstances, I should have moved the Adjournment of the Committee until we had somebody who could answer the questions. As things are, I thought it my duty to take no notice of the inability of the Government to deal with the questions which they put before us, and consequently I let the matter go. I would point out, however, to the right hon. Gentleman that that sort of thing cannot go on always, and when the House does meet—and I hope it will be under happier circumstances—the question of Supply will become very important. I hope all private Members will take the opportunity of coming down to criticise the action of the Government on later occasions upon these questions of Supply. The conscience of the House of Commons during the last five or six years, for what it is worth, has not been exercised in a proper manner in the criticising of Supply, and that is going to be a very important thing in the future. I am sure from what the Prime Minister has said that if he is in power later on he will not endeavour to use this as a precedent for depriving private Members of these opportunities in Supply.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister what is the object of curtailing the industries of the House of Commons? Is it done in the interests of the Government or the House of Commons? Is it not a dangerous or, at any rate, an undesirable precedent for the Government of the day to tamper with the Standing Orders of the House of Commons?

I wish to ask one or two questions with regard to the Prime Minister's Motion. I would like to say at once that I am one of those who do not agree with the sentiment expressed by the hon. Baronet who represents the City of London. I cannot see how even he can have his appetite for discussion gratified if he desires a prolonged adjournment of the sittings of the House of Commons. His lecture to the Prime Minister about the uses that can be made by hon. Members of days in Supply obviously falls to the ground if he at the same time desires that the House of Commons should not meet. Therefore I feel very strongly that the hon. Baronet opposite never made a more futile intervention in the Debate than that which he has just made. Of course, I know that the Prime Minister cannot follow the course of Supply as closely as the Whips, and there are certain questions which have been left open on Supply days which are not yet settled. In the first place, there is the only Grant in connection with Supply which has been considerably reduced, and that is the Grant to the Board of Agriculture in Scotland. That Supply is not yet passed. Another is the Local Government Board Vote for Scotland, in connection with which there rests a very important question which has not yet been finally settled by the Treasury, namely: whether or not sewers in our great cities, especially in our Scottish cities, shall be assessed to Income Tax until there is a uniform method of assessment throughout the United Kingdom. In connection with these points I want to ask the Prime Minister that the last day of Supply, which is the seventeenth, he proposes to give shall be put down as far back in the Session as possible so that these points can be discussed before the seventeenth day is actually taken. There are some negotiations going on, and I want us to be able to take part in those discussions if it is possible.

I also wish to ask the Prime Minister a question about the Votes of Credit. The last Vole of Credit which was taken in this House will carry on the War until at least the middle of September. If the Prime Minister proposes a long Adjournment at the end of this month, there could be a six weeks' Adjournment without the necessity of the House of Commons taking another Vote of Credit. I want the Prime Minister to assure us—and I put this in no contentious spirit—that if he does, as he is entitled to do, come for another Vote of Credit before we rise at the end of this month, will he assure us that that will not prejudice the length of the Adjournment. The mere fact that the Prime Minister takes another Vote of Credit, in view of the fact that the present Vote will take us to the middle of September, ought not to be used to keep the House adjourned indefinitely for any lengthy period. I feel very strongly about this matter, and I do not think it can be repeated too often that this War is no ordinary War. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I think I may be allowed to say that. We are all very intimately bound up with the fortunes of those who are partaking in this War, and our interests are more closely bound up than ever they have been in any previous war because of the large number of men recruited both for the Army and the Navy. Very many of us feel that it is our bounden duty, and we feel it quite sincerely and anxiously, that we should be kept in touch with all that is happening as far as possible, and therefore the Adjournment should not be unduly prolonged.

I generally differ from the views expressed by the hon. Member who has just sat down, and I generally agree with the views expressed by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. But this afternoon I am a little more inclined to agree with the hon. Member for East Edinburgh and inclined to differ from the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he cannot answer the question put to him as to when he proposes to discuss the Vote of Credit for carrying on the War. I wish to take the opportunity of making some observations, not in a contentious spirit, with regard to aviation, and I should be glad to know whether he will take that Vote next week or the following week. With regard to the length of the Adjournment, I was very sorry to hear the remarks made by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. If the hon. Baronet is anything at all he is a House of Commons man; his reputation has been built up in the House of Commons, he is a pillar of the House of Commons, and we all look to him to keep us right in every matter of order and in maintaining the rights and privileges of Back Bench Members. I say quite frankly—and I think I may say that I have not taken part in any contentious discussions—that I cannot agree with the hon. Baronet's contention. This is the House of Commons and it has certain rights on behalf of the people of this country, and although it is true that there is a war of vast importance going on, I think it is undesirable that the Adjournment should be too long. I do not want to press the Prime Minister further than to ask him, if he can, to indicate what length of Adjournment he proposes, but I trust it will not be such an Adjournment as will make us feel that the Government of the day, who have the support of the vast majority of the House of Commons in the prosecution of this War, desire to escape legitimate criticism. There are two kinds of criticism—destructive and constructive. I am quite sure that the bulk of the Members of this House do not wish to indulge in destructive or opposition criticism of any kind, but merely desire to assist the Government to carry on the War in the most vigorous manner possible. I do plead with the Prime Minister and with my hon. Friend not to delegate the rights of the House of Commons, but to allow us, after a reasonable interval, to meet again, relying upon the patriotic feelings of the House not to criticise where criticism would be dangerous.

