asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office is prepared to accept as a general principle that it is not advisable while we are at war with Germany to employ in countries adjoining Germany Consular officers who are of German descent and are closely connected with enemy subjects, and who, therefore, may reasonably be supposed to be more liable to German influence than other British subjects who have not such associations?

I have nothing to add to my answer on this subject yesterday except that I am now in a position to say that Mr. Holzapfel voluntarily resigned his position on hearing of the criticism raised about his appointment. His Majesty's Government desire to express their appreciation of Mr. Holzapfel's conduct in taking this course.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any agreement has yet been come to with Germany as to the exchange of interned civilian prisoners; and, if not, will he now consider the advisability of agreeing with Germany to send back the 26,000 interned civilian enemy aliens now in this country in exchange for the 4,000 British and Irish civilian prisoners in Germany and Austria?

We are still awaiting the reply of the German Government to our Note of 9th August, the general tenour of which was stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme on the 10th August. We think that the most pressing and practicable matter for the moment is to secure the repatriation of British and German civilians over forty-five.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a Report on the Turkish atrocities in Armenia has been written by Lord Bryce; and, if so, whether it will be laid before Parliament?

A valuable Report, consisting chiefly of a collection of documentary evidence, has been prepared at the suggestion of Lord Bryce by Mr. Arnold Toynbee, and will be laid before Parliament in due course.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether a conscientious objector, D. G. Lindsay, is now undergoing two years' imprisonment at Wandsworth prison; and whether he will be able to put his case before the Central Tribunal?

There is no conscientious objector of the name mentioned by the hon. Member at Wandsworth prison, but wherever he may be situated he will be dealt with under the scheme announced by the Prime Minister as the case is one which presumably has been dealt with by Army Order No. X. of the 25th May.

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that this conscientious objector entered as an ordinary prisoner, and that there are some very remarkable facts in connection with this case? Will the hon. Gentleman look into it?

Yes, Sir. As far as I know, I am not aware that there is anything in the point which my hon. Friend suggests, but I will make inquiry.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office will take steps to see that ministering elders, i.e.ministers, of the International Bible Students' Association, who are bonâ fide conscientious objectors, shall be exempted from military service; and, in particular, if he will inquire into the case of Henry Percival Peart, a ministering elder of the association, who appeared before the Bishop Auckland tribunal on 10th March and was given absolute exemption; and whether he is aware that on the appeal of the military representative at the Durham County Appeal Tribunal on 30th March this was altered to E. C. S., and that, as Peart was unable to accept the exemption, he is now incarcerated in Newcastle Gaol?

Members or elders of this association who are bonâ-fide conscientious objectors have the same rights as other conscientious objectors, and I do not understand the suggestion that the War Office should take steps as to their exemption since exemptions on conscientious grounds are matters for the tribunals. I will inquire into the case of Peart, if the hon. Member will forward me his regiment and number.

asked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether three young men, Patrick M'Nelis, Bullard, Glencolumbkille, John Stromlin, and M'Guinness, of Largy, Kellybegs, who came over to Scotland as temporary harvest labourers but who reside permanently in Ireland, have been served with notices to join the Colours under the Military Service Acts, on the ground of having filled registration forms in Scotland in the year before the introduction of compulsory military service; if so, whether immediate steps will be taken for the withdrawal of such notices and for the protection of these young men from further illegal action by the military authorities; and (2) whether his attention has been directed to the fact that three young men, migratory labourers, permanently resident in Ireland, namely, Patrick M'Nelis, of Bullard, Glencolumbkille, living in the Gtenoolumbkille police district, John Stromlin, and M'Guinness, of Largy, Killybegs, living in the Killybegs police district, who filled registration forms in Scotland last year before the institution of compulsory military service but who did not reside in Scotland after the harvest period, have been threatened with arrest by the police if they do not join the Colours under the Military Service Act; and whether immediate steps will be taken to secure from police or military molestation these temporary harvest labourers, who do not come, as she War Office has admitted, within the provision of the Military Service Acts?

I will inquire about these men. General instructions are being issued which will, I hope, remove this difficulty.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he has yet completed his promised inquiries into the cases of Thomas M'Hale, Michael Nolan, and John Battle, Irish migratory labourers, who, although never ordinarily resident in Great Britain, were forced into the Army by the military authorities in England; whether these men or any of them have since been offered their discharge from the Army; and, if not, can he state upon what grounds they are detained against their will?

The inquiries into these cases have been completed. It has been ascertained that all three men were brought before Civil Courts for the question of their liability for service under the Military Service Acts to be decided, as provided in Section 1 (2) (a)of the principal Act. In each case the Civil Court decided that there was liability to serve.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to complaints made as to the conduct of the Mill Hill Army Medical Board in passing unfit men for military service; and whether any inspection of the work of this board by a competent medical authority has taken place or will be arranged?

The only complaint which has reached me, as far as I can remember, was the complaint made by the hon. Member for Haggerston during the Debate yesterday, and I am inquiring into that. In the opinion of the Command, this board is doing its work well. It has been inspected lately, and this is the opinion of the inspector.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to renewed com plaints made by the Weybridge Tribunal as to the passing of unfit men for military service by the Guildford Army Medical Board; and whether, in view of the fact that the War Office has already had to call the attention of this board to a com plaint of this nature, he proposes to take any further action to secure that only fit men are passed for military service?

I have received no complaints and am not aware that the attention of this Board has been called to any shortcomings.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that several thousands of regular farm workers have been exempted from military service by local and Appeal Tribunals until the end of the corn harvest or Michaelmas Day, but not afterwards; and whether, in view of the apprehension entertained by farmers throughout the country as to the possibility of ploughing and cultivating their arable land in the forthcoming autumn after their farm servants usually so employed have joined the Colours, and the threatened consequent reduction of the area sown with wheat and winter oats, he will give instructions to the tribunals to permit a further extension of time in the case of farm workers until after autumn cultivations and sowings have been completed, in all cases where it can be shown that this work cannot reason ably be carried through in their absence?

The gravity of the situation is appreciated. Instructions have already been issued to tribunals with regard to it, but I will see if further instructions are necessary?

Will the same instructions be issued with regard to migratory labourers from Ireland who come here to do harvest work?

No; they come under a different class of instructions, which are being issued with regard to them.

Do I understand that those instructions will be issued forthwith, as the matter is very urgent?

What I said was that instructions have already been issued in regard to it, but I will look into the point to see if further instructions ought to be issued, and, if so, they will be issued as soon as possible.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, although these instructions may have beer issued, the Appeal Tribunals in many cases have certainly not been acting on those instructions?

That is one of the things I want to look into.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, while privates and non-commissioned officers belonging to the regiments in cluded in the Southern Command are usually given six days' leave after twelve weeks' training before leaving England for service overseas, officers under the same command before leaving for service overseas are usually refused more than three days' leave; whether there is any reason why officers in the Southern Command should not receive the usual six days' Expeditionary Force leave; and, if not, will he give instructions that where possible six days' leave should be granted?

No definite leave period has been fixed for officers prior to embarkation, and it is not considered desirable to issue further instructions on the subject, I understand that no applications from officers for leave exceeding three days have been refused in the Southern Command.

asked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been drawn to complaints made by men of the 2/7th Duke of Wellington's Regiment stationed at Wangford, in Suffolk, against the colonel in command, one of which complaints is that he caused a number of men who had fallen out of the ranks during a route march by reason of exhaustion and sore feet to be drawn up on the parade ground in the centre of the whole battalion in order that he might tell them publicly that they had no guts in them and that he wished that the other men would take the matter in their own hands and punish them, as they were slackers; and whether he will have investigations made concerning the complaints against the officer referred to?

My attention has not previously been drawn to this matter, but if my hon. Friend has private information from reliable sources I should be glad to be placed in possession of it.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give any information concerning the Zionist Mule Corps which has been revived in Egypt under the command of Captain Trumpeldor; and whether Russian Jews now in this country can volunteer for this unit?

I regret I have no information on this subject.

As somewhat important events are likely to arise in the next few weeks, will this information be asked for from Egypt?

I will see about it.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Joseph Whelan, an employé of the London and North Western Railway Company, was exempted from military service on the application of his employers; that he has been called up by the recruiting officer at Finsbury Park without the consent of his employers; and what step will he take in the matter?

Inquiries are being made and I will let my hon. Friend know the result.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this man was called upon by the military recruiting officer on a Thursday, and that he was immediately sent away to his regiment, and is he also aware that fourteen days' notice is required, and that the Regulations seem to have been infringed in this case?

No, Sir; I am not aware of that, but I will make inquiry into the circumstances.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the fact that captains while in command of a company lese their third star if they are wounded and sent home; whether he is aware that there is very general discontent with an arrangement whereby an officer is a captain while fitted for active service, but if wounded on active service and sent home is deprived of captain's rank and pay and reduced to the rank and pay of a lieutenant and must, on returning to duty, take his chance of being promoted again; whether a captain, while in command of a company of the Special Brigade Royal Engineers, holds his rank on these conditions, although in this brigade there is only one captain to a full company, who frequently, with Infantry help, has as many as 1,600 men in his charge; and whether steps will be taken to rectify this state of affairs by making captains in command of companies in all cases temporary captains without liability, through no fault of their own, to revert to the rank of temporary lieutenants?

I am not quite clear as to the points to which the hon. and learned Member refers, but I will inquire into them and will communicate with him. Perhaps he would furnish me with particulars if he has any specific case in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for War what are the present arrangements for divine service on Sundays for the Presbyterian troops stationed in Ripon?

I am making inquiries about the most recent arrangements and will let my hon. Friend know the result.

asked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the announcement of the Minister of Defence, Australia, that the proceedings of the Australian courts-martial abroad will in future be reviewed by a committee appointed in Australia with power to recommend remissions; and, if so, whether he will consider the desirability of giving British soldiers enlisted at Home the same security against the possible miscarriage of justice whilst they are on active service?

I am not aware of any such statement having been made by the Minister of Defence, Australia, but presume it relates to Australian soldiers who have returned to Australia to undergo sentence, and thus have passed out of the jurisdiction of the British military authorities. With regard to the latter part of the question, the proceedings of courts-martial, whether at home or abroad, are reviewed by the Judge Advocate-General, London, and, if considered desirable, are submitted by him to the Secretary of State for reconsideration. This is additional to a series of most careful reviews by the various intermediary authorities through whom the proceedings pass.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether about 1,000 men who had gone to enlist at a town in Lancashire were sent to the South of Ireland to be attested there; and, if so, whether this was done from motives of economy or for any other particular reason?

I have no information about this case, but am making inquiries and will let the hon. and gallant Member know the result.

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether John Doran, of Thurles, county Tipperary, Ireland, a bricklayer by trade, was arrested in Glasgow on the 18th ultimo and compelled to join the Army; is he aware that this man only came over from Ireland to do some temporary work on the invitation of the Board of Trade officials; and will steps be taken to have him released immediately, and thus carry out the purport and intentions of the Military Service Act?

