I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

In proposing this measure we are following the precedent of an Act which was passed by the late Government in the year 1915. As the House knows, by a Statute of the Reign of Queen Anne, a Member of Parliament on accepting an office of profit under the Crown vacates his seat. There are certain exceptions, including the exception created by the Representation of the People Act of 1867, under which a Member of Parliament holding one of the principal offices which are mentioned in the Schedule of that Act may be transferred to another of those offices without vacating his seat. The result under present conditions is somewhat capricious. The effect is that about half of the new Government are able to retain their seats without re-election, and about half will vacate their seats unless Parliament intervenes. Among those who will vacate their seats if this Bill is not passed are Ministers who are closely connected with the carrying on of the War, including the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Minister of Munitions, the President of the Board of Agriculture, the proposed Pensions Minister, and the proposed Minister of Labour. The mere fact that they would have to submit themselves for re-election would mean a loss of valuable time. The Ministers seeking re-election would be kept away from the House, and what is perhaps more important is that there would be some interference with the performance of their duties. The result would be a loss to the House, because the Ministers could not be present and could not be fully criticised in their absence, but the loss to the country no doubt would be greater, because the country is entitled to the undivided services of those Ministers at the present time. On the other hand, if the Bill is passed, the electors in the constituencies will be deprived of an opportunity of expressing their opinion whether the Ministers are to be again returned to Parliament; but I am sure, under present conditions, that they will be very willing indeed to waive their rights, and it seems to me that we may very well, at the present time, propose such a measure as this.

Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us what method it is proposed to adopt under the Bill?

I was just going on to mention the method we propose to adopt. We do not propose to raise the general question as to the policy of the Statute of Queen Anne. It is a matter on which different opinions are held in the House, and although I myself have a very definite opinion indeed whether that Statute should be retained and whether Ministers on their appointment ought to be re-elected, it is perhaps too controversial a matter to be determined at the present time. Moreover, we do not ask the House to pass a measure which will have effect throughout the present War, although there is a great deal to be said for that course. We merely ask the House to pass exactly the same measure which they gave to the late Government on the creation of the Coalition Government in the early part of 1915. The effect of the operative Section of the Bill is this:

"Notwithstanding anything in any Act, a Member of the House of Commons shall not vacate his seat by reason only of his acceptance at any time during the months of December, 1916, and January, 1917, of an office of profit if that office is an office the holder of which is by law capable of being elected to, or sitting or voting in, that House.

The months taken in 1915 were May and June, and we take December and January as covering the period of the formation of the new Minnistry. We propose to add to this Bill a Clause which was omitted from the Bill of 1915, but which was added to it towards the end of 1916. That Clause will be Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 of the Bill. I trust with that explanation the House will be willing to accept the Bill. If it is to be passed there is every reason why it should be passed rapidly through all its stages There is surely no reason at the present time, now that the form of the Bill is familiar to the House, and seeing that the principle has been adopted previously, why we should go through the process of passing on different days the Second Reading, the Committee and the other stages of the Bill. It is really a pressing matter, and I beg to ask the House, if it should be satisfied with the principle of the Bill, to pass it through all its stages to-day.

Why does the right hon. Gentleman say nothing about the Schedule of the Bill?

The scheduled offices are the stewardship of the Manors of East Hendred, Northstead, or Hempholme, and the (Chiltern Hundreds. I did not mention them because Members who accept those offices will still vacate their seats.

I hope the House will make no objection either to giving this Bill a Second Reading now, or to the request to allow it to pass through all its remaining stages to-day There is no doubt that it is most desirable that the new Ministers should be in their places in the House as speedily as possible, and I feel confident that both the House and the country would desire that they should not be required to divert any of their energies to electioneering at this moment, but should be able to concentrate themselves on the urgent and difficult tasks that await their attention. But I should like to say this: If this Bill had not been proposed, and if any contest had been forced upon any of the new Ministers, the late Prime Minister, and those who act with him, would have given in the constituencies whole-hearted support to the Ministers seeking re-election.

The Home Secretary is, no doubt, wise not to arouse now the questions and controversies which, I think, might have been created if it had been proposed to make this a permanent measure. I have no doubt there are many members of this House who look forward to the old Statute of Queen Anne being repealed. It is notorious, of course, that when a Prime Minister has to fill any vacancy in his Government he is not able, in normal times, to consider solely what ought to be the sole consideration, namely, the selection of the man who by his personal qualities is most fitted to occupy the vacant post. He has to take into account also the security, from a party point of view, of the possible Minister's seat; he has to find, indeed, a combination of a man of ability and suitability, and a man with a safe seat. It does not conduce to the formation of the best possible Executive for the country if you have to take these considerations into account.

The working of the existing law is also full of anomalies. I myself do not claim to speak with impartiality on the matter, as I have been twice a sufferer from the operation of this law, having had to fight a keen contest at an election in 1909, when I entered the Cabinet as Chancellor of the Duchy, and a year ago having again to fight a contested election, when I, holding the office of Postmaster-General, at the request of the then Prime Minister, accepted the additional office of Chancellor of the Duchy, without any-additional emolument. The law required that I should present myself to my constituents, and, as a consequence, an election was forced in the interests of the liquor opposition to the measures of the Central Control Board. Although my appointment secured only one-sixth of the votes that were cast, a good deal of money which might have been much better employed by being invested in War Stock was expended on electioneering, and a good deal of time and energy was wasted.

I remember that in 1912, when the hon. and gallant Member for East Dorsetshire, who was then a Junior Lord of the Treasury, was made Controller of the Household, and for the first time received a salary, it was not necessary for him to receive re-election, and yet at the same time another hon. Member (Sir Henry Haworth), who was appointed to the vacant office of Junior Lord of the Treasury without a salary had to seek re-election. While the Minister who received the salary retained his seat without re-election, the hon. Member who for the first time took office without salary, had to seek re-election, and, as a matter of fact, lost his seat. At the same time it is the fact that the existing law gives additional opportunities to electorates to express their opinions with regard to the Government of the day, and, for that reason, I do not think that the initiative in this matter should be assumed by Ministers or ex-Ministers. It should be for the House of Commons itself to express an opinion finally as to the course to be pursued. However, the right hon. Gentleman is not raising these questions, which might possibly give rise to controversy, at the present time. I am confident that the House will, with unanimity in all probability, accept his suggestion that the Bill be passed to-day. Perhaps the House will allow me to express to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary my very cordial congratulations on his accession to office. His appointment has been, I think, universally welcomed. I, myself, served three and a half years as Under-Secretary at the Home Office, and for one year as Secretary of State, and I take the keenest interest in its work and welfare. I, for my part rejoice, as we all rejoice, that its fortunes are in his most able hands, and that its administration will be subject to his wise judgment.