I want to put two points which I do not think have been put to the House in connection with this Debate. The first is the importance of economy at the present time. We are all for economy, and I believe a further discussion of the Estimates would show the Government those points on which Members are generally agreed that economy is more desirable and more easy to effect. It is particularly necessary from the point of view of economy to discuss as many Votes as possible on the Estimates. The second point to which I wish to refer is in connection with what the Prime Minister said with regard to the Foreign Office. May I point out to him that we have had several Debates on Foreign Office questions—only one this week—which would have been properly taken in connection with the Foreign Office Vote? There has been, for instance, the question of contraband. We have had on the Adjournment repeated discussions of this question, and they have been invariably cut short by the rules enforcing the rising of the House after an hour's Debate. There has also been the question of the treatment of prisoners. We have had several Debates on this subject, and similarly they have come to a premature conclusion. I hope that we must not assume, or take it as meant from what the Prime Minister said about the Foreign Office Vote, that the control of the Foreign Office is to be taken away from this House. Personally, I have no desire upon the Foreign Office Vote or upon any other occasion to discuss the high questions of national policy for which the Foreign Office stands, but there are many most important questions, notably those of the treatment of prisoners and of contraband, which can be only effectively raised in connection with the Foreign Office Vote.

I should like to express my agreement with the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. T. W. Healy), who expressed the hope that some time would be found before the House separates for a discussion of Irish matters. The hon. and learned Member referred to an event which is fresh in the memory of most of us, and which was discussed in the papers in the form of a controversy over the suggested removal of the Lord Chancellor in Ireland. I do not think any of us have any desire to discuss that matter or to go into the past, but there are circumstances connected with it which might make it very difficult for us to refrain from asking an explanation from the Government. However that may be, there are matters connected with the administration of the law in Ireland, to which the hon. and learned Member referred, which I think even in this abnormal time might be legitimately discussed, and I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us an opportunity for that discussion.

Could my right hon. Friend say what sum the Government intend to ask for in the Vote of Credit?

I should like to ask whether we shall have an opportunity of hearing from the President of the Board of Education something about the scheme which was outlined by his predecessor for co-ordinating higher education with industrial development. I desire to protest against various suggestions which have been made for curtailing the privileges of this House by amateur Cromwells who attempt a coup d'etat. One of the greatest speeches ever made on the floor of this House was that which contained the phrase, "Take away that bauble!" but that had great convincing victories behind it.

I must express on behalf of the Government our acknowledgment to the House for the spirit in which this Motion has been debated. There has been no disposition whatever either to oppose it or to make anything in the nature of carping comments on it. The hon. Gentleman who spoke a few moments ago (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) suggested that the Government might possibly have at the back of their minds the desire to escape criticism. Criticism, as he said, is of various kinds, constructive, destructive, and I may add, though it is not synonymous with either, instructive. The last class the Government is always ready to welcome and to profit by it, and we should be very sorry that this House should be curtailed of any opportunity of giving them that necessary and patriotic assistance. It is from no desire to escape criticism that this Motion is put forward, and, when my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. King) suggests as a drawback to the curtailment of the normal number of days which are given to Supply that the cause of public economy may suffer, I am bound to say that in my experience as a Minister, which now extends over a good many years, the almost invariable result of discussion of Supply in Committee of this House is to suggest new modes of expenditure by which additional burdens would be imposed upon the Exchequer and additional requirements exacted from the taxpayer. I am sorry to say that is my experience, and I believe that the best friends of economy—it may be a self-complacent and almost Pharisaical attitude—are to be found on this Bench.

Does that apply to the Minister of Munitions?