I have just received a letter from my hon. Friend giving some particulars about this case. I am making further inquiries, and if it should appear that my hon. Friend has been correctly informed as to the facts I shall make a representation in the case to the War Office.

asked the Home Secretary what is the position of a young man of military age, born in Holland and residing there until shortly before August, 1914, who came to England in 1914 with other Belgian refugees and is registered as such; whether, having been born in Holland and having resided nearly all his life there, he is regarded as a Dutchman; and, if not, whether he is able to join the Russian, Belgian, or British Army?

I regret that I cannot answer this hypothetical question. The answer would depend on the man's nationality, which, again, would depend on the nationality of his father and other circumstances not mentioned in the question.

If he has no nationality, what can he do? There are many people in this country who either have no nationality or do not know what their nationality is.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the number of men in Egypt suffering from eye trouble aggravated by the glare of the sun; and what is the reason they are not sent home or transferred to France?

I am making inquiries into this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state if firms who supply artificial limbs for soldiers persuade the soldiers or their friends to buy what the firms call superior articles or to pay extra for having the Government ones improved?

I directed inquiries to be made, but the result has not yet reached me.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether in any part of the country the Volunteer Force has been employed in guarding German prisoners of war; whether they have been so employed at Alexandra Palace; if not, whether he will consider the advisability of so employing them; whether the Volunteers give their service for similar work without payment; and, if so, whether he will take into consideration the saving of money to be effected by employing Volunteers on work of this character?

No Volunteers have been employed as guards for prisoners of war hitherto. The suggestion of employing them at Alexandra Palace will be considered.

asked the Secretary of State for War how many cases of application for relief have been made to the Civil Liabilities Committee; how many cases have been decided; how many soldiers have been granted relief; and what is the total annual amount of the relief hitherto granted?

Up to the 12th of August 68,121 applications bad been received by the Commissioners appointed by the Committee. Forty-one thousand three hundred and twenty-four of these applications had, on the 19th August, been dealt with by the Commissioners and their recommendations forwarded to the Committee. Of these cases 36,983 have been decided, and grants have been determined in 21,688 soldier cases. The total grants decided up to Saturday last represent an annual payment of £395,451.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any large proportion of these applications are actually refused, and decided in a negative or adverse sense?

I should say a fair proportion.

Can any particulars be given?

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will consider revoking paragraph 3 of the Command Paper which discontinues an Army pension on the grant of an old age pension; whether he is aware that this rule works very harshly; and whether old people of seventy and over will be awarded both as they are for entirely dif ferent purposes?

As my hon. Friend is aware, this rule was very carefully considered, and I fear I cannot undertake that it will be revoked.

Is my hon. Friend aware that all old age pensioners are entitled during the War to go to work, and not have that considered, so that they will not lose their five shillings? Will the hon. Gentleman consider that point?

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, when a pension is revised at Chelsea, the recipient is asked what wages he is earning and is informed that failure to reply will result in forfeiture of pension; why on revision the earning capacity is not considered; whether he is aware that many pensioners are only employed on account of the patriotic action of employers and because in many eases they cannot at the moment secure able-bodied men; and whether he proposes to introduce a fairer and better system?

The pension is based upon earning capacity, not on earnings only. The man is asked about his earnings so that his actual position may be in view, but I am aware of the goodwill which is reflected in the amount of wages paid to disabled soldiers in many cases. The present system, as my hon. Friend is aware, is in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee of this House to which these questions were referred.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider the Report of the Select Committee consulted as to the basis of the pension?

It is their direct representation.

Where there is a case of the reduction of the wages of an ex-soldier or sailor, is he at liberty to apply for a revision?

There is nothing to prevent a pensioner applying for a revision of his pension at any time, but naturally he would not do so unless he had good grounds for asking for a revision. The mere fact of a reduction in wages would not be a good ground on which to make application, but if there is anything in the nature of his physical condition being affected, or increased disability, or anything of that kind, it would be very carefully considered.

Why ask a soldier when his pension is being revised what are his earnings?

We want to know exactly what he is earning.

asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he will ask the Paymaster-General to make a special Report to the House after the Recess of the administration of pensions by the Chelsea Commissioners; and (2) whether, with a view to giving the House of Commons more direct control over the administration of pensions by Chelsea, he can arrange for the Paymaster-General to answer questions in the House?

There are certain administrative difficulties in the way of adopting my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I will see if it is possible to overcome them.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether nearly 100 wounded men have been employed at Lemington Bond Stores loading heavy shells, for which they receive 1d. per hour additional to their pay; whether these men have had to sleep on the floor at New-burn Drill Hall with only blankets; and whether, seeing that these men have been wounded, better arrangements will be made?

I have no knowledge of this case, but I will have inquiry made.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that Messrs. John Menzies and Company, Limited, Edinburgh, are the only agents in Edinburgh who have a newspaper permit and that they are charging a fee on each newspaper sent to them by other newsagents of 1d. for forwarding; and whether this has the sanction of the War Office?

The answer to the first part of the question is, I believe, in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I understand that the fee stated is charged where the book or paper is not purchased through the firm to cover cost of stationery and extra staff. As regards the last part, War Office sanction is not required and it is not a matter for their intervention. It is open to other firms to make different arrangements if the amount of their business warrants it and if they think it would be to their advantage.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the newsagents who do not receive this licence send their newspapers stamped to this firm, who have received a licence, and that on the top of that they are charged a 1d. extra?

That is clearly not in accordance with the information furnished me, and, if my hon. Friend wishes, I will make further inquiry.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what rate of pay a gunner in the Royal Garrison Artillery who volunteered for the present War and is now serving in Hong Kong is en titled to receive; if it is subject to deductions other than for separation allowance and National Insurance benefit; and, if so, whether he will give particulars of such deductions?

One shilling and two-pence halfpenny a day as pay and three-pence as messing allowance, in addition to free rations. He is subject to a stoppage for the cost of messing. The actual amount is not known.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that soldiers serving in Hong Kong have in effect suffered a reduction of pay by reason of the fact that the dollar currency by means of which they are compelled to make their purchases in Hong Kong has appreciated considerably as compared with British money, by which latter their pay is presumably measured; and whether, having regard to the inadequacy of the pay which non-commissioned officers and men receive, he will see that they do not lose by reason of the rate of exchange between British money and the money circulating in Hong Kong?

This question has been carefully examined. It is not considered that the appreciation of the dollar is sufficient to call for any special action at present.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether the Government have been contemplating the production of £1 and 10s. notes by a process hitherto never applied to currency notes though often employed in Germany for postcards; whether experimental work is causing the delay in the issue of the new notes; whether he can name a date when the new notes will be ready for circulation; and (2) whether he is aware that the experience of the majority of countries where notes are in general use shows that the best protection against forgery is the use of intaglio notes with protected typographical printing; and, if so, will he take into consideration the use of such notes?

The question of the production of the proposed new currency note is engaging constant attention, and I have the assistance of the best expert advice available. I do not think it is possible to discuss the technical points raised by my hon. Friend by way of question and answer.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the French Minister of Finance, who has had very great experience of the issue of currency notes?

I will take the first opportunity I can to discuss the matter with him.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give any information concerning the launching of a new loan in America?

Arrangements have been completed for the issue through Messrs. J. P. Morgan, of New York, of $250,000,000 British Government 5 per cent, two year notes at 99. The issue will be secured by the deposit with trustees of American securities, Canadian Government and Government Guarantee securities, and Neutral Government securities in equal proportions to the total market value of $300,000,000. The issue has been underwritten at 1 per cent.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state how much the Morgan house has made out of this War—how many millions?

Will there be anything in the way of commission besides the underwriting?

I have given all the particulars I am in a position to give to my hon. Friend.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the price of rennet for cheese-making is six times that obtaining prior to the War, is still rising, and is threatening to restrict the production of cheese in Cheshire, Wiltshire, and elsewhere; and whether the Board is taking any steps to acquaint cheese-makers with the value of possible substitutes and where they can be obtained?

The Board are aware that there has been a very considerable rise in the price of rennet, but, as it is still quite a small item in the cost of cheese-making, farmers do not, I think, make it the determining factor in deciding whether to make cheese or not. The Board have taken steps to increase the importation of rennet, and have issued advice as to the preparation of home-made rennet in this month's "Journal." The question of substitutes is under examination, but at present the Board do not think it desirable to advise the use of any of them.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he is aware that in the Midlands and in the South of England there is a tendency on the part of dairy farmers to dispose of their herds of milch cattle owing to the existing or anticipated shortage of milkers or owing to their reduced allowance of petrol for running a milking machine; and what steps the Board is taking in this matter in order to avoid a scarcity of milk during next winter?

The Board are aware of a tendency to dispose or to threaten to dispose of dairy herds for fear of shortage of labour, and some instances have occurred, but not at present to such a degree as to justify fears of a severe shortage of milk during next winter. The Board will continue to endeavour to help dairymen to retain their indispensable workers. Farmers should do their very best to obtain and train women for milking work, for I think it will pay them to maintain their milking herds, and it is certainly right to do so in the interest of the country.

asked the First Commissioner of Works whether the staff men at the Office of Works are entitled to receive double pay for Sunday work; and if he is aware that a number of men under the control of the Office of Works receive double pay when called upon to work on Sunday?

The First Commissioner does not exactly apprehend the meaning of this question, but if the hon. Member will explain it further my right hon. Friend will send him a full answer.

asked the President of the Local Government Beard if he can state how many old age pensioners forfeited their pensions because they were obliged to seek Poor Law relief from January, 1915, to July, 1916; and whether in all such cases the board of guardians will be permitted to supplement an old age pension without disqualifying the pensioner?

I am afraid the figures asked for in the former part of the question are not available; as regards the latter part, a person is disqualified under the provisions of Section 31 (a) of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908, from receiving an old age pension while he is in receipt of Poor Relief (other than relief there excepted).

How is it that no figures can be given about those who have forfeited their pension in consequence of the tremendous rise of food prices? I think it was announced in the papers the other day that the London County Council had something approaching 2,000.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board whether the Statutory Committee on Disablement has given consideration to the necessity of providing in civilian life for the welfare of soldiers who have been discharged in numbers from the Army and who, though not certifiable, have not yet fully recovered from the effects of severe nerve strain due to the War; and whether, seeing that it is illegal to place such men under detention without formal certification, he will undertake that the convalescent homes contemplated by the Disablement Committee shall be free from any form of detention as well as from military control?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given to the hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin on the 10th August and to the hon. Member for Galway on the 17th August. The Statutory Committee have no powers of detention.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the concessions recently granted to Customs watchers will not benefit any of these men in the Port of London beyond 1s. per week, that many of the London watchers will have to wait nearly three years before they receive any increase of pay, and that the out-port watchers will receive an immediate increase ranging from 3s. to 5s. a week; is he aware that Section XII. of the Report of the Committee on the Customs Waterguard Service did not have any connection with the watchers' claims, but refers to the claims for London port allowance put forward by the established waterguard officers who are employed on entirely different conditions as regards pay, promotion, and pension, and that paragraph (6) of Section XVI. of this Report refuses to the out-port watchers their request for the London scale of pay; and, in view of the recent Report of the Board of Trade that the food-purchasing power of £1 has been reduced to 12s. 1d. as compared with August, 1914, if he will reconsider the granting to London watchers an increase of pay equivalent to that given to the out-port watchers to meet the high rents and travelling expenses in London and this further increase in the cost of living?