I do not propose to follow my right hon. Friend opposite in his arguments regarding the alleged inconveniences of the practice whereby certain Ministers are required to offer themselves for re-election on appointment to office. It is an argument that cuts two ways, and the example the right hon. Gentleman quoted, although it might be an anomaly, affords proof that it was not a bad thing for the electors of South Manchester to have had an opportunity of expressing their views. My right hon. Friend also suggested that the existing system has disadvantages in limiting the choice of any Prime Minister of those whom he may select as his assistants in the Government. It is rather strange that such an argument should be advanced, because many people have long regarded it as a purely constitutional fiction that the suitability of any candidate for an office was one of the factors in deciding the choice. Personally, I wish to say, in relation to this Bill, I am quite willing to support it and to accept the suggestion of the Government that it should be passed through all its stages to-day. The right hon. Gentleman—and I wish to join with the right hon. Gentleman opposite in congratulating the new Home Secretary on his appointment—has indicated that the Clauses of this Bill are reproduced from two existing measures passed during this Session. The first Clause was contained in an Act passed in June, and the second Clause in an Act which, I think, was passed in the month of October, a remedy for a defect in the June Act.

The present Government had two alternatives offered to them, either that the new Ministers should submit themselves for re-election to a moribund electorate or that they should be re-elected by this House, which is almost as moribund as the electorate. I am glad to observe that the new Ministers have thought they would have a better title by election by this House than by election by the electorates upon the existing register. But from that decision there is one conclusion, which I think the House should draw, and that is this: that the present Government would regard a General Election on the existing register as unsatisfactory, as the late Government regarded it, and we may, therefore, hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, reinforced by the new First Lord of the Admiralty, whose views on this question have on many occasions been laid before the House, will insist on the formation of a fresh register before there is an appeal to the country.

I confess to a great sense of admiration for the capacity both of Ministers and of ex-Ministers to support proposals which are certainly revolutionary in an innocent and mild-mannered way. Obviously the proposal which is so quietly placed before the House to-day is one of very great importance so far as the constitutional privileges of the electors of this country are concerned. I am perfectly prepared, as I believe the House as a whole is prepared, to acknowledge that exceptional proceedings must be taken in exceptional times and under exceptional conditions, but I greatly doubt whether an Administration, formed as this and the previous Administration was formed, in a quite irregular way, does dispense with the necessity, but indeed might not rather increase the necessity, for the literal observation of all the constitutional procedure and practices of our national life. This proposal has been commended to the House on the ground that it is a matter of national importance that the new Ministers should take their places in this House at the earliest possible moment. I confess to a personal scepticism as to the great validity or force of that argument. The Leader of the House suggested to us yesterday, when giving notice of the introduction of this Bill, that it was desirable that the newly-appointed Ministers should have an opportunity of hearing the Prime Minister's statement, of policy on Tuesday next. When he made that allusion I wondered whether that was to be taken as an indication of the new relation that is to obtain between heads of the Departments and important Ministers of State and the Inner Cabinet of the Executive. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest to this House that henceforward the heads of important State Departments, including the head of the Foreign Office, the head of the War Office and the head of the Admiralty, are to have as their link with the policy of the Government the opportunity of hearing the speeches of the head of the Government in this House? As a matter of fact, there is no real validity in the view that the efficient waging of the War will be in any way hindered or delayed if the House were to decline to adopt a proposal of this kind. There is nothing whatever in the present political conditions of this country to prevent every one of the Gentlemen represented in the New Ministry from attending day by day and hour by hour to their departmental duties.

I would remind the House that, under the great innovations adopted by the Prime Minister in the formation of the present Government, it is as Departmental heads that these men henceforward are to have their great value to the State and to this Parliament. My right hon. Friend below me (Mr. Herbert Samuel) has already made clear what my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Gulland) had previously made clear, that so far as the Liberal party is concerned there will be no opposition offered to the re-election of these Gentlemen. Therefore it is really a matter of form that this House should be asked to pass a measure of certainly far-reaching importance and which only touches the very fringe of a very great and real problem—that is, the necessity for all Ministers to seek re-election upon their appointment as Ministers. This Bill only touches the very fringe of the problem and it, like the previous measure, was introduced solely because the two Front Benches had come together and because we have now a Coalition Government. It is extraordinary that the real importance of this should not have been realised until the first formation of a Coalition Government. There is one point to which I would ask the right hon. Gentleman's attention. It is not quite accurate to say that this measure is substantially and essentially a measure similar to or identical with that passed by the House last, year. It is true that last year's Bill did pro- pose to exempt from the necessity of reelection Ministers appointed during the period of two months. I would remind the Home Secretary that when that Bill was introduced it covered the months of May and June, but the Bill itself was not introduced until the 3rd of June; therefore there were only twenty-seven effective days left. The present Bill proposes to extend the operation of its provisions over the months of December and January. I would ask the Home Secretary why is January included? This is only the 15th December and the Ministry is practically completed to-day, there remaining only one or two minor offices to be filled. Why does the right hon. Gentleman require powers extending over the whole month of January when it is extremely improbable that fresh Ministerial appointments may be made? I suggest to him that the purpose of the Government would be fully met if he limited the provisions of this Bill to the month of December and thereby avoided suggesting possibilities which are present to the minds of some hon. Members of this House as a result of certain incautious references made by over-eager supporters of the new Prime Minister. I put it to him that so far as the purpose of the Government is concerned, his case would be fully met by restricting the provisions of this Bill to the month of December and leaving the month of January entirely out. There is no real reason suggested in the circumstances of the case why the Government should ask for larger powers from the House.

I desire, in a few sentences, to protest against the passing of this measure at the present time, and I regret that my hon. Friend who preceded me did not move its rejection. This is a measure for the advantage of the two Front Benches; it suits their convenience, and therefore it has been brought in. No notice has been taken of the important fact that this measure filches from the people of the country one of their rights and privileges. For many years this right and privilege was fought for, namely, the privilege of the people saying "Aye!" or "No!" to the King's appointment of his Ministers, and it has been retained through the centuries.