I am speaking of them comprehensively. My hon. Friend asked quite a reasonable question: Whether in connection with this proposed reduction in the number of days to be given to Supply we contemplate any addition to the legislative burdens of the House? The Bill to which he referred, the Bill with regard to elections, will be introduced next week, and, so far as my knowledge goes, there is no other legislation in contemplation this side of the Adjournment, except legislation of a purely departmental character necessitated by the special requirements of the War. Some inquiries have been addressed to me in regard to two matters, neither of which is strictly relevant, I think, to the present Motion, though I myself rather offered the temptation to hon. Members to comment upon them, namely, the Vote of Credit and the length of the Adjournment. The Vote of Credit, whatever amount it may be, will have to be introduced next week, because it has to be included in the Appropriation Bill which concludes our labours in Committee of Supply, and I will ask the House to be content to wait until next week for a disclosure of the character of that Vote. In the same way with regard to the length of the Adjournment, somewhat diverse views have been expressed by two hon. Gentlemen, both great Parliamentary authorities—the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) and the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), who usually agree in their criticism of the Executive Government, from whatever party or combination of parties that Executive may be drawn—

If they are wrong.

If, in the opinion of the hon. Baronet, they are wrong. And who upon this occasion differ. One of them, I gather, is in favour of a long Adjournment. He thinks that the less the House of Commons sits and the less public ventilation of opinion and criticism there may be, the better in the interests of the country. The other, supported as he is by hon. Members in various quarters of the House, is naturally loth to part with the privilege which the House has always claimed and which it has abundantly vindicated of an effective supervision and control over the Executive of the day. I will not for the moment pronounce as between those two views, but when the time comes, and it must come very soon for the Government to propose the Adjournment, I hope that we shall be able to reconcile them. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy), supported by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the St. Augustine's Division (Mr. R. McNeill), suggested various points in connection with Irish matters which he thought might be fitting subjects for discussion. I very much doubt, speaking of course off-hand, whether the particular topics to which my hon. and learned Friend referred would be in order on any Vote of Supply. I do not think, as regards the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, that his salary is charged on the Votes at all, but in regard to that and Colonial matters and in regard to what my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Hogge) said with reference to Scotland we shall be guided very much in the order in which we put down the various Votes for the final days of Supply by any opinion which is conveyed to us and which seems to reflect a general current of opinion in any quarter of the House. We are not bound to any order, and we shall take the Votes in that order in which so far as we are able to judge it is the general desire of the House they should be taken. Those are all the points which have been raised in the course of the Debate. I again express on behalf of the Government our acknowledgment to the House of the public patriotic spirit in which they are about to agree to this curtailment of the number of days in Supply.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "and the care of officers and men disabled in consequence of the present War."

With the permission of the House I will leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield (Mr. Anderson) to explain the meaning of the Amendment, to which his name is attached.

I beg to second the Amendment. We feel that the best work that this statutory Committee can do is to confine itself entirely to the question of the supplementary pensions. The work of getting disabled soldiers back into industry, as well as of securing the return of the ordinary soldiers to their industrial occupations, is so big a job, involving so many difficulties, that I believe it to be entirely beyond the scope of the Committee which this Bill proposes to set up. We therefore desire there should be some entirely different committee for the purpose of tackling the whole industrial side of this matter, including the training of disabled soldiers and bringing them back into industry again. That will raise many difficult questions. It will involve the question of wage standards and many other industrial matters. I believe that this is not the proper Committee for such a purpose; it is not properly constituted to undertake so difficult and delicate a job, and that is why we want to limit the scope of this Committee to the work of allocating these supplementary pensions. There may be not only disabled soldiers to be dealt with, but possibly there will be 2,000,000 ordinary soldiers who will have to be got back into the ranks of industry. That will be a very big job, and I therefore strongly urge that the words I have quoted should be left out and that, later on, we should set up another authority to deal with the question of the industrial training of disabled soldiers and bringing them back in the ordinary ranks of industry.