I am aware of the facts stated in the first and second parts of the question, subject to the corrections that the immediate increase granted to the out-port watchers is 1s. to 4s. (not 3s. to 6s.) a week, and that Section XVI. (6) of the Report of the Customs Waterguard Committee expresses the view that "the conditions of service at Tilbury and Graves-end do not appear to differ from those prevailing at the out-ports generally," and contains no reference to the question of granting to out-port watchers generally the London scale of pay. With regard to the last part of the question, I fear that I can at present add nothing to my previous replies on the subject, but, as my hon. Friend is aware, the whole question of granting a war bonus to the lower-paid classes of Civil servants is under consideration.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that three large steamers are being built in this country for a private firm in a neutral country with starred labour; and whether, although the British Government can requisition these ships during the War, he can say whether the Government would have to give these ships back to the neutral owners at the end of the War?

asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that two shipbuilding firms have contracted to build three large steamers for a private firm in a neutral country with starred labour; and if the Government intend taking any action in the matter?

The building of the steamers mentioned in the questions was allowed to proceed only on the express condition that no guarantee could be given that the vessels would ultimately be delivered to foreign owners, and the question whether they can be so delivered is now being considered by the Board of Trade and the Admiralty.

When the ships are completed, will the Government see that they are only used for our own particular trade?

That is one of the conditions that will probably be made.

Are we to understand from the answer that it is not now certain that the ships made by starred labour will be able to be kept for this country at the end of the War—is that what the answer meant?

It is not certain that they will be kept for this country or that it will be desirable to keep them for this country at the end of the War.

Can you keep them if you want to keep them?

We can now make conditions which will enable us to keep them. That is what we have to consider, whether we think it is necessary to make those conditions or not. My hon. Friend will be aware that we have to consider neutrals, the trade of the world, and the shipbuilding trade of this country after the War, as well as our immediate interests during the War and after the War. The question is not so simple as it may appear.

Will the hon. Gentleman see when they are completed that we get a guarantee from the shipowners that they are not going to be used by neutrals?

If they belong to neutral owners they will in that sense be used by neutrals, but the condition can be made, at any rate during the War, that they shall be used solely in the interests of Great Britain and for trade which is approved by us.

Is it to be understood that starred labour of this country is to be used for the purpose, of building ships to supply neutral countries?

I have already explained to my hon. Friends our own ends are concerned with a very considerable period and not only with the immediate interests during the War, but shipbuilding facilities and the interests of this country in building ships not only for ourselves but for other nations of the world after the War, and those considerations cannot be lost sight of.

How can it possibly be to the interests of this country that after the War vessels built now with starred labour should be handed to neutral countries?

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether a deputation representing trade unions in Scotland waited upon him on Friday; whether the deputation consisted of the chairman, secretary, and a member of the executive committee of the Federation of Engineering and Shipbuilding Trades, and a member of the Scottish Miners' Federation; whether the deputation stated that, in the event of further restrictions on the sale of alcoholic liquor, there was a possibility of strikes on the Clyde; and if he can state whether the members of the deputation attended in their individual capacity, or whether they were specially deputed to act as representatives of their trade unions?

The answers to the first three parts of the question are in the affirmative. As to the last part of the question, I understood the members of the deputation attended in a generally representative capacity.

Did the right hon. Gentleman understand that they were deputed by trade unions officially to make the threat that if the Government carried out a certain policy in the conduct of the War that would be met with strikes?

No, Sir. I cannot say I understood that. What I understood was—I asked this question, whether they were specially accredited representatives or generally accredited? and they said they were generally accredited representatives. I do not think they were representatives ad hoc.

Do I understand that these representatives of the trade unions made the statement that if a certain policy were adopted by the Government for the conduct of the War they would be met by strikes on the Clyde? And do I understand that that statement is taken by the Government as representing the considered view of the trade unionists on the Clyde, and that this deputation were authorised by the trade unionists to make that threat to the Government?

No. As I said before, I do not understand that they were authorised to make any threat. What I did understand them to say was that they were accredited representatives generally, and in the course of their statement they did not make a threat, but they said that they feared there would be trouble.

Did they use the word "trouble" or the word "strike"?

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, at the Old Age Pension Conference at Newcastle on Saturday a resolution was carried urging the Government to take steps for supplementary Grants from the Treasury or give powers to the local authorities to supplement the State pension in cases where concessions made since the commencement of the War had no value; and if the Government intend taking any action in the matter?

asked within what time a decision will be arrived at with regard to a supplementary grant to old age pensioners, and in what form it will be announced?

I can for the moment add nothing to the reply I gave on Monday last to the hon. Member for the Houghton Division. The form which the relief should take is receiving careful attention, and I hope that it will be possible to make a further announcement shortly.

Will it be possible to give a definite reply to this question between now and the 4th September, because the Trade Union Congress is meeting then, and I am very much afraid the Government will get a trouncing unless something is done.

That is what I might call threatening language. There will be no avoidable delay.

Will there be an announcement during the Recess?

Will any proposals be made in reference to increased old age pensions in Ireland?

I am not stating that there will be a definite uniform scheme brought up. It will probably be found that special circumstances have to be taken into account.

asked whether it is the intention of the Government to recommend a Constitution for Poland of which the main features will be: representation comprising one-seventh of the Russian Duma in which its members will be in a permanent minority; a nominated Executive containing Ministers pledged to resist Polish autonomy by armed force; and the institution of martial law for an indefinite period?

No, Sir. It is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to make any recommendation on a matter of internal policy of another State.

asked the Post master-General if he is aware that certain postal servants have been permitted to enrol as munition workers, but when they do so the period of service does not count for superannuation; and, if this is so, will he take steps to adjust this apparent injustice?

The facts are as stated by the hon. Member. The conditions upon which Post Office servants are released for munition work were laid down by the Treasury, and are applicable to Civil servants generally.

Does service in munition factories carry pensions?

It counts for increment, but not for pension.

asked the Minister of Munitions when the Committee on Holidays in Relays expect to issue their Report?

The Committee have submitted their Report to the Minister of Munitions, and a statement of its purport and of the action proposed to be taken thereon was made on the 10th August. My right hon. Friend is willing to consider the publication of the Report, if there is a general desire for it.

asked the Home Secretary whether he can give any information concerning a man named Leifkin, who, being a Russian Jew resident in Southport, was summoned at Liverpool on the 17th to the Dale Street Police Court because he had inadvertently left Southport leaving his identity book behind; whether he is aware that, at the hearing of this case, the magistrate stated that the Russian Consul had asked that Leifkin should be deported to Russia; and whether he will undertake not to let Leifkin be deported until after 10th October?

The Home Secretary has no information in regard to this case. If any question of deportation comes before him, he will consider it carefully on its merits; but as this case, apparently, has no connection with the question of military service, no such undertaking as that for which my hon. Friend asks can be given.

asked the Home Secretary whether Milly Witcop, of 33, Dunstan Houses, Stepney Green, was arrested on 29th July, taken to Tine Street Police Station, kept there over six days, then removed to Holloway, was there refused the usual visits from friends, and is still being treated as a criminal though no charge has been brought against her; what official is responsible for the arrest of this innocent lady; and what action he proposes to take?

This woman was arrested under the Defence of the Realm Regulations and detained first at Vine Street Police Station and afterwards in Holloway Prison, where she is now interned in pursuance of an-Order under Regulation 14B. She has been visited several times by her sisters and her child, and she is not being treated as a' criminal. Subject to the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on any representations which she may make to them, she will be detained in internment in the interests of the public safety and the defence of the Realm.

Will she have the benefit of the promise made that a written statement of her offence or the ground of her detention will be given her?

If my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made a promise my hon. Friend may be quite sure that it will be carried out.

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the uncertainty in connection with the warnings to employers not to employ men liable to military service; and whether any penalty will be, or can be, imposed on persons who employ friendly aliens of military age not called up by their respective Governments?

I am not aware of any uncertainty on the subject of the employment of men liable to military service. The Military Service Act does not apply to aliens.

Can it be officially announced that there is no reason why employers in the East End of London should not employ friendly aliens of military age? There is really a good deal of doubt on the matter—

The hon. Member is making a statement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, if the Canadian securities and those of neutral countries are not received on deposit in sufficient quantities, it is the intention of the Government to apply for powers to impose the special Income Tax on the income of such securities if not deposited?

Yes, without doubt. But I trust everyone will realise that it is a public duty to deposit these securities, more particularly securities of the Canadian and neutral Governments, without delay.

Will the Income Tax be charged on holdings under the statutory amount? I think the minimum amount received is £1,000.

The usual abatements of Income Tax will be allowed. Deposited securities under the scheme will not affect the Income Tax laws at all. What my hon. Friend was referring to was the imposi- tion of an additional Income Tax of 2s. in the £ in respect of securities which are not deposited.

Will that penalty apply to lesser holdings than £1,000?

Yes. When I ask Parliament to impose the tax I shall ask Parliament to impose it in respect of all securities which we offer to take. Securities in amounts under £1,000 can be deposited through a banker.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of offering some other facilities for these smaller holders, especially now the list is extended to other securities?

Yes, I should be very glad to consider any possible additional facilities.

There seems to be some doubt about this matter. Supposing a person deposits securities which the Government have to sell, at, we will say, a profit of 10 per cent., will they give the person who deposited them only 5 per cent.?

No, Sir. If securities are sold—and they can only be sold at all where it is necessary to sell them—then whatever the price may be the Treasury will get no advantage out of it, but the depositor, or the class of depositor, will get the advantage. Depositors of that class of securities will get the advantage. In no circumstances will the Treasury get the advantage, consequently there is no inducement to the Treasury at any time to sell. We are undertaking not to sell unless it is necessary to sell.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make the position quite clear? In a supplementary question the other day I asked him the price, and he mentioned—I think it was a slip of the tongue—the face value of the securities plus 5 per cent. I see he has corrected that to the current market price. Will the right hon. Gentleman correct the wrong impression which, I think, exists, that the current market price of many of these securities has very greatly depreciated during the War, and that if he purchases these securities, even plus the 5 per cent., it must still show very heavy loss in case of sale to the original holders?

My hon. Friend must understand that the securities, which are lodged as collateral securities for a time loan, can only be sold, to put it plainly, if the British Government is unable to meet its liabilities. In such a contingency as that, which I regard as extremely remote, I suppose the holders of those securities would be willing to suffer with the rest of the citizens of this country. That is the only contingency that I can foresee in which the securities may be sold. That is what we describe when we say that the securities will only be sold if it is necessary to sell them. The terms which we offer are these: We say we will not take these securities until it has become necessary to sell under the conditions I have described. We will give the owner the price at which the securities stood when he handed them over to us when we made our request.

The market price?

The market price at the time we made our request, together with 5 per cent. We consider that that is a very fair offer, because under the conditions which I have named, the conditions under which it will become necessary to sell, I think these securities would stand at a very much lower price.

Not necessarily. I wish my right hon. Friend to understand that I am only putting this question so that the position may be made quite clear. I take no exception to what he proposes. I only ask that the position may be made quite clear so that those concerned may understand it.