I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Member, but, on a point of Order, I would point out to you, Sir, that he has introduced the King's name. I believe you have laid down that the King's-name should not be introduced in Debate If it is allowable for the King's name to be introduced in Debate by one Member, is it allowable for another Member following on to traverse the whole extent of the King's authority?

The latter does not follow from the former. The rule is that the King's name should not be introduced in Debate for the purpose of influencing the views of hon. Members. I do not think the reference made by the hon. Member (Mr. Watt) would have the slightest influence on any hon. Member.

I beg to thank you, Sir, for your ruling. I was not referring to any particular king, but to the Sovereign of the country. I was indicating that the right which had been established was that of the people of the country, by means of an election, to express their assent to or dissent from an appointment made by the Sovereign. Now this Coalition Government, with a strong Radical element in it, starts its official life by filching from the people the right of assenting to or dissenting from these appointments. It is not the first time that this has been done. A bad example was set by the late Coalition Government, which feared consulting the people on their appointment, and which, therefore, brought in a measure similar to this. But I did not think that bad example would have been followed by this Government, and much regret that it has been. Several of the men who have been appointed to positions of profit under the Crown would not, if they went to their constituencies, get the assent of the people. Take a colleague of mine who represents one of the Divisions of Glasgow, the Pensions Minister. I know there is a very large feeling in his constituency against him. There is a large peace movement in his constituency, with which I have not the slightest sympathy, but at the same time I think the people who hold these views and are kept under by the Defence of the Realm Act ought to have this opportunity of expressing their sanction or otherwise of their Member's conduct. Another Member who has been appointed to the Front Bench, and who is to hold office as Solicitor-General, represents the City of Leicester, where a strong peace feeling also exists. The feeling in that city as to the carrying on or the stopping of the War is profound, well marked and distinct. Is it not right that these constituencies should be consulted at present, so as to indicate what are the views of the public, be they right or be they wrong? My position is that this measure is simply brought in to accommodate Front Bench men and filches from the people of this country one of their long-established rights, and I object to it.

My hon. Friend has put up a strong case against this Bill, and there is a good deal to be said for the point of view which he has expressed. It must be somewhat confusing to observe from which side of the House opposition to the Government's-measures come. The strongest support which I have heard expressed of the Bill has come from this side of the House. I have myself some doubts about the advisability of a measure of this kind, but I am prepared, as I have been in the past, to support the Government of the day in any measure which they think necessary for strengthening their hands in the conduct of the War. My right hon. Friend before me to some extent opened up the general question of the desirability of this provision, which requires Ministers on accepting office to-present themselves to the country. I am afraid I could not express agreement with his views. I think in this matter we cannot at once sweep aside the wisdom of our ancestors in devising constitutional checks in this country and it may be very desirable in normal times, not such as these, that a Government nearing the end of its term of office, a Government which is unpopular with the country, a Government which does not represent the country, should by some means or other be pulled up by the constituencies and have some check placed upon its legislation or its carrying on. I think this is, on the whole, a wise constituitonal check, and it-keeps the Government more in touch with the country. It secures an earlier election once that Government has lost the confidence of the country. But now, in these times, when so many of our constitutional checks have been suspended, I think this small measure is really the corollary of the much greater thing that has been done in-suspending altogether General Elections. My hon. Friend (Mr. Pringle) was quite right in connecting these two. This is merely the corollary of the former. I am not convinced of the wisdom of either of them, but in this matter I am willing to accept the view of the Government of the day. I think the Government has acted wisely in restricting this measure to the present persons who have accepted office at the present time. They have prevented its general application throughout the whole country. They have retained the matter in the hands of the House as regards the future. This House is not committed in any way as regards the future, and I think that is a wise provision. I think this provision again we owe to my hon. Friend (Mr. Pringle), because when the Bill was originally introduced a year ago it applied to the whole period of the War. As a result of representations made very strongly by him and by some of his Friends it was then restricted to a particular emergency, and this Bill follows the same precedent. It is now, I think, in the least dangerous form and makes the least possible commitment with regard to the future, and in that form, I think, may be safely accepted.

I am sorry there is any attempt to frustrate the object of this Bill. I think under normal conditions a good deal might be said as to the objection that has been taken to it, but we have to remember that these are not normal times. These are war times, and we have a new Government which is pledged to prosecute successfully this dreadful War. That, we understand, is their sole policy, and in that I should like to help them in every way. It must be obvious to everyone that the sooner these Ministers, who otherwise will have to go to the country, can get to work, both inside and outside the House, the better it will be for carrying out the great object we have in view. I hope, therefore, we shall all do all we can to assist the Government in successfully carrying out their pledges to the country, and I trust there will be no further objection to passing all stages of the Bill to-day. I hope, as I was willing myself, and have been during the last two or three years, to support any Government in carrying out these great duties, that the new Government may be able in a very short period to show us that it can do something to get us out of our present rut. I am sorry that the Prime Minister is unwell at the present time. We all trust that he will be able to get to work soon. Our great object is to assist the Government in any way possible in the successful prosecution of this dreadful War.

I hope and trust that this Bill will be carried through al its stages to-day. It is born of great necessity. Of course, we are all heart and soul in winning the War. Although. I am very strongly for the War, I likewise am more or less a constitutional student, and I hope and trust and pray that Bills of this kind will not hereafter be brought into precedent. These are things done for exceptional purposes, transgressing every principle of the Constitution, but which must be done under the circumstances. The Bill was passed formerly to control the direct personal influence of the Crown which has now, for all intents and purposes, ceased to exist. We must understand this likewise, that for some years past it has been the constant purpose of one party in the State to repeal the Place Bill altogether. So far back as 1904, in a speech from the Throne, the repeal of the Place Bill was promised, but the opposition to it was such that it was not carried through. It may be said, "Why should not Ministers immediately take their seats. Why should not Ministers be elected at once if the Government thinks fit to place them in office?" There is no fear of the influence of the Crown. There is one fear and only one fear in reference to that, and that fear, curiously enough, was stated in regard to what appears to be an exact parallel of the present circumstances, only that the present circumstances are really necessitous and exceptional circumstances. The Gentleman who showed the great defect which might result in our constitutional principles and practice, if the Place Bill was repealed was no less a person than Sir William Harcourt. I was going through his speeches the other day. and by accident I found this reference, which I should like to read to the House:

"There were cases in which a section of a party might sever itself from its own political connections on a great question of policy and might join the opposite party in Parliament. Now that section might, on a change of Government, take office, or it might not. Probably the latter alternative might be the more prudent one. But supposing that persons who had severed themselves in action from their own party were to take office by what was ordinarily called a coalition with a party that was opposed to them—lie wanted to know whether their constituents were not entitled to express their opinion on the course they had pursued. And if the Statute of Anne had operated before and might operate again to prevent such combinations as these, it seemed to him that it was a useless Statute, and one with which they could not afford to dispense"—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 23rd February, 1869, col. 216, Vol. CXCIV.]