This point was discussed at great length on the Committee stage, when a large number of us thought that, unless public money were provided in addition to the voluntary funds that are to be at the disposal of the statutory Committee, this body could not undertake the work. But it has been made quite plain to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on behalf of the Government—and I notice that the Prime Minister himself happens to be present at this precise moment, and therefore has full cognisance of what the Government has done—we have an excellent pledge from the Cabinet—that public money is to be forthcoming if the voluntary funds are not sufficient for the purpose. It seems to me that at this period of the Bill it would be a great mistake to take out from the scope of this new body this particular task. Even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher), who is in charge of the Bill, has admitted quite plainly—and his feeling is shared by a great number of us interested in this matter—that this present Bill is by no means a perfect Bill, and is not even the Bill that he himself would have liked to have seen. But here we have a beginning being made with a most important task. Every one of these disabled officers and soldiers will have provided for him, under the scale of the Select Committee's Report, a pension which must be 25s. as a minimum, and what can be done in addition is extra—that is, the training for employment or further care and help. This Committee will have the supervision of these men so far as the pensions they are getting is concerned, and it would be a great misfortune if they were left outside the scope of this Bill. Obviously the best thing to do in the circumstances—as this Bill is urgent—is to get this machinery set going and, in future Sessions, we can amend this Bill, which the right hon. Gentleman himself has already assured us ought to be amended, so as to enable it to deal better with these questions as occasion arises. I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman will resist this Amendment, and that there will be no delay in setting up this machinery, which is most urgently wanted. The sooner we can get it started the better.

I think it is a very great pity that the hon. Gentleman who framed this Amendment, important as it is, should not have raised the point on the Committee stage of the Bill, but should have brought it forward at the last moment in manuscript form.

We did raise this very point in Committee.

It was raised by me.

That was not in my recollection. These words deal with one of the most important functions of this statutory body. It is to be a body of very great importance, and it is being constituted with very great care. It will have considerable sums of money at its disposal—it may be State funds, although there are those who hope that those funds will never be State funds. The most important function which this body will have to discharge will be to deal with the care of officers and men disabled in consequence of the present War. It is specially provided in Sub-section (i) of Clause 3 that it is—

"to make provision for the care of disabled officers and men after they have left the Service, including provision for their health, training, and employment."

A Committee was appointed to inquire into this important branch of the subject by the late President of the Local Government Board, who is now Postmaster-General, and in the Report of that Committee it is stated that there is very urgent need for dealing with these questions. Although the number of disabled men hitherto discharged from the Navy and Army is less than might be expected, it is most desirable that an organisation should be set on foot at the earliest possible date for the performance of a duty which, is regarded as proper to be performed by the State. The number is growing day by day, and it is important that the new organisation should be in working order as early as possible. If we take these words out of the Bill, we take a very important function away from the statutory Committee which is going to be set up to deal with this question. Sir George Murray's Committee, to whose Report I have just alluded, says:—

"We observe that the Select Committee on Naval and Military Services (Pensions and Grants) has recommended the appointment of a statutory Committee to deal with the pensions, separation allowances and supplementary grants payable to sailors and soldiers and their dependants. We therefore venture to suggest that some advantage might result from the constitution of one body, charged with all the functions to which we have alluded. In this way a more elaborate local organisation than we have recommended for the purpose of this report might be justified."

We have received an indication from the Prime Minister that Parliament is about to adjourn for some considerable time. When, then, will it be possible to set up any new body to deal with this important question? Months will elapse before any such body can be created to deal with a question 'which is really urgent, and I therefore hope that the House of Commons will give no countenance whatever to the proposal to take away from this statutory Committee this very important function.

I have a certain amount of sympathy with the object aimed at by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment. We shall, I think, inevitably hear more of this problem. It is really a very big one. But at the same time I support the Government in their decision to retain these words in the Bill. It so happens that I am concerned very closely with a committee which deals with cases of Belgian soldiers who have been mutilated. I do not mean that they were mutilated in cold blood. I refer to those who have lost the use of certain limbs. It is very important, when a man is leaving hospital, to make the best possible provision for him, and to ascertain, not only what was his previous occupation, but also what are his needs and desires in regard to artificial limbs. And if you are going to put him in a position to do even limited service, you cannot delay operations. It is very urgent to find out what is needed for the individual soldier or officer who is maimed, and to provide him with the best artificial substitute for the limb he has lost. Therefore any action on the part of the Government with a view to dealing with these matters in the speediest possible manner has my heartiest support.