I am very much obliged.

Is it made quite clear, have instructions been issued that holders of smaller amounts than £1,000 will not be subject to the penalty of excessive Income Tax? Is it also made quite clear as to charges at the bank, and so on? I believe there is a good deal of confusion—

I think the second point is perfectly clear. As to the first point, it does not at present arise, as neither small holders nor large holders are subject to the additional Income Tax at present. But, undoubtedly, if securities do not come in in sufficient quantities, it will be my duty to ask Parliament to impose the additional tax.

asked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, whether some approved societies under the National Insurance Acts are required by their rules to inform an applicant for admission of the acceptance or rejection of the application within a specified number of days, whereas other approved societies are bound by no such rule; whether the rule referred to was made obligatory by the Insurance Commissioners upon the societies whose rules contain it; whether the inequality as between one society and another has been pointed out to the Insurance Commissioners, who have replied that they are unable to consent to the deletion of the rule from the rules of any approved society; and, if so, whether he will undertake to put all approved societies on a common footing, either by abolishing the rule referred to or, preferably, making it obligatory on all approved societies?

The rules of all societies approved after a certain date contain provision regarding the acceptance or rejection of applications for membership. The Commissioners have taken and are taking administrative steps with a view to obtaining the insertion of suitable provision for this purpose in the rules of all societies.

I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."

I wish to draw the attention of the House again to the subject opened up by the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill) yesterday. I refer to the question of food prices, and the profiteering which is going on at the present moment. We are all indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, although he had many opportunities of which he did not take advantage so far as public knowledge is concerned, for evincing even now an interest in this question. It is a question, I believe, which every Member of the House will admit is causing very great concern among people of the working class. My right hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes) recently put an inquiry to the Board of Trade as to the extent to which the cost of living had been advanced during the War, and from the reply given to my right hon. Friend—to put it in another form than that in which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade himself put it—it appears that a wage of 20s. per week in July before the War ought now to be from 29s. to 30s. a week in order to have the same purchasing value. To put it in still another form, the pre-war sovereign has sunk in purchasing power, for all ordinary articles that are within the working class means, from 20s. to 13s. 10d. and even 13s. 4d. That is the net result so far as figures can show the net result. But I would like to point out this additional consideration which ought to be borne in mind, namely, that it is not merely that things are dearer in cash of which we have to take cognisance at the present time. Much adulteration is going on. So many articles are sold inferior in quality to what they used to be that the money value does not actually represent the real fall in the purchasing power of the working man's sovereign. Alongside of that—and this adds to the aggravation so far as the working classes are concerned—are the enormous profits that are being made in every trade and in every industry.

Figures with regard to shipping we are all more or less familiar with. Questions have been put in this House time after time showing what enormous profits have been made. My hon. Friend (Mr. W. Thorne) put a question with reference to one firm, and the information contained in his question, which was not denied by the Minister who replied, was to the effect that the company to which he referred had made profits during the last year equal to 187 per cent. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) put another question respecting another shipping company—a company which, it appears, it is proposed to wind up, and, as showing the enormous prosperity that that company must have had during the War, the winding-up was to be on this basis: The fleet of ships were to be sold for £1,250,000. The other assets were expected to realise £750,000, making in all £2,000,000, and this would allow a compensation of £2,000 to be given to each director, a compensation to the firm that had been acting as agents to the company of £250,000, and it would allow 30s. to be paid for every £1 preference share, and £50 for every £10 ordinary share, £7 paid up. Is it to be wondered at that when these facts are being continually stated in the public Press, and particularly when at the same time every housewife knows how increasingly difficult it is to make ends meets, there is a growing state of dissatisfaction?

1.0 P.M.

What is now being felt is that the Government, and especially the Board of Trade, are guilty of callous indifference to this very vital question affecting the welfare of the mass of the population of this country. When directly war broke out and the bankers were in a difficulty and were in the first few days of the War shown to be practically insolvent, the Government at once took steps to rescue them from the situation, giving them power to pay to the extent of 20 per cent, of the liabilities in paper with the British credit behind it. This shipping industry, which has since done so well out of the War, was afraid when the War broke out to send their ships across the ocean. The Government instituted a system of insurance, carrying 80 per cent. of the risk to enable them to carry on the business and to make their profits. The State for years and years has been keeping a Navy at an enormous expense, one of the chief reasons of which was to keep shipping secure, and enable this country to be fed. What has been the result? They have received an additional privilege and power to make profit, and incidentally to put profit into the pockets of the shareholders of the shipping companies because of the War. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill) pointed out a way to deal with this matter. It was not a novel method; and it has been referred to by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) and, others time after time in this House and out of it, namely, that the shipping should be controlled by the State in the same way as the railways, and if that had been done we should have taken away the power which has passed into the hands of shipowners to use their properly against the public interest, and enabled them to exploit the people of this country. This sort of thing ought to end. The people outside want to know what the Government is going to do. If it is said, as it is sometimes said, that there is no remedy, that is not true.

Since the beginning of the War, when these difficulties and problems have cropped up, the practice of the Government has been to institute some sort of Advisory Committee consisting of persons who themselves were interested, and who therefore have not made the best of the situation from the public point of view, but have been extremely anxious to preserve their own interests and their right to make profit.

Take, for instance, the conduct of the Board of Trade with respect to the captured vessels. Those vessels could have been used to help to break any organised effort on the part of shipowners to put up the freights. What did the President of the Board of Trade do? He appointed a committee of shipowners to determine what the freights should be. What is more natural than that the shipowners, in determining the rate of freights, should be guided by this consideration to some extent, that the freights should not be put at such a point as would interfere with their own business and with the freights that were being charged under ordinary circumstances? Just the same thing has happened with regard to all other ordinary requirements. The Board of Trade has appointed Committee after Committee, on which the consumers, the people who suffer from high prices, have not been properly represented. Take the case of wool. We heard of a number of names of persons who have been appointed to deal with the question of wool and wool prices, and they consisted mostly of farmers and wool merchants. Really, the consumer is deeply interested, and a far better plan would be to get a Committee of Members of this House representing all interests in the community in order that they should have regard to the general interests of the public rather than to the interests of certain industries. It is not for want of comment or for want of appeals to them that the Board of Trade and the Government generally have not dealt with this matter before. Take, for example, the industry with which I am most familiar. So far back as November, 1914, in this House, suggestions were made to deal with the wool trade and the textile industries, which, if they had been adopted, would have made an enormous difference.

Before the interruption, I was proceeding to give an example of the way in which the Board of Trade had neglected to take action with regard to different industries so as to safeguard the public against high prices, and I was reminding the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade that in November, 1914, suggestions were made in this House for dealing with the wool industry. The suggestion was that the Government should enter into nego- tiations with the Australian, New Zealand, and Cape Governments in order to take the whole of the extensive wool supply of these very large producing Colonies in order to help to control prices. That suggestion might well have been adopted judging by what has since been found to be necessary in dealing with the home supply. If the Government had, to begin with, approached the Colonial Governments with the object of taking the full supply at the pre-war rate, plus any percentage that might have been found on inquiry to be justifiable, it is quite certain from all that we know of the attitude of the Colonial Governments, and their willingness and desire to help, that they would willingly have fallen in with any such suggestion. It would have prevented the tremendous leaps—they cannot be described in any other way—that prices have taken since then to the profit, the enormous profit, of a very small number of individuals, comparatively speaking, to the rest of the population.

There are ways in which, by means of the application of the principle of working on commission, the whole of the khaki output of the West Riding of Yorkshire could have been executed at a very modest cost, and so far from helping to drive up prices by the fact that the Government were in the market, it would have helped to steady prices for the public generally. But, of course, when the Board of Trade follows a line such as it has followed, of just getting certain persons in to give advice, calling them an Advisory Committee, those persons being men in business, and in that very business, it cannot be expected that the suggestions they make will be of the drastic character that alone will fit the necessities of a time such as that in which we are now living. I mention this particular industry because I know most about it; but it seems, so far as one can judge, that in regard to other commodities the same principle could have been followed. What was there to prevent the Government, at the beginning of the War, getting into negotiation with Canada in order to take its enormous wheat supply, and so on? It is not for private Members, at any rate it is not their particular duty, to suggest means, but it is for the Government in some way or other to protect the people of this country from starvation and privation, because, although there is a very general belief that the working people have had their wages advanced sufficiently to cover the increased cost, a greater fallacy could not be imagined. A certain small proportion of the workers may be in that position, but a far larger proportion are in this position: that they have received their bonuses, but not sufficient to cover the extra cost. There is still another considerable proportion of the population whose wage rates are as they were before the War, and whose only advantage, whose only means of getting more money in order to meet these higher prices, is to work longer hours, and to have more members of the family bringing in and contributing to the family income. I am not saying that in the circumstances that is not justifiable and right, but it must be borne in mind that it is only in such cases as those to which I am now referring, due to the number of workers in the family bringing in a bigger family income, and by more regular work and longer hours of work they are able to exist at all in these times when things are so hard. What I want to say, so far as my Constituents are concerned, is that the Government should get a move on on this question, and that they should take some drastic action. If necessary, put the people on rations. Why not? Whatever is necessary, do it; but do protect the working people of this country against the fearful charges of food they have to meet, with the inevitable result that they cannot get sufficient of it, and that they have to have recourse to means of substitution, and so on, that are against the interests of the people and against the interests of the State.

The prolongation of this Debate to a second day was, in my opinion, rendered necessary by the very grave importance of the topic to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred, and I am sure it will be amply justified if the two Departments represented by the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite (Mr. Acland and Mr. Pretyman) will give us some assurance that something is being done in reference to this very important subject. That it is an important subject there is no doubt, and it is a fallacy, if I may say so, to limit the importance of it to the duration of the War. The subject will be just as important for two or three years after the War as it is now, and therefore it is not merely a war problem, but a post- war problem also that the Government Departments have to take into account. I need not say that the primary importance of it consists in the fact that this rise of prices deals harshly with the poorest of the community. I agree entirely with, and adopt, what the hon. Gentleman opposite has said, namely, that there are hundreds of thousands of men and women in this country who, although they may get higher wages, are worse off now than they were in pre-war days. That is the first question that has to be taken into account. It does not end there. A great deal of the industrial unrest is also due to this matter. We may say what we like about a demand for a 10s. increase, in spite of a final settlement in October last, by the railwaymen, but if their wages remain stationary and the price of necessary commodities goes up, I do not think there is anyone who can blame those men for saying, "It is absolutely necessary for us, in our own interest, to have higher wages to deal with this problem." We are therefore confronted with a vicious circle, and it is a matter with which the Government must deal. The hon. Gentleman referred to the callous attitude of the Board of Trade. That is strong language to use, but what I think they have done is this: that they have postponed dealing with it. They have been hoping against hope that something will turn up, but nothing does turn up, and I do not know how anything will turn up unless they see themselves that it does. I think the object of this Debate will be secured to a great extent if the Government will tell us in general terms what their attitude is towards this question. The First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Harcourt), when he was acting on behalf of the Board of Trade a few days ago, said that the rise in the price of bread was due to circumstances beyond the control of the Government. Is that really the attitude of the Government?