That is an exact parallel to an ordinary case which would arise. This case is the great exception that proves the rule. I want this Bill to go through quickly, but I want what the Home Secretary would call a saving clause in the Bill, and I should like to make a personal appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. I am very glad to see him in his present position. If he will give me an assurance that he means to have this saving clause, he will be acting on the hereditary principle, because I find that one of the greatest sticklers and advocates for the maintenance of the Place Bill was a right hon. Gentleman named Stephen Cave, who I think was a near relative of the Home Secretary.

I offer no opposition to this Bill. The times are exceptional. The Bill is limited in scope, and I listened with pleasure to the right hon. Gentleman when he said that he would not challenge the general principle of the existing law. The principle of the existing law, as I understand it, seems to me a just and right one. A Member on entering this House is the servant of his constituents. When he accepts an office of profit under the Crown he confers his allegiance to another master, and at that moment it seems to me that those who return him to this House ought to have an opportunity of saying whether they renew or withdraw their allegiance.

I hope that without further opposition this Bill will be allowed to go through. We need the attention not only of every Minister, but of every Member of this House in these days of grave crisis, and I do trust that this Bill will go through speedily. My hon. Friend the Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt) said that he thought the constituents in the Divisions to which he referred, the constituency of the right hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes), and the constituency of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester (Mr. Gordon Hewart), held certain views. I do not see what right the hon. Member has for saying, or what authority he has for judging or prejudging, what might be the views of those constituencies.

made an observation which was hot audible in the Reporters' Gallery.

That may be, but I think that if these Gentlemen were opposed it would be an unfortunate waste of time in this grave crisis. We ought not to waste time, especially after the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Kilmarnock (Lieutenant Shaw) yesterday, when he made such a memorable appeal to us to put aside all our trivialities. Elections in these days, on such trivial points, are a waste of time. They waste the time of the constituency and the time of the country. If the hon. Member (Mr. Watt), who is a man of weight, went down to the constituencies and there raised the same arguments he has raised to-day I think he Would help the majority of the hon. Members. [Mr. WATT: "Question !"] He spoke about supporting the Bill because it was centuries old. Of late years much of the dust of centuries has been stirred up and brushed away, and the hon. Member has had a hand in it. The present Prime Minister has done a great deal to remove the dust, and will do so again I dare say. I hope we shall not waste the time of the House and the time of the people of this country in forcing by-elections now.

:I rise to oppose this Bill on principle, and because it is one of the least defensible of the many indefensible measures presented to and passed by this House since the War began. I trust that the Home Secretary appreciates and enjoys the kind of help which he received from his predecessor. I trust that he notices what a curious sort of help it is. While the Home Secretary in introducing the Bill based his request to the House to pass it urgently on the desirability of enabling Ministers to perform their duties, not in this House, but, as he said explicitly, in their respective Departments, his predecessor pointed out that in all probability, amounting almost to certainty, there will be no contest, and that, therefore, there was nothing whatever to prevent the new Ministers attending to their duties while being re-elected in their various Constituencies. The Home Secretary and the House also noticed the argument used by the ex-Home Secretary—a strange one, proceeding from the mouth of a nominal Liberal—that one of the reasons why this Bill was necessary was that a certain Member of the House appointed to office a couple of years ago failed to get re-elected. What has Liberalism in this country come to when an ex-Liberal Minister can support a Bill on the ground that it will deprive a Member's Constituents of the opportunity and the right of reelecting him or rejecting him on his appointment to office? It was bad enough for Members a few years ago to vote themselves salaries, thus relieving themselves from any responsibility to the people they represent. If salaries were to be paid at all they should be paid to the constituencies, who would then have the power to keep their Members straight by withholding the money unless it was duly earned. No one can deny that a distinct degradation of Parliament in every respect, a distinct diminution of its true representative character, has directly and immediately resulted from the payment of salaries.

That is not relevant to the subject which we are discussing.

I will pass from that, if it is not relevant, with this observation, that I have heard during the last hour a great many things that were less relevant. In defence of the payment of salaries, when first introduced—

I have told the hon. Member, and he has admitted, that that topic is not relevant. I must ask him not to discuss it any further.

I do not want to discuss it any further than to draw a comparison.

The hon. Member must not discuss it any further. It is not relevant. I have pointed that out to him twice.

Excepting a few Members elected to this House since last January, no Member of this House can constitutionally claim to represent anybody but himself, yet here is a proposal of a far worse character than that of the payment of Members, being one to legalise a form of corruption and traffic at the same time in the rights and in the money of the people, and it is presented to us time-expired and unelected, and, therefore, unconstitutional. We in this House can make no pretence to represent the people whose rights and whose money we are asked to traffic with. The period of not more than five years for which we were elected has long since expired. Some months ago the servile Press of this country told as many as wanted to believe it that the Act of Anne requiring a Minister on accepting an office of profit to seek re-election was designed to counteract a species of corruption which had long since passed away, and that, therefore, the reason for that law had become obsolete. That plea was false and false to the knowledge of the servile Press. The particular type of corruption against which that law was first enacted may have passed away, but it is quite capable of revival at any time, and, without waiting for its revival, it is being succeeded by Party corruption more far-reaching, and of more depraved efficiency, and more detrimental to the public interest than the earlier form of corruption could ever have become, and, in producing this depraved efficient and detrimental corruption, the Press of this country has been one of the basest tools. On occasions of this kind it lends itself according to Party and factionist interests to this process. The belief that men are appointed to Government positions for any fitness to administer, or for ability, character, and utility to the country, is an impudent claim and a false pretence.

May I draw attention to the fact that the hon. Member appears to be reading his speech?