While sympathising with the idea of those who have brought up this Amendment, I feel that this Bill provides the only way in which we can deal with this question. We are all of us in favour of having important committees to undertake work of this character, but I am at a loss to conceive how it is possible to get a more important committee, or a more able one, than it is hoped to secure under this present Bill. All of us have taken a deep interest in this matter, and I quite see there will be an enormous amount of work for this Committee to undertake. The only point in which, in my opinion, this Bill is deficient, in regard to the question of supplying those who are partly incapacitated with work, is that nothing so far has been said as to the cases of the men who are receiving 10s. per week for a period of twenty-six weeks under the Insurance Act. There is no reference in the Bill to the position of these men. The work of this Committee will be to try and find work for the incapacitated, and the first difficulty they will come up against is that no man will be able to take the situation offered him without losing the 10s. per week which, if he has been certified as being incapacitated from work by the medical authorities, he gets under the Insurance Act. There are many cases in which work can be found for the men at from 7s. 6d. to 10s. per week, but the men refuse to take such situations, because they will lose the 10s. a week insurance money. I hope that the Government will intervene with the National Insurance Commissioners with a view to getting rid of that difficulty. I think the difficulty could be got over easily by adopting a sliding scale. If a sliding scale could be arranged it would be one of the great works of this Committee. I hope the Bill will pass in its present form.

There is a paragraph in Clause 3 which carries out what the Amendment deals with. The three lines of that paragraph contain the only form of expression as to what we wish to be done for these disabled soldiers, apart from their pensions. As I can raise the question by moving the deletion of that paragraph on that Clause, I think it better to reserve what I have to say until then. It seems to me that those three lines are out of keeping with the Bill and the operations of the Committee appointed to deal with this matter. To say that those three lines embody the whole of the recommendations in the Report of the Committee is altogether beside the mark. I quite realise that when the Bill was framed it was framed to carry out its description, namely, a Naval and Military War Pensions Bill. In that respect it is all right, but the Bill deals with two important Reports of Committees appointed by this House. In the Report of the Committee as to what should be done with disabled soldiers and sailors a great many recommendations were made, and the three lines in this Bill dealing with those matters are wholly inadequate. I shall therefore move that the paragraph be deleted, so that we may discuss the whole question of dealing with the matter in another Bill.

I quite see the force of what was said by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill that it is rather too late, on Report stage, to raise the issue that is raised by this Amendment, but I think it has struck a good many people who have had more opportunity of looking at this Bill that it was really intended to be, and is, a Bill for pensions and pensions only, and that this proposal for dealing with disabled persons has been pitchforked into it and does not work in with the structure of the Bill at all. When you look at the constitution of the Committee, everyone will agree that the real care of disabled men, and possibly of instructing them and making them fit for industry again, cannot be adequately dealt with by this Committee. The proper Committee to tackle that problem would be one of large employers and workmen, because only they can properly solve the problem. But as the right hon. Gentleman says, it is too late in this Session, in view of the Adjournment, to get a fresh proposal carried through, and we must, therefore, make the best we can of this Bill. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give earnest consideration to the problem of these disabled men. It is entirely a separate problem from that of pensions. I know that he has taken a great interest in it and has shown the greatest sympathy for these people. I would ask that when the Committee is formed, and when he finds that the problem of pensions is as much as this Committee can tackle, he will not hesitate to give the matter his consideration and come to this House, if necessary, for powers to deal with it. He may have seen in the "Morning Post" some months ago that in Austria they have a scheme for dealing with the problem which was working well. I do not know whether it will be possible to get details of the Austrian scheme, but I am quite sure he will find there will be a grave and serious industrial problem to solve which cannot be adequately solved by this Committee or under this Bill. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give his earnest consideration to that matter.

The point that is under discussion is really the most important point in connection with the Bill. It raises the oft-debated point, upon which there is a great difference of opinion, as to whether the details of the care of our disabled and wounded officers and men should be under the control of a central authority, or whether it should be dealt with locally by various committees appointed up and down the country. So far as the wording of the Bill is concerned, the Bill is probably correct, and we should be wise to reject any Amendment to-day, because it does not necessarily prevent the subsequent appointment of advisory or assistant local committee to do the obviously necessary work. I was associated with one of these very important committees in Liverpool in connection with the Boer War. There we had a large number of ladies and gentlemen associated with different branches of the work, because it was exceedingly desirable that they should be in touch, almost personal touch, with thousands of the dependants with whom the committee had to deal, particularly the disabled. It would be absolutely impossible for any statutory Committee in London to know or adequately deal with any of the requirements and details of these cases. There is a feeling abroad, to which expression has frequently been given, that it is not desirable that the sole control and power of dealing with these matters should be vested entirely in the statutory central Committee. I do not anticipate that that will be the final effect of the Bill. In the meantime it is urgently necessary at the present moment that provision should be made for these cases, which are now coming forward, and with that object we ought to pass the Bill to-day, leaving these words in, therefore not agreeing to the Amendment; but it ought to be distinctly understood among Members of the House that on some subsequent occasion this should not prevent us from proposing, if necessary, that these local committees shall be established and receive the necessary authority to attend to local matters in such way as they may be advised.