It is true.

If it is, as I understand it, and the circumstances are beyond their control, then the Government is unable to deal with this question. The hon. Member himself, in a very important answer he gave to a question yesterday, said:

"Mr Pretyman denied Mr. Thorne's statement that there was a corner in wheat in London to the extent of 1 200,000 quarters."

I do not think he denied it. He said he did not know. That is my recollection—that he had not been able to discover any attempt at cornering. He stated:

"The price of No. 1 Northern Manitoba wheat quoted ex ship in London was reported as 52s. per quarter of 4SI6 lb. on 3rd July and 72s. 6d. per quarter on 11th August. In that interval the price of the same quality and quantity of wheat in New York rose from 43s. 9d. to 57s. 9d. It will be seen from these figures that the greater part of the rise in the London price was consequent on the rise in New York which followed the receipt of unfavourable reports of the condition of the growing crop of the United States, and was not due to any causes within the control of His Majesty's Government. A very small portion of the rise, not more than 3s., was accounted for by freight."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd August, 1916, col. 2471.]

Are we to understand that the Government's attitude is that this very serious rise in prices is due to circumstances beyond their control, that they cannot alleviate it, and that they are really unable to deal with this problem? If that is the position it is a very serious one; but if it is the position, the sooner they let us know it the better. It would be a pity to waste time over the matter if they simply told us that the problem is insoluble. The Government have done so many things in the past which appeared to be impossible that I do not despair of their finding a solution even of this question. Let us consider the question of Manitoba wheat, to which the hon. Member referred yesterday. I agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down that this is an example of what the Government might have done: They could have gone to the Canadian Government and bought all the Manitoba wheat for the two years past. If the Canadian Government had been asked to do it, they would have done it. Would the Canadian Government not have done it if the suggestion had been made to them by His Majesty's Government? Of course they would. The right hon. Gentleman representing the Board of Agriculture appears to be amused at that suggestion. I do not see anything irrelevant in it. The Australian Government do these things. They do commandeer. Why should not we, by friendly arrangements with the Canadian Government, get the whole of the supply of Manitoba wheat? The Government have taken no such steps. Instead of consulting the Canadian Government and getting this Manitoba wheat they are the victims of the Chicago speculators. I do not think that is a very dignified position for the Government to take up. There was an obvious remedy so far as this case was concerned. The hon. Gentleman repre- senting the Board of Trade said that only 3s. of the rise was due to the rise in freights. The question of freights is rather a difficult matter, especially in regard to the manner in which it has affected the rise. It is said that in respect of the 9d. loaf, 2d. is due to freights. It may be so, or it may not. It would be very interesting for us to know the facts with regard to that.

I will deal with that.

The hon. Gentleman said the advance' in respect of freights was only 3s., which is not very much. It is an astounding thing that he should have given the answer he gave to-day to Question 42, namely, that starred labour is now engaged in building three large ships for shipowners in neutral countries at a time when we want every ship we can get to carry this wheat.

After the War.

I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that after the War he would have no control at all over these ships. If he looks at the OFFICIAL REPOET to-morrow morning he will see what his attitude was. I am in the recollection of the House when I say that his attitude was that after the War was over it did not matter about these ships.

Not at all.

Then it is important. If it is, I hope he will have a condition put in the contract for the delivery of the ships that we shall have control of them not only during the War, but also after the War for a certain number of years. With regard to the foreign supply of wheat, what we ask the Government is this: Is this rise in prices, or is it not, beyond the control of the Government? If it is beyond their control there is an end of it, and we need not discuss it further; but if it is within the Government's control, will they exercise that control over possible wheat supplies? The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the fact that a great amount of Australian wheat is now held up and cannot come to this country. I should have thought that these three neutral ships might very well be engaged upon the work of bringing that wheat over. If they had that Australian wheat at their disposal, not only would they have more wheat, but they would not be to the same extent the victims of Chicago speculators, who are driving up the price of wheat. With regard to foreign supplies of wheat, I admit that there are circumstances which make it difficult for the Government to interfere. As regards the home supply, I understand that it represents one-fifth or one-sixth of the total supply of wheat for this country. I turn to the consideration of another question. Can we do anything to increase the supply of wheat within this country? Those of us who have been advocating National Service in this House for a long time—I advocated it more than twelve months ago—I am bound to say thought that the first duty of the Government would be, knowing that they were likely to be confronted with a situation of this kind, to give orders that the land of England should be used in the best possible way during the War. It was an obvious thing to do. What did they do? They issued circulars and gave advice. What was wanted was not circulars, but commands to these people. I would put the farm of every farmer in the country and every acre at the public disposal. I know that that may be a laughable proposition for the hon. Gentleman.

Hear, hear

I do not think it is laughable at all. The high prices are so serious that we can afford to take a little risk in doing new things in order to deal with a situation of this kind. The farmers are advised how to till their farms. That, of course, is quite right; but why not compel them to take the right course for the public good? Why do you not give commands instead of exhortations, and tell these people to do what is in the interests of the country? I have seen some of these circulars, and I have heard the perorations of Ministers. To give one steam plough to a farmer would be far better than all the perorations to all your speeches. If you do nothing more than give a farmer a steam plough that would be better than all your advice. It may be said that this only applies to between one-fifth and one-sixth of the total of the wheat supply required for this country. I know it is only a small portion, but the circumstances are such that you must take every step you can in order to remedy the position. The control of British agriculture is not a negligible matter so far as this problem is concerned. Perhaps I may be told—it would be a very relevant observation—that if you make your arable land produce more, the labour problem might be a more difficult subject than it is now. I admit that, but the Govvernment must take all these things into account. Although the claims of the Army are considerable and stand paramount with the Government, I am bound to say that the food of the people is almost of equal importance at the present juncture, because you cannot win the War, whatever the soldiers may do, unless you keep the supply of food at a certain level. Not only must you have it for the purposes of the soldiers, but you must have it also to prevent dissatisfaction in this country.

A few years ago the hon. Member for South Wiltshire (Captain C. Bathurst) wrote a very interesting book upon this problem, in which he anticipated some of the problems with which we now have to deal. He made it quite clear that it is a great mistake to contrast on the one hand the production of bread-stuffs with the production of meat-stuffs on the other. We speak of them sometimes as if the more bread the less meat, and the more meat the less bread. That is a clear fallacy. In his book, for which I have a great admiration, the hon. and gallant Gentleman compares our country with Denmark, and says about Denmark:

"There the dairying industry is taken concurrently with that of wheat growing and market gardening. Here such industries are deemed to be mutually exclusive."

They are not exclusive. My hon. Friend has referred to wool. There are other questions. Coal is as much a necessity as meat in this country, or will be in a few months. There is the question of milk—a very serious question, especially for young children. My hon. Friend has referred to rations. Really, is there anyone, whatever his preconceived opinion may have been, who objects to rations on principle? I should have thought not. Any course that the Government can take, provided that it answers the purpose and if it does not solve the problem mitigates the hardship, will have the support of the House and the country. The Government is much too nervous as to what it will do. It has the support of the country, perhaps more than it deserves, but certainly much more than it seems to recognise, and any step that it may take I am sure will be supported; and, with regard to rations, at any rate, it would be a great thing for the poorest people, and it will give them some security that they would have sufficient meat and sufficient bread. I may be told they have tried that in Germany and prices have gone up. That is quite true, but that does not dispose of the point, at all, because if they had not got the bread tickets and meat tickets prices would have probably been very much higher than they now are.

I really think we are very well justified in having this second day in order to raise this question. It is a question that has been agitated by the Press and has really made a great impression upon the country. It has not only led to a great deal of hardship, but it will lead more and more to industrial disputes, and I ask the Government to make up its mind once for all whether anything can be done. If anything can be done let them, as frankly as they are able, with due regard to the public-safety, take the House of Commons into its confidence and tell them upon what lines they propose to act. I feel sure this is one of the most urgent problems we have to deal with, and I hope during this Recess they will apply their mind to the subject. One of the advantages of a Recess is that the Government will have more time to apply themselves to a solution of this question. They may not be able to say anything definite to-day, but with regard to anything being done for home agriculture time is pressing. If anything is to be done with regard to the next harvest now is the time to move in the matter, for the matter is urgent, and I hope very much that with regard to these outstanding questions, now that Ministers have a Recess, not that they have a holiday, but, at any rate, they will be relieved from daily attendance at the House, they will really apply their minds to this question and will come to a conclusion whether it is soluble or insoluble, because the moment they say it is insoluble, and produce reasons in support of that view, a great many people would say, "Very well, we must bear it and suffer." I do not understand how the Government really can take 60 per cent, of the excess profits of the shipowners. My hon. Friend complained with regard to these excess profits. To whatever extent these huge profits are related by way of cause and effect to the high price of bread, it must be remembered that the Government itself takes much of it—to the extent of six-tenths—and, therefore the Government is making money at the expense of the poorest people. We must remember that in justice to the shipowners. They themselves are tak- ing advantage of the financial policy that is raising the price of bread. That has really been put forward more than once as a defence. It is a very grave aggravation of the difficulty we are in, and I hope the Government will, in the Recess, try and solve this question, and I am sure if the Recess leads to a solution of this question it will be welcomed in the country. Something at length will have been done after two years of war, and it is high time we solved this important question.

I should not have intervened had it not been for the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Churchill) yesterday, a speech which I see described in leaded headlines in the Press as a very remarkable speech. It was remarkable in more senses than one. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman is not here, although he had notice that I intended to criticise his speech. It is a pity he has been absent from the Debates in this House, more especially during February and April, when this question of food prices and the shortage of shipping and various other matters were discussed. Further, if he had been here lie might have seen a good deal of correspondence in the "Times" and other newspapers regarding the question of freight, more particularly directed to Italy. I listened to the speech with attention and astonishment. It was remarkable for the ignorance which it displayed of a subject upon which he spoke with authority. He appeared to me to be entirely ignorant of the most elementary parts of the question. He dealt with shipping as if it was the most simple of all problems, whereas it is not one problem but a multiplicity of problems—very intricate, involved and elaborate. And when an amateur like the right hon. Gentleman enters upon it he gets hopelessly lost. On a memorable occasion, when he returned to this House to make a severe attack upon his late Department—the Admiralty—he told us that he had been clearing his mind in the trenches. I thought he had cleared his mind most effectively, for he appeared to have emptied it of every particle of information which he ought to have obtained when he was' First Lord of the Admiralty in connection with shipping. He made a serious attack upon shipowners, and at the same time evidently overlooked the fact that he, of all men, was most responsible for the rise in freights, to which he attributes the rise in the price of food, because of the wasteful methods of the Admiralty in regard to British shipping, and he is credited, I know not with what truth, with being the author of the Dardanelles Expedition, which was the first impetus to the great rise in shipping. If he had known anything at all about the question he would have remembered that at the outbreak of the War freights remained normal and the prices of food were normal, and it was only when the Admiralty requisition so much shipping and wasted it so uselessly that prices began to rise, and they have gone on ever since.

When was that?