On the present occasion any claim that the new men will or can conduct the War more efficiently than their predecessors or more efficiently than any selection of men brought in off the streets for the same purpose—

That is not the topic which we are now discussing. The hon. Member must not take this opportunity of making an attack on the Government on those grounds. He must confine himself to the Bill.

Under your ruling, Sir, am I not to be allowed on this occasion— and on the presentation of a Bill to enable certain men who are not now Members of the House to become Members—to say anything with reference to the character of those particular men?

Certainly not. The character of those particular men is not involved at all. They were Members of the House quite recently, and the question is whether they have to go down to their constituents to be re-elected. That is the only point.

With all respect, Sir, it seems to me an extraordinary ruling— that if a man, who has been but is not now a Member of this House, is made, let me say, First Lord of the Admiralty, that I am not to be allowed to say that he knows about as much about Admiralty business ——

The hon. Member has now repeatedly violated my ruling. I have called his attention, certainly more than three times, to the irrelevance of his remarks, and I must ask him to resume his seat.

I have only risen to offer one or two observations to the House. I think my hon. Friend beside me has been very unfairly interrupted by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Currie); and on this point I might submit to the House an aphorism—when a man is unable to win favour by merit, he tries to curry favour by servility. There are one or two points in connection with this Bill which have not been touched upon—one an important point. What would happen to any one of these Members if he were not elected? We have already in the Government members who have not only not been elected, but have not been Members of this House at all—as, for instance, the Minister of Education. I say, in addition, that the Bill might be made more complete if an opportunity were afforded to men, selected entirely on their merits and having no constituency, of sitting in this House, of answering questions and of expressing their views.

That does not arise on this Bill, which does not have in view any change of constitution of that kind.

I will make one little reference to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He began with what I thought was a very bad sign of the attitude of this Government, by sheltering himself under a precedent of the former Government. This Government of action, this Government which is to mark a new era, this Government which is to do away with all the inefficiency and futility from which we have suffered during two years, begins by sheltering itself behind the precedent of the previous Government. Another point which the right hon. Gentleman made, as something of a favour, was that this Bill is not to extend over the entire period of the War. If the Bill has any real meaning, if it has any real validity and honesty, then the right hon. Gentleman should rather have claimed as his chief argument that it should be for the whole period of the War. It is a straw which shows which way the wind blows, and it is this sort of attitude which comes to me as a most unfavourable indication. I had hopes of this new Government, and I really believed in many of their promises, but, in connection with this Bill, I find them ready to shelter behind precedents, and that their conduct is not marked by a desire to obtain the best men in the places for which they are best fitted, but bears in every feature the marks of intrigue and of party politics. Let me say, before I sit down, that it will augur badly for the conduct of this War, and for the future of all the Condo-minions, if the attitude of the present Government is to be dictated by that same sort of consideration, by the same desire to off-shoulder responsibility, by the same cowardice, and by the same sort of hypocrisy as has already brought the nation to the verge of ruin.

I emphatically dissent from the criticisms of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, but the point I wish to bring before the House is. an entirely different one. Several Members have emphasised the importance of this proposal to the constitutional working of the country. I support the right of a constituency to pass sentence or judgment on its Member of Parliament; it is a valuable provision and one which should not be abandoned. The hon. Member for South Donegal appealed to my right hon. Friend to put some Clause into the Bill to preserve the principle of the Statute of Queen Anne. I myself am a very doubtful believer in that principle at the present day, more especially as recent events show that quite a different principle is the one which should prevail. I think the moment, if there be such a moment, when the constituency ought to have the right to pass judgment on the Member is not at the time when he accepts office, but rather at the time he relinquishes it. It is when he leaves office that his constituents might reasonably say, "This is the time for you to render an account of your stewardship." It is extremely rare for a constituency not to send back a Member who has accepted office. [Hon. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I am perfectly aware it is not without precedent, but I say that it is extremely rare, and the very fact that that one particular case is immediately cited shows that hon. Members have only that precedent in their minds.

I would point out to the hon. Member that his observations would not be relevent as an Amendment to the Bill, and I do not see that the point is at all one to discuss at present.

I bow entirely to your ruling, and I was only dealing with the argument brought forward in several speeches in the course of this Debate, namely, that the principle of the Statute of Anne should be preserved, and I was endeavouring to point out that if any such principle were preserved it should be in a different direction, but I will not pursue the point further. So far as the Bill now before the House is concerned I very cordially support it, and although I welcome the present Government and hope that it will be very much more vigorous than the last one, I do not share the apprehension of the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway that the mere fact of taking a precedent from the preceding Government is at all ominous of the course the Government are likely to run.

I think the House will now desire to take a decision, but I trust I may be allowed to say, in the first place, that I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Herbert Samuel) for his very generous reference to me, and I am very glad indeed to have his good wishes and those of other Members who have spoken in the same sense. I hope I shall be as successful in escaping criticism in my term of office as he was himself or as little deserving of it as he was himself. I think he went on the basis that there would be no contests. I acknowledge very fully the fair way in which the right hon. Gentleman and those who act with him have said, as far as they are concerned, they would not desire any contests if reelection had been necessary. But, after all, there are such people as independent candidates, as nobody knows better than my right hon. Friend himself, and a contest provoked by such a candidate gives as much trouble and takes as much time as a contest desired by a party. You cannot avoid that possibility, and it is one that must be taken into account. There is one other point. It is said why have months in the Bill? I think the answer is pretty clear. Nearly all the appointments no doubt have been made or will be made very shortly, but the House will remember that some of the Ministers are to be appointed under Bills which have not yet become law. We cannot make quite sure that the Bill constituting a Ministry of Labour or the Bills for other offices will be passed this week or as soon as we desire them to pass. There is always the risk that the House may have to be adjourned or that the actual appointments may run into next month. That being so, of course we do not desire to run the risk of bringing in a second Bill. I do not propose to go into the wide questions raised by the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt) and by the hon. Member for South Donegal (Mr. Swift MacNeill). I think on that we all have the same feeling to express that, necessary as the Place Bill may have been at the time when it was passed, things have changed since then, and the fact that this House has established its right to pronounce on the appointment of Ministers in the way familiar to all of us, and that the opinion of this House when pronounced has immediate effect on the office and the Minister, is a new element which must be taken into account. I only add, with sincerity, so far as I am concerned, that I do recognise that this is a Bill for the purpose of this War only and for the purpose of the present occasion, and I do not wish to treat it in any way as a precedent.