It began at the end of 1914. The right hon. Gentleman told us yesterday that this rise was not due to natural causes nor to military causes. I maintain that it is due almost entirely to military causes. We are at war. And not only has some 60 per cent., I believe, of the merchant tonnage of this country being employed for military purposes, but we are told on the authority of Lord Curzon that some 500 other steamers have been handed over to our Allies for their purposes. Is it surprising that owing to the shortage of tonnage freights have risen considerably? It is a misfortune, and when the right hon. Gentleman, with the crude methods of the amateur, suggests that the whole tonnage of this country should be commandeered and controlled by the Government he shows how utterly ignorant he is of what is going on. It would appear that the right hon. Gentleman's métier at the present moment is to attack his late colleagues and the Government. I should have thought the severe verbal castigation he received at the hands of the present First Lord of the Admiralty would have taught him discretion, but he now returns to attack the Board of Trade. I hold no brief for the Government, and certainly not for any department of the Government, but in justice I must say that the Government have been exerting themselves considerably. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to be entirely ignorant of what the Government was doing. Ha evidently was unaware that every British ship is under the direction of the Government, and must have a licence for the trade in which she is engaged. He was evidently unaware that the Deputy-Speaker of this House is the. chairman of the Food Requisitioning Committee. In fact, he was so ignorant that he appeared to be unaware of anything and everything in connection with shipping. His ignorance is displayed when he says that so far as the shipowners are concerned, freights are fixed by a stroke of the pen in the offices of persons living in this country. One can quite see now what an attractive, pleasant, and profitable occupation shipowning must be and it makes one surprised that there are not more shipowners in this country, when all they have got to do is by a stroke of the pen to fix the prices in order to get increased freights, and to create profits in the enormous manner of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke yesterday.

He alleges that the rise in the price of food is due entirely to freights. What about the price of meat? Has that been increased by freights? It is well known, or ought to be well known, that in the early part of the War, by a perfectly friendly, pleasant arrangement between the President of the Board of Trade—I regret he is not in his place to-day, as I ventured to express the hope on the Adjournment last night that he would be— and the shipowners of this country, the whole of the British refrigerating tonnage employed in the carriage of meat to this country was fixed at a rate of freight which did not exceed the pre-war rates more than from one-eighth of a 1d. to ¼d. per pound. On the other hand, however, we find that the prices of meat have increased enormously. I understand that even the cheaper portions of meat in the poor districts have increased to 1s. 2d. and 1s. 3d. per pound, when previously they were only 4d. per pound. I am speaking of imported meat. In the poor districts of this country a certain class of meat which was sold sometimes at 2½d. per pound before the War is now being sold at 1s. 2d. and 1s. 3d. per pound That is not due to freights. What about wheat? The right hon. Gentleman tried to argue that freights were responsible for the rise in the price of bread. I do not want to follow him into his argument, nor do I want to be tempted to follow the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I would say that freights have not had the effect of increasing the price of the loaf no its present price. It seems to be forgotten that although the shipowners of this country are accused of making enormous profits, the Government, as my right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Ellis Griffith) bas justly pointed out, take 60 per cent, of those profits, in addition to heavy taxation in the form of Income Tax and Super-tax. Then there is the wheat produced by the British farmer in this country. I do not want to make any attack upon the British farmer, far from it, but I want to point out that the British farmer is not subject to Excess Profits Tax. The Government does not take from the British farmer 60 per cent of those enormous and, as the right hon. Member for Dundee said, "those scandalous profits." The Government does not interfere with the British farmer, and the British farmer is exempt from several charges for the simple reason that he pleads ignorance that he cannot keep books—a very easy way of avoiding taxation. My right hon. and learned Friend in dealing with this question has suggested that we should increase the production of wheat in this country. For many years I have advocated that we not only ought to increase the production of wheat in this country by giving the farmer the inducement of a fixed price for his wheat, but that we ought to follow the example of the great Israelitish statesman when living in Egypt, and ought to have national granaries. We would not then be subject to fluctuations in price, which may be brought about by many circumstances living in an island as we do, such as failure of the wheat crop in various parts of the world. The crops have been affected in Manitoba and the United States, and this has been taken advantage of very promptly by our acute American and Canadian friends. The price has gone up, I understand, within the last five weeks in the United States and in Canada 50 per cent., while the price of wheat in this country during that period has only increased 10 per cent. Is that due to the British shipowner, or is the British shipowner going to be credited by the moderation of the increase in the price of wheat in this country, as against the enormous increase in the price of wheat in the United States and Canada, due entirely to the operations of the Chicago wheat pit.

2.0 P.M.

When the right hon. Gentleman comes down here and denounces the Government and the British shipowner—who, I suppose, is the companion in crime of the British Government—he ought to know a little more of his facts. I understand, although I may be wrongly informed, that the attack on the shipowner and the Government from this point of view was arranged at a little convivial party in a room off the Terrace, and it was decided that the great increase in the price of food would be a popular cry and a popular argument for the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman, since he left this House and went to the front, where he remained a short time, and has now returned to the political arena, has knocked at many doors. He tried the Socialistic door, only to meet with a very severe rebuff from the hon. Member for Blackburn, who pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that his Socialism was of a very late and tender growth. The right hon. Gentleman might decide on better duties than to return here merely to attack his late colleagues, who, when he was with them, of course, were everything that could be desired, and indispensable in every way. The right hon. Gentleman has proved, however, that one member of the Cabinet is not indispensable by leaving the Cabinet himself. In his very crude amateurish way he suggests that the Government should commandeer, requisition, or take over all the British shipping. The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten about the neutral shipowner. It will be remembered that a distinguished relation of the right hon. Gentleman on one memorable occasion came to grief because he forgot the existence of Goschen, and the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, so far as his arguments are concerned, came to utter grief when he forgot about the existence of the neutral shipowner. He says that it is just as easy, even more easy, to control the whole of the shipping of this country than it is to control the railways or the munition works. He is a great believer, evidently, in absolute and universal control. It will be interesting to learn whether the right hon. Gentleman, when he was in the Cabinet, was an advocate or an opponent of controlled establishments. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that, with regard to shipping, we have the same conditions as before the War, and that we have a moderate insurance. He forgets that, so far as insurance is concerned, a 5 per cent, premium is being paid at present on ships going from this country to the Mediterranean, so that if a ship worth £150,000 made a voyage of about a month's duration from this country to a Mediterranean port and back, the cost of insurance would be £7,500, and if the ship were taken at Admiralty Blue Book rates, which the right hon. Gentleman advocates, the owner would receive £4,500, out of which he would have to pay the crew's wages, the expense of provisions, and various other matters. But the right hon. Gentleman made an extraordinary suggestion, which I have not yet, even with the experience which I have as a shipowner, been able to understand. He said:

"I have in former times entered considerably into detail on this matter from the Government point of view, and I say that there is no reason whatever why we should not charter every ship at Admiralty rates and then re-charter it to the owner under such conditions as the interests of the State may require."

There may be some hon. Member in this House who may be able to explain that operation to me. I cannot understand it. Does he suggest that the ships to be chartered should be chartered from the owners at the Blue Book rates, which the owners at the present time do not find generally fair, and that the Admiralty shall then re-charter these ships to the same owners under such conditions as the interests of the State may require? Presumably that would be at a higher rate of freight. If it is at a higher rate of freight, who is going to receive the difference? Is it the owner or the Government? The right hon. Gentleman has already denounced the Government for receiving portions of the profits of the shipowner in the 60 per cent., and if there is any difference between the Admiralty rates and the rates at which the ships are to be re-chartered to the owner, which would be higher, is that going to decrease the cost of food? Perhaps my hon. Friend (Mr. Pretyman) may be able to explain this operation to me. He may have inquired from the officials in his Department as to what it means, but I cannot understand it, and I question whether anyone else can. The right hon. Gentleman objects very strongly to the shipowners making profits and having in hand reserve capital at the end of the War, and he described this as wholly vicious and illegitimate from the point of view of State policy. Again I say that the right hon. Gentleman has entirely forgotten the existence of the neutral shipowners who at the present moment, because so many of our ships are engaged in military operations and in the service of our Allies, are rapidly capturing our trades in various other directions, thereby piling up enormous profits. It is well known that neutral shipowners can obtain anything from 10s. to 15s. per ton higher rates than the British shipowner, and they are not subject to the taxes to which the British shipowner is. Anyone who follows this subject will have observed the rapid increase in the mercantile navies of the neutrals—for instance, the Norwegians, the Americans, and others—and how the Americans and Japanese are capturing, not only our shipping, but our manufacturing trade in many directions. The right hon. Gentleman claims, I suppose, to be a statesman, but he cannot see that this country is an island and depends entirely upon ships for its existence. He evidently has overlooked the fact that if it had not been for the mercantile shipping it would have been impossible to have carried on this War as we have done.

What about the Navy?

The Navy could not have existed without the help of the merchant shipping. What about the colliers who keep the Navy at sea in provisions, in food, in meat, and other things? What about the merchant ships which supply our Armies in Flanders and elsewhere? My hon. Friend will forgive me for saying that I do not think that that was a very sensible or helpful interruption. If he wishes to underrate the services of the British mercantile marine, then ho is doing a disservice to this country. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman was a remarkable speech. No doubt if it had appeared in the columns of the "Sunday Pictorial" it would have had some money value, but to come down to this House and make a speech like that which he made yesterday was neither informative nor helpful. I do not think that his attempts to injure the Government have been more successful than his attempts to injure the British shipowner in the eyes of sensible people. I should like to follow the right hon. Gentleman paragraph by paragraph through his speech of yesterday, but time will not permit, and other Gentlemen wish to follow in Debate. I will leave the right hon. Gentleman and turn my attention to the Board of Trade. I do not think that anyone can accuse me of being a friendly advocate of the Government. I do not hold a brief for them, but in the interests of justice and in face of the attacks made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee upon the Government I felt bound to take up the cudgels in their defence. So far as the Board of Trade are concerned, I want some explanation from my hon. Friend. Again I say I regret that the President has not been here. I want to know what he has been doing during his absence? Has he yielded, shall I say, to the seductive demands of our Italian friends for more British merchant ships, because the more shipping we give away to help our Allies the less shipping we shall have to carry food for our own people.

I must return for one moment to the right hon. Gentleman. When he was talking about the British shipper he forgot all about the Allies. Evidently he had not taken the trouble to look into the question and to learn for himself that from one-third to one-half of the foodstuffs of this country is carried in neutral bottoms? How is he going to control the neutral shipowner? This, which is such a simple proposition according to him, is a proposition which has exercised the minds of the Cabinet and more particularly of the Board of Trade. It has exercised the minds of the Committees which have been appointed by the Government to deal with these things and they have not offered any solution. The only result of the right hon. Gentleman's policy of requisitioning the whole of the British mercantile marine would be disaster. Neutrals would be driven away from this country, and suppose the right hon. Gentleman is encouraged to ask for control over the whole British shipping by reason of the success at his Department, when he entered into it, made with the 50 or 60 per cent, which he requisitioned, are you going to see such a glaring case of scandal as the "Aragon," which was left for eleven months lying in the Mediterranean as a sort of club for officers? Is that the kind of management which will reduce the price of food in this country? I think that my hon. Friend, though probably he does not like to agree with me, does agree with me in his innermost heart. I am quite sure from the speeches which were made in the past, and more particularly in February, when the representative of the Board of Trade followed me immediately in Debate, he did not and could not contradict a single allegation which I have made.