I should not have intervened at all were it not for the right hon. Gentleman's very remarkable reference to independent candidates, and I am very glad to see that he is very much afraid of them. We have one independent candidate in the Chamber at the present time. I am sorry not to be able to congratulate him on his presence here. I should like to point out that a man who is an independent candidate one day and unable to get in next day becomes an official candidate, and in that way the official party are very greatly strengthened by having a really strong independent man added to their ranks.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "months"["during the months"], and to insert instead thereof the word "month."

If this Amendment is adopted it will involve consequential Amendments. It is to carry out the object indicated in my remarks some time ago. With all respect to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I am still unconvinced that there is any real or material necessity for the Government to take two months. The Home Secretary just now stated that my point was not a strong one, because there are Bills to be introduced with regard to the appointment of special Ministers for new Departments. But, so far as I can see, there is no difficulty at all in the Prime Minister appointing the Ministers to any Department he may choose under the Crown under the provisions of this Bill, nor is it at all clear to the House from any indication we have yet had that Ministers to new Departments that are to be created are to be included in any Bills that are to be brought before the House. It is perfectly true that in the Pensions Bill a particular Gentleman holding a particular office was designated. But I am not yet convinced that it is absolutely necessary in a Pensions Bill, or in a Bill creating a Ministry or Department, that the particular Minister should be designated. I am not yet convinced either that it is not open to the Prime Minister to do as has been done and designate particular Gentlemen for particular Departments and that their election be covered by the ordinary process of electoral law. If the right hon. Gentleman assures me that it will not be possible for the Prime Minister to appoint a Minister of Shipping, or a Minister of Labour, or Pensions Minister, without special legislation so appointing him, then I will withdraw my Amendment.

I think I can at once give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he desires and tell him that it is not possible that a Minister should be actually appointed until after the Bill authorising his appointment is passed. Until that happens, although he may be named, he cannot get his formal appointment or his badge of office, whatever it may be. That being so, it is possible that the passage of a Bill might run over till very nearly the end of the month and there might be a question of days. I hope, therefore, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment.

I do not think the Home Secretary has met the point quite fairly. Why should he not, in a case such as has been sketched just now, put a Clause in the Bill that the first Minister shall not, if a Member of the House of Commons, be subject to re-election? I think that is a very much better way of meeting the case, and would also allow the Government longer to make up their minds. The Government, of course, naturally, want to make up their minds quickly, but they cannot always do so. I hope, therefore, that this Amendment will be accepted.

I have an Amendment down in a contrary sense to this. I want this Bill to be made permanent during the War, and I should like, Sir, to ask your ruling. If this is accepted, would it be possible for me subsequently to move to insert the words "the continuance of the present War," instead of the words in the Bill "the months December and January"?

I am afraid I have already put the Question that? the word "month" stand part of the Clause. Even if that were not so, the hon. Member's Amendment would seem to me to be contrary to the title of the Bill, which is to make temporary provision for the matters involved.

I presume that the War is only temporary. My words are, "during the continuance of the War." I would suggest that they are in conformity with the word "temporary."

That is a matter on which the hon. Member may have his own opinion, but his Amendment seems to me to be going beyond what the House has just, on Second Beading, accepted. In any case, the word "month" is already before the House, and the Question is that the word "month" stand part of the Clause.

Personally I think that the case for the word "month" has not been quite met by the Home Secretary. All the appointments have now been made in the case in which re-election is necessary, with the exception of the new offices. The new offices depend upon two Bills. The one is the Pensions Bill, and the second is the Bill which has been formally introduced to-day. In the Pensions Bill there is a Clause exempting the new Minister from re-election, and it seems to me that it is quite as easy to have a Clause in the Bill relating to the new Ministers and Secretaries exempting them also from re-election. There is undoubtedly that Clause in the Pensions Bill, so that for the purpose of the Minister of Pensions the month of January is not required. Consequently if this is to apply to the other Bills all that is required is that a Clause should be inserted similar to the Clause which is in the Pensions Bill. I do not think that the circumstances now are quite the same as when the last Bill was passed. At that time the new Ministry was reconstituted, as it were, on the border lines between two months, part of the appointments being made in the month of May and part in June. Here, however, all the existing appointments have been made in the month of December. Consequently the introduction of the month of January is only required for the new appointments, and in respect of the new appointments one is already safeguarded and the other can easily be safeguarded in the new Bill. There is only one reason why this should be done, and that is that there have been already in the Press indications that many of the appointments are temporary. The most powerful man in the country has written an article which has appeared in every newspaper in every Continent and has gone by wireless over the seven seas. In this he says that there are many "has beens" in the new Government and that they must be got rid of. It will be easy and possible to get rid of them in the month of January and to have the new men brought in under this Bill. In view of the fact that, in the first place, the Government proposal is absolutely unnecessary for the purpose of safeguarding the position of the new Minister, and secondly, in view of the risk of another revolutionary change in the Ministry during January, such as a General Election, I think that the House ought to safeguard itself by having these words put in.

I am quite in favour of the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend. I consider this measure a bad measure. Therefore, the shorter the duration of Clause 1 the better I shall consider the Clause. On that ground I support my hon. Friend, and on this point in particular: this is the third measure of this kind which has been brought before the House of Commons. Unfortunately on the other two occasions they have been passed. The duration of this measure, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend, is longer than the duration of the last measure. The last measure was, I think, on the 3rd of June, and Clause 1 lasted over the month of June. This Clause 1 is extended for six weeks, so that each measure of this sort lasts for a longer period. This is exactly the way these things are wrought—longer and longer each time, until nothing; remains of the privileges which were the privileges of the people.

I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that whereas the last Bill had only a month to run, this Bill has six weeks. But is it really worth while to make a point of that?

Yes.

Hon. Members will remember that besides these appointments there will be necessary appointments of Under-Secretaries and so on.

The case of Under-Secretaries does not apply.

I hope the Amendment will not be pressed, but that we shall be allowed to get our Bill. I am very desirous of meeting the House of Commons, but the point is such a small point.

Are we to understand that there will be no other revolution during the time?

Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman not accept my Amendment to insert the words "during the continuance of the War"? I feel that it will be very inconvenient to have this every time we change the Government. With regard to individual Members, it seems to me that it is only a question of degree. Assuming that one of the present Ministers falls ill and has to leave office, you will have exactly the same question in a smaller degree. I see the leader of the House (Mr. Bonar Law) present, and I trust that he will consent to have this Amendment made.

I should like to say two or three words which, I am advised, might be of encouragement and pleasure to the House. The speech made yesterday by the hon. and gallant Member for Kilmarnock (Lieutenant Shaw) gave very great pleasure to all who heard it, and at the same time, so far as my knowledge goes, it absolutely represents the spirit and the feeling of those who are in France at the present time. There is just one thing which has come under my observation which, I think, is worthy of notice, and it is the extraordinary good feeling which has been displayed between the various sections of Irishmen who are in France at the present time. Now I have not been in this House for very nearly two years since I joined the Forces. Certainly I have taken no part whatever in any controversy or debate, and I am not in a position to say with any intimate knowledge or authority how events have forced themselves with regard to Ireland, a question with which I have been associated all my life. But we cannot deny that great difficulty with regard to Ireland has unquestionably arisen in the past in the almost impossibility, as it appeared, of reconciling on the question of a new and better Irish Government the views held by people in the North and in the South. Now I myself have been, of course, for very many years in strong and bitter opposition to the views held with regard to Ireland by hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway, although I was at one time for seven years a representative of that famous district which is so much heard of now, Enniskillen, which has given its name to so many gallant regiments. At the same time I have come to the conclusion, and I believe that nearly everybody who has thought over the matter has come to the conclusion, on the question of the government of Ireland, that an understanding or a settlement between the Irishmen of the South and of the North is quite possible, and is not only possible, but is something which is almost essential for the well-being of Ireland and of this country, and of the Empire for which we are all fighting at the present time.

However that may be here, there is this which I have got to say which is certainly a remarkable thing. The troops from Ulster and the troops from the other three provinces of Ireland have been in pretty close contact quite recently, and I think, without divulging anything which might be improper, they are at the present time in close contact. The officers have met, and the men from time to time meet also, and it is a most remarkable thing, perhaps not to be unexpected, that there has not been, so far as my knowledge goes, under any circumstances whatever anything but the very best and kindliest feeling between these men of the North and the South. Anybody who knows the North of Ireland knows that it takes a very little thing on one side or the other to kindle the fires of trouble, disaffection and antagonism. I myself could not have been a Member for seven years for a district like Enniskillen without being perfectly aware of that. I fought the election for Enniskillen as long ago as 1885 against the Member who now represents that district in this House, and I fought another contest in 1886, and I know the difficulties there. There were those who said that the difficulties between North and South were so ineradicable that they would always burst out under all circumstances. Perhaps it is the presence of a common enemy in the field, perhaps it is the endurance side by side of danger sometimes, and at all times of great discomfort and privation—perhaps it is these things which have had the result, but the result is there. These men, who in times of political heat may have been unreasonable in their antagonism and even in their physical opposition to each other, have recognised in the face of the enemy that they are brother Irishmen.

Engaged in the duty which has been put upon me of going through the line of the division to which I belong, I unwittingly extended my tour of the trenches, and found that I had passed from one battalion of the Inniskilling Fusiliers, which belong to the 16th Division, to another battalion belonging to the 36th Ulster Division, and I found that I was for the time being amongst the men of the Ulster Division. In that way, and in other ways, I had every opportunity of judging, and what I want to say to the House of Commons, and to anyone outside who cares to read the few words I have to say, is this: If it be possible for men with divergent views in politics, religion, and everything else to agree and stand shoulder to shoulder in face of the common enemy in the trenches and camps of France and Belgium, it must be possible, and it should be possible, that men of those opinions should learn to agree, and to come to an arrangement and a settlement which would make it possible for Ireland in the future to be governed in a satisfactory way, which would render the recurrence of unfortunate events in the past absolutely impossible. Now, it may seem to Members who, perhaps, do not interest themselves very intimately in these affairs, that it is hardly worth while saying this, but it is worth while saying this. Nobody who has seen the officers of these various sections of Irish troops entrenched together, no one who has seen the men passing on the road in the performance of their various duties, some of them with the green badge on their shoulder which I wear, and which is worn by all battalions of the 16th Southern Division, although it contains many Ulster men—no one, I say, can see these men passing with this badge on the roads in France and Belgium, in comradeship and friendship with the men who have on their shoulders the Orange badge, without being struck by the newness of the situation, if you like, but with the great hope which is in it, and with the lesson which it teaches, that, while these men are doing their best shoulder to shoulder in the War, irrespective of their differences in the past, recognising that this is a situation which has never arisen before, and recognising that this is against German domination—-nobody who recognises all that can help thinking that, whilst these men are so occupied abroad, suffering and sacrificing in a way which, perhaps, many people do not thoroughly recognise, it ought to be the aim and the object of every man and every party in this country to do what, after all, is one of the very best things that could be done for the prosecution of the War, and the solidarity of the Empire generally, and that is to settle the Irish question on lines to be agreed upon, and mutually satisfactory to the people of the North and the South.

All that you want is to get them together. They came together in the trenches and they were friends. Get them together on the floor of an assembly, or where you will, in Ireland, and I am sure it is the opinion of all of us, that a similar result will occur. At any rate, it is impossible for any man like myself, who has been all his life in the struggle, to see what is taking place in the course of this War between the Ulstermen and the men of the other provinces—and I have seen it exactly for one year—without feeling that, amidst all the disaster, misfortune, and suffering that has taken place, there is one good thing that is springing up, and that is a spirit which will make for a happy, contented, and united Ireland, which in its turn will do much for this country, and which will make Ireland under proper conditions just as ready to defend the Empire as the people of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or Scotland, or anywhere else in this great organisation. I have only made these remarks because I know that there are a great many men who would like to have these sentiments voiced, and I sincerely hope that no opportunity may be lost, while these men are doing their best out there, of bringing about a state of affairs which will encourage them, cheer their hearts, and give them something in their lonely and dangerous vigil to remember about their country which will bring joy to their hearts. There is nothing more miserable than the spectacle of a man who has joined the Army, not on account of the ordinary reasons affecting a recruit, but who has left his home and family from purely national and patriotic reasons—because they want to make a common stand with common civilisation against German militarism— to see these men in the cold and mud and to know in their silence that they are thinking of the unhappy state of the country they love, and they are thinking why statesmen of all parties cannot do something to make their homes and their native land happy and put an end to all these troubles and uncertainties and disappointments. These men of the 16th Division went to the War because they thought their country was going to get self-government, and if it does not get that they will say that they have been betrayed. It is miserable to see these men, who went out with high hearts and hopes, who have acquitted themselves so well, many of whom have gone for ever and will never see their country again, filled with wretchedness because their country is in an unhappy condition. I do not suppose that I shall have very much more to do with politics in the future, but I appeal very humbly to hon. Members above the Gangway, who have been our antagonists all their lives—it does not matter what is their religion or their politics—let them agree to give up their memories of historic events like the Boyne and all the rest. While we will never forget those who have suffered for our country, we will also give up any celebrations that might be irritating, and we will begin and build up out of this War a new and a better country with Catholics and Protestants working side by side—a country based on the recognition of Irishmen. After all, we have only got to come together and to govern our country sensibly and well. I believe that state of things can be brought about as a result of the War, and even much more.