I see my hon. Friend, who is a Member for one of the Divisions of Glasgow, and who has lately earned fame by writing a biography of the right hon. Member for Dundee, is taking notes, and I hope he will incorporate them in his next edition. Again, I regret that the right hon. Member for Dundee is not here, for I should? like to have asked him who was the genius—was it himself?—who was responsible for the requisitioning of oil-tankers which were converted into troopships. I should have liked to have asked him various other questions to-day, but his absence to-day is in strange contrast to his audacity of yesterday. I should like to have asked him who is responsible for these many changes in connection with the fitting out, the dismantling, the refitting, and the dismantling again of various ships. There are many questions of that kind I should have liked to ask him, and, frankly, I regret I cannot ask him. We have been told that at last, a long last, we are going to get fifty-two steamers from the Portuguese Government, which have been requisitioned, or, if you like, have been seized by the Portuguese Government, being German ships sheltering in Portuguese ports. The hon. Gentleman told us that the British Government were taking these fifty-two steamers over from the Portuguese Government at 14s. 3d. per gross register ton, and that we were paying all expenses. Surely my hon. Friend must be mistaken. I have endeavoured to point out that this 14s. 3d. per ton surely covered the expenses as regards repairs, insurance, and various other things. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, when he comes to reply, will give us some explanation. He tells us that these fifty-two ships which have been taken over have been hired by the British Government from the Portuguese Government and put into the hands of one particular firm to manage, the firm of Furness, Withy and Company. It really strikes me that a firm which has already recently acquired a further large number of ships from the Prince Line will be overburdened with the management of a further fifty-two vessels, and it is to be hoped that Mr. Lewis, one of the directors of that company who is devoting the largest portion of his time to Lord Curzon's Committee, will not be called on to give up his services on that Committee for the purpose of managing these steamers.

I would suggest to my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Dr. Macnamara), who has just entered the House, that it would be more economical if, instead of these fifty-two steamers being left in the hands of this company, they were handed over to the Admiralty—my right hon. Friend will see the confidence I place in the Admiralty—so that they might be employed as colliers for the Navy, or as transports, or for the service of the Allies, releasing the ships requisitioned from British owners to go back to their regular trade, and, if they are allowed to go back to their regular trade, competition, above all things, will tend to bring down freights and the price of food. People talk about rings, but the Chairman of the Food Regulations Committee (the Deputy-Speaker) has established a very excellent method, whereby he insists upon ships fixing 75 per cent, of the cargo carrying space for wheat. Sometimes the wheat is not there, and the result is, the regulation having to be complied with, that the owners take wheat at any price, with the result that freights are reduced. Really the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee appears to be entirely ignorant of all these sort of things, and, indeed, of the whole subject. I trust that my hon. Friend, when ho comes to deal with the subject of the Portuguese ships, will deal with those questions I have raised. I should be extremely sorry to sec Mr. Lewis taken away from the service of Lord Curzon's Committee, and I again suggest that my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty should take over these fifty-two steamers from the Portuguese Government and thus save all trouble. I apologise for detaining the House; I should have liked to refer to the speech of the Member for Derby dealing with the question of food, which, in importance, is only second to the conduct of the War, and is quite as serious. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee had taken a leaf out of the book of the hon. Member for Derby, and had dealt with the subject in the same calm, temperate, dispassionate, and statesmanlike manner, it would have been better for this House, better for the country, and better for the right hon. Gentleman's reputation.

The hon. Member for Derby, in the course of his remarks, levelled some criticisms at the Great Western Railway Company, of which I have the honour to be a director, and he referred to the case of a certain man who had recently been in the service of the company. In the course of his remarks, the hon. Member, I think, insinuated that the company was making use of the Military Service Act in a some- what vindictive spirit. I would assure him, if he were in his place, that this is very far from the truth. This company, and I believe all the other companies, have carefully avoided raising any real grounds for insinuations of that kind. He also, in the course of his remarks, expressed the hope that those of us who are directors of railway companies, would adopt, a conciliatory attitude towards the men. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Great Western Railway Company, and I believe all the other railway companies, are only too desirous of being conciliatory, and on living on the best of terms with our employés, and that the last thing they desire, either intentionally or unintentionally, is to make use of any position arising through, I may say, of any special legislation which has been found necessary, to do anything which would be in the least unfair So any of the men. I think it will be generally admitted by the hon. Member that the proper working of the railways, which after all is a matter of most important national interest, and a subject of interest to all Members of this House, can only be accomplished in a way to satisfy public needs, where there is a certain amount of discipline and efficiency maintained amongst the people who are employed on those railways. The working of the railways is in the hands of the Government for the moment, but whether the railways are controlled by the Government, or whether they are worked and controlled by the companies, it is necessary that there should be a reasonable measure of discipline maintained What are the facts of the case which the hon. Member brought forward yesterday? He said that a. man called Davis was sentenced to a month's imprisonment with hard labour for distributing circulars which were held to be likely to prejudice the recruiting, training, or discipline of His Majesty's Forces. That is to say, that the man was convicted before a magistrate and sentenced to a month's hard labour for a breach of the law. In common, I think, with most railways, this company has a regulation, and at any rate this regulation has been in existence for over thirty years, and it provides that whenever any person in the employment of the company is charged with having committed a criminal charge he must, immediately on his being summoned or taken into custody, if such a course has not been previously taken, be suspended, and the suspension must be followed by formal dismissal on conviction. That is a regulation which has worked for a great many years, and I think will be regarded by everybody as a reasonable regulation. The hon. Gentleman himself admitted yesterday that if this had been a case of theft or drunkenness he would have considered it perfectly reasonable that dismissal should follow conviction. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman suggested that in this case it was hard that the man should receive what he considered to be double punishment, because he described it as a political offence. I cannot help thinking that, if double punishment is wrong, it is illogical to try and discriminate which class of offence should be visited with double punishment and which class should not. In any case, I cannot see how the company or any individual employer can take upon itself or himself to discriminate between various classes of crime and place themselves above the law in interpreting what are criminal offences and what are what the hon. Member would call political offences.

The Cabinet itself finds there is some distinction. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea (Mr. Burns), after six weeks' imprisonment, was made a Cabinet Minister. Clearly no notice was taken of that case. If it were an imprisonment for stealing something, it would be an entirely different matter, and the same distinction applies in this case.

It is quite possible that a Cabinet Minister has not the life of people under his charge, as on the railways. The Government as such might undertake to discriminate between these various classes of offences, but I do not think it is possible for a company or individual to take upon themselves to discriminate between one class of criminal act and another. I think the rule that a conviction for a criminal offence is to be followed by dismissal is one which everybody would hold to be just. Let me refer further to the facts. This man Davis, after he had served his month of hard labour, appealed for reinstatement and interviewed the general manager, but the application could not be agreed to. I think it must be admitted that it would be a very difficult position if a railway company were to be held bound to keep the positions for men holding peculiar or political opinions, and I think it could hardly be contended that the company should keep positions open for men who owing to their political opinions have got themselves put into gaol for periods of varying sentences. If a man is sentenced to two or three months' imprisonment it is obviously impossible for the company to hold open his position in the present conditions during the War. It is not a case so much of reinstatement. It is a case of having to certify that this man, who is subject by age to the condition of military service, is indispensable to the service of the country, and it is suggested that the company should do so, because he belonged to a grade of work which is of course indispensable to the carrying on of railways—namely, shunting. But this man has actually been away for three months—that is, a month in gaol and two months since—and it would be impossible for the railway company, in doing its duty to the Government and to the War Office, to certify that a man who had already been away for three months, and whose work therefore was being done, was indispensable to the working of the railway. I cannot imagine that it can be contended that the company could certify in such a case.

The general tenour of the hon. Member's criticism was that the man was being punished because he was refused this certificate and because, being a single man of thirty-five, he would, of course, automatically become liable for military service. The Great Western Railway Company has lost 20,000 of its employés, and the greater number of them before the Military Service Act came into operation. The men flocked from the service of the railways to the Colours, and there was great danger in the earlier parts of the War of the railways being placed in great difficulty owing to the number of men who had gone. Those men did not regard it as a punishment that they were not compelled to remain at home, and in many cases very large numbers of them are very disappointed that they come within categories of work in which they have to be certified as indispensable. Therefore, I cannot see that this man has any reason to say that the fact that he is not being certified as indispensable is a punishment. The fact is, of course, that a certain number of men in all services do not like military service and are not in favour of carrying out the Military Service Act in an energetic spirit. I do not believe that the numbers of those men in any class in the country are very large, and I can hardly believe that a case of this sort will meet with very general support among the fellows of the man himself. This man Davis certainly cannot be described as indispensable for the reasons I have given. I think that if the company certified, as is desired, that he was indispensable they would be acting dishonestly to the Government, and I think that the company most certainly has a duty to the country and to the Government to let men go to the greatest extent that they can be spared.

Regulations have been issued by the company stating under what conditions men will be spared, and, if I may be allowed, I should like to read one of those regulations which says:

"That, in releasing men for service with the Colours, the youngest unmarried man tit for foreign service should he first chosen from the same grade and station or depot from which a man can be spared. If no single man is available, a married man without children, or the married man with fewest children under fourteen years of age, should be selected."

That is obviously a very proper regulation. Another regulation says:

"Subject to the efficient working of the railway being maintained, it must be understood that every effort must continue to be made to release as many men as possible for service with the Colours. This applies more particularly to the younger men. Each officer should, therefore, periodically review the list of men retained in his department."

I think that shows that the whole question has been dealt with as fairly as is possible between the various men, and that there is really no cause to complain of the manner in which this difficult matter has been carried out. It is impossible in the case of this man to certify that be is indispensable, and I think the company would be acting in a dishonest way to the Government if it did anything of the sort. If, as I presume he will do, the man will see that it is his duty, not being indispensable, to serve his country as so many of his fellows have done very willingly, then I do not see why the railway company should not, on his return with a great number of his fellow-workers to civil life, favourably consider his position with that of many others, and endeavour, if possible, to make it smoother than it might otherwise have been. I hope the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Thomas) will consider that in the spirit in which it is made on behalf of the railway company.

May I have it clear what the offer means? Let me say at once I appreciate to the full the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman has dealt with the matter. Do I gather from him the company could not now certify that a man was indispensable who, for over three months, has not been in the company's service, but that, in the event of his taking up his position, whatever it might be, after the War, the company then would be prepared to reinstate him as if he had never left the service? That is to say that they would wipe out the old offence, to put it in that way? Is that really what the hon. Gentleman suggests?

My hon. Friend knows, of course, that it is impossible for me absolutely to commit the board of directors of a railway company. But it seems to me that, although we cannot absolutely reinstate this man at the present time, and we cannot certify that he is indispensable, yet I suggest that if the man joins the forces and serves his country in a patriotic way it seems to me only reasonable that we, the railway company, should try and stretch a point when he comes back and not go into past grievances, but consider his case with that of all those who come back. The hon. Gentleman has appealed to me to try and suggest some conciliatory way of meeting the case. I hope he will -consider that I have done as much as I could in the circumstances to suggest what would be a reasonable solution of a rather difficult position.

I think after the very interesting discussion that we have had to-day there surely cannot be any question as to the wisdom of the decision of the Government in having given a second day, or part of a second day, for a Debate on the Adjournment Motion. The discussion raised by my colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Jowett) on the question of food prices I hope will be received not only by the House, but by the Government as one of those questions which are of urgent and of pressing importance, and I sincerely hope that the Government are going to act with enterprise and courage and are going to deal with that very urgent and pressing problem in a much more effective way than they have attempted to deal with it for the last two years. But I rose more particularly to refer to the question of coal. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Ellis Griffith), in a very interesting speech, enumerated several points of importance, and incidentally made some reference to the question of coal. I want to raise one or two very specific points in regard to that subject with special reference to the operations and the administrations of the Limitation of Coal Prices Act, 1915. I think it will be within the recollection of the House that the Act referred to was passed only as a result of a very strong agitation in the country demanding that the Government should do something to protect the British public against the power of large financial interests imposing their will upon the consumers of coal in this country. I remember attending the conference that was held in the precincts of this House Not only were the consumers of coal represented at that conference, but our municipalities, our utility companies, and our large gas companies, in conjunction with the public, all joined in making an appeal to the Government to take some action to prevent the upward tendency in the price of coal, and after some considerable delay the Act referred to was placed upon the Statute Book.

Some little time ago the Welsh coal-owners made a request to the Board of Trade that they should be allowed to raise the minimum price of coal, and, as is known to the House, the Board of Trade, in the judgment not only of the miners but of the public generally, very erroneously and unfortunately succumbed to the pressure and pleadings of the coalowners in Wales on that particular occasion. The Miners' Federation of Great Britain, which is an important industrial organisation, and I think I may say with due modesty, one of those organisations that has been in very close touch with the Board of Trade and the Government, and has rendered to the State, very special and signal services during the last two years—that important industrial organisation at once registered its protest against the action of the Board of Trade. I would like to point out that they not only protested against the concession that had been given to the coal-owners, but also, and I think justly, protested that they, as an important part of the mining industry of Great Britain, had not been consulted or conferred with in the least. I want to ask a very specific question of the hon. Gentleman who represents the Board of Trade. That is this: When the coalowners of South Wales, put their case before the Board of Trade, and when the Board of Trade were discussing the representations that were made to them by the coalowners, was there any regard had, and, if so, to what extent, to the margin of profit enjoyed by the coalowners? I want to submit that it is not sufficient to be able to prove that the cost of production has gone up. I want to suggest that the question of the margin of profit is a fundamental and very important one indeed. It is a matter of common knowledge, a matter that has been the subject of much comment, editorial as well as on the public platform, that in South Wales in particular the margin of profit enjoyed not only in war time, but in peace time, by the coalowners is one of the striking features of the success of the mining industry in this country. Yet the coalowners come before the Board of Trade! I notice that in a letter sent to the Press by the representatives of the Coalowners Association there is this very significant statement made:

"Without this concession many of the collieries would have been compelled to close."

In the "South Wales Daily News" of 12th August that letter is given. In the leading article the editor not only repudiates the suggestion contained in it, but very wisely and very pertinently calls for evidence in support of the statement made, namely, that some of these collieries were being worked at a loss. When the Board of Trade and the Government have had as much experience of dealing with coalowners as some Members of this House have had, I venture to say that they will not be so impressed by, or so convinced of, the reality of some of these statements when those concerned speak, as they do in this manifesto that was sent to the daily Press, that unless certain concessions are made certain collieries will have to close. Going back upwards of twenty years, I have before my mind the fact of having to negotiate with certain colliery companies, sometimes on the question of wages, sometimes on the question of the water supply, or of sanitation, and the old argument was trotted out, that if we pressed our claim it meant that the collieries would be closed. Needless to say, the collieries are still in operation, and are still a very successful and profitable enterprise.

I fear there is some ground and justification for the feeling, not only in this House, but outside, that large financial interests are able to exercise a power and influence that is not consonant with the interests of the larger body, that is the community as a whole. I think it is to the credit of the miners and their representatives, the executive of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, that they registered their protest against the action of the Board of Trade in that particular connection. In addition to the question which I have already quoted as to the margin of profits, and as to the evidence, if any, that the Board of Trade had submitted to them when the case was put on behalf of the South Wales coalowners, I want to ask this further question: Has a request been made by the coalowners in any other mining counties, and, if so, has any other mining county been granted the same concession that was granted to the South Whales coalowners? In the statement that was issued by the coalowners of South Wales they affirmed that unless the concession was granted certain collieries would close. Another point they put—and put with emphasis—was: because of the increase of the wages paid to the miners, added, of course, to the increase in the cost of stores, etc., it was imperative that they must have this concession, and be allowed to raise the standard basis of their coal prices. The point I want to make is this: I should have thought it was within the knowledge of the Board of Trade that wages are governed by prices. There are some of us who have believed that the reverse should be the case, and that prices should be governed by wages, but the fundamental fact is that the wages the coalowners in Wales were paying prior to the concession being granted by the Board of Trade were wages that we were entitled to on ascertained prices. I submit that the argument, at least in that particular, is not entitled to the consideration of the Board of Trade. I respectfully, and with all the emphasis of which I am capable, suggest to the Board of Trade that the coalowners did not make out a case, that the Board of Trade gave a concession to the coalowners without discrimination, and that the vast majority of them have been paying and are paying, not ordinary but abnormally high dividends, and to have given to them the power, which they have exercised, to raise the price of coal to the consumer, added to the very heavy burdens which have been imposed, especially upon the poorer people of this coun- try, is, consciously or unconsciously, to have done a very great injustice, especially to the poorest of our people.

There is one other point. I have asked the hon. Gentleman to tell us if the question of the margin of profit was subject to consideration by his Department. When I speak of the margin of profit I do not want the hon. Gentleman to confuse it with dividend. They are not necessarily the same thing. I have been reading with interest the recent balance sheets of some of our large mining companies. Previously I have had occasion especially to refer to the system which is almost universal with our large mining companies in particular at the present day—that is that their dividend only represents a part of their profits. For instance, I read in the balance sheet of a certain mining company that it is paying a 50 per cent, dividend. But that dividend of 50 per cent, does not represent more than two-thirds of the gross profits. The amount of money out of current profits which is transferred, not only to reserve funds and to depreciation accounts, but is handed aver for the purpose of extensions and developments is very substantial. I refer to this not only because of its bearing upon this particular question and the probability of further requests coming from the other mining areas, but because of its relationship to the question of the Excess Profits Tax. I hope that the Government are having due regard to the important aspect of that particular question. I should think the probabilities are that the Department have seen a copy of the report that was published on Monday, headed "The Price of Coal. Attitude of Derbyshire Miners." It was a meeting of the Derbyshire Miners' Council, at which the following resolution was passed:

"That should the Home Secretary give the coalowners in the Conciliation Board area similar permission to advance the price of coal beyond that allowed by the Coal Prices (Limitation) Bill, as had been given to the South Wales colliery owners, the men's section of the Conciliation Board will immediately make application for a corresponding advance in wages."

I am sure no one can be surprised, no matter what agreement there may be as between the mine owners and the workmen, if the Government are to give a further concession, that the miners must of necessity urge their claim for further increase of wages. On the other hand, I think the spirit expressed in that resolution that they do not desire or intend, unless that concession is granted, to press for further increase of wages, certainly ought not to be lost sight of by the Board of Trade, and ought to be placed to the credit of the miners in that particular locality.

The only other word I wish to say is this: The question of the price of coal has been and is urgent, and I am with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Ellis Griffith), who, in referring to coal, said that in the coming months it would probably be more important from many points of view. I hope the Government are going to anticipate, and, with enterprise, initiative, and fairness, seek to secure to the poor people in particular that they should have coal at a reasonable price, and that they will have due regard not only to the margin of profit, but the cost of production as compared with the selling price of coal. I know some people imagine that the miners are getting unlimited wages in these days. It is true that a very large number of miners are getting substantially higher wages, but it is also true that there are large numbers of miners in this country who, notwithstanding the relative increase in wages, are finding it very difficult in these days to make ends meet. My point is this, and I think the Government have got to face it, that the selling price of coal bears no relationship to the cost of production in the vast majority of collieries in this country. I merely state the point. I know a village where the only industry is mining, where the workmen themselves who go down into the mine and produce the coal are being called upon in these days to pay 27s. 6d. a ton for coal. That is not in London, but in a mining village near my own Constituency. The last time I was there coal was 1s. 3d. a cwt. The power of a coalowner to impose his will upon the consuming public must not be allowed to go unchallenged. The Board of Trade must operate and administer the Act, not with a view to the minimum, but with a view to securing the maximum of results for the consumers of coal. Of course I know the Act is very imperfect and is a very weak measure, but I venture to say that the public have got the minimum and not the maximum, and that in many particulars the Board of Trade might have administered that Act with more vigour and with much less regard to the coalowners of this country. Therefore, I say that I hope in the coming winter the Board of Trade will act with that enterprise and initiative so as to secure, especially for the poorest of the poor, that they shall have at least coal at a reasonable market price.

I apologise for intervening now, but I think I have waited twelve or thirteen hours on this bench, and there is a limit to the powers of nature, and I will now answer to the best of my ability the various points that have been raised. First, I will say a word or two on the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). I gather he accepted the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. J. Mason), and therefore I do not think I need say much about that beyond this, that the position is, as the House will clearly understand from the two hon. Members who have spoken about it, namely, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby and my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor, that Shunter Davis was convicted for circulating leaflets contrary to the Defence of the Realm Act, not the Military Service Act, and that in that action he was certainly not, as my hon. Friend pointed out, in any way supported by his union. My hon. Friend will also admit that netiher was the prosecution in any sense on the initiative of the railway company. Neither the union nor the railway company were concerned. The railway company have a definite rule that every man who is convicted of an offence thereby is dismissed from the service of the company. Under that automatic rule Shunter Davis lost his employment. Therefore, if the Board of Trade have to intervene, they have not to ask the railway company to reverse a special penalty which they have placed upon their servant, but we have, on the other hand, to ask them, and to press them, to make a special exception in his favour. Further than that, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor, mere reinstatement would not meet the case, because, under the Military Service Act, every man of military age who is not treated as indispensable is taken for service with the Colours, and it is pretty clear, I think, that as Shunter Davis has now been absent from his work for three months, and has been replaced, it would not be very easy for the company to give that certificate, and, in the absence of that certificate, whether he is reinstated now or is not reinstated, Mr. Davis would come to serve with the Colours. He is a single man, a point which has not been mentioned.

I did mention it.

I admit that there are circumstances of difficulty in the case. The offence, I entirely agree, is not exactly in the same position as an offence of stealing or dishonesty. It is not in the same category as that. I think the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor is a very happy one, and if Davis can see his way to meet that suggestion and serve honourably, and thereby purge any offence he may have committed, and afterwards returns to the service of the company, I think all the essential features of the case will be most happily met. I rather gather my hon. Friend will seek to bring that about.

I will convey it.