During the day or two I have been here I have been more or less disgusted at the confident statements made with regard to the failure of our attack on the Somme, and I have heard of disaster here and disappointment there expressed, and all the rest of it. I may say that these things are never heard of at the front. I went with my own division to the Somme, and I saw it fighting there. I know what they lost certainly, but the most surprising thing you could tell Irishmen of the 16th Division would be that they had failed in the work which had been set them to do. The Ulster Division did not fail, and the 16th Division did not fail. None of those splendid divisions in the Great Push on the Somme failed. They did all that men could do, and far, far, far more than the average man of other nationalities would have done; and it is discouraging to tell them that there has been failure. For forty years the enemy who are opposing us have been carefully and scientifically in every way building up a tremendous war machine and making their preparations. Look at the difference ! The men whom I know were opposed to these raw recruits from Ireland, from Ulster as well as from the South, were men trained to the very last extent in military life and tactics by the Germans—the best drilled, the most thoroughly prepared, the most seasoned troops in the whole of God's earth to-day. Who were they opposed by They were opposed by men who came from every walk of life, men who in the majority of cases eighteen months ago would have laughed if you had told them that they would be soldiers and carrying arms; and these were men absolutely new and untried until about a year and a half ago. There they stood and fought, and as far as their numbers went they absolutely overcame the trained troops opposed to them; and I myself with my own eyes saw men who had occupied every kind of walk in life before bringing in by the score and the hundred time after time German prisoners who from a military point of view were supposed to be their superiors. There is no such thing as failure in any of these things. I know perfectly well that if you could get the secret information of the higher command of the German Army they would, if the truth were told, be very hesitating before they said where the failure was. What did they suffer? The enemy suffered infinitely more in the opinion of everybody than was suffered by the troops who made the push on the Somme.

I am an humble individual only entitled to speak for a small section, but it is the opinion of the men who have gone through it and who are out at the front that if this country would only unite and for the time being forget all their past party prejudices; if they would only recognise that after all there is only one thing in God's earth which ought to be done at present, and that is to back up the men who every day and hour, and at this very moment, are risking their lives for you at the front. Let your opinion be what it may as to the cause of the War, or whether it is right or wrong, at any rate, there the men are risking their lives and suffering, and even under the best of circumstances in the winter they have a very hard and troubled time. I say to my own Nationalist Friends, to Ulstermen above the Gangway, and to Liberals, Radicals, and Tories, and men of all parties and classes, rich men as well as working men, that in common honour and honesty when you have sent the men there you are bound to support them in every way, and for the time being, at any rate, you ought to be absolutely united in the support you give to them. I apologise to the House for having said so much, but this is only the second time I have spoken in a year, and I promise that I will not speak here again for another year.

I wish to raise one point while the Leader of the House is in his place. At his request no general Debate on the conduct of the War has taken place yesterday or to-day. and I think that is perfectly reasonable and right in view of the fact that the general Debate has been postponed by common consent until Tuesday next. But there is just one thing that I would ask him to impress upon the Prime Minister, and it is this, that when he comes to make his great speech on Tuesday he should, as far as possible and so far as is consistent with public safety, give us a frank statement of the position of the Government on the Greek question and what the Government proposes to do. The people of Great Britain are very much disturbed by the news coming in every day from Greece, and with the fact that, in spite of the repeated pledge given in this House by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs that effective measures would be taken to protect Venizelists and the friends of England and the Allies in Greece, up to this hour no effective steps have been taken, and that persecution and terrorism are at this very moment being exercised in Athens and throughout Greece against all the friends of the Allies. We do not know at this moment what has been the fate of the Mayor of Athens and the hundreds of men who have been torn from their houses and subjected to the most abominable and diabolical cruelties by the rowdies and the so-called Reservists in Athens, and I have no doubt in other parts of Greece also. There is one thing that certainly has disturbed the minds of the public of this country more perhaps than anything that has recently occurred during the War, and it is this: That when this matter has been discussed the answers of the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs have conveyed the impression, though he is always very guarded and careful in his language, that the extraordinary situation, the unparalleled situation which has arisen in Greece and has been allowed to exist there for many months is not the work of this Government, but is really a result of the policy of the Allied Governments which we have been unable to modify. I quite understand that in touching upon such subjects you are on very dangerous ground, at the same time I think the hour has come when really we ought to press upon the Government that the enormous share which Great Britain and this Empire has contributed towards the prosecution of the War entitles Great Britain and this Government to a very large, and I might almost say, a commanding voice, particularly in affairs upon the Near Eastern front.

2.0 P.M.

I must say that I have become aware of a very uneasy feeling in this country—and I say this not in any unfriendly spirit— that in the conduct of this expedition to Salonika, and indeed in the whole conduct of the Eastern Balkan War, our Government has been too much overborne and dictated to by certain of the Allies, with the result that we have a position of disaster and humiliation unparalleled in the whole history of Great Britain. Let me finally put one question to the Leader of the House which I think he might answer, although I do not for a single moment ask him to embark upon the general question of the position in Greece. A statement appeared in the "Times" newspaper and in two or three other newspapers the day before yesterday that the Ministers of Russia and Great Britain had dined with the King of Greece. I know that that horrified—that is not too strong a word—and shocked every single man who read that in this country. I hope it is not true that our Ministers dined with the King of Greece. I want to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of contradicting it, because it was stated in the "Times" newspaper. It is hardly credible that our Ministers should dine with the King of Greece after the infamous and atrocious murder of our sailors and the French sailors, after we had been assured that these were treacherous and planned murders. We know from well-informed correspondents—we have at last been allowed to read some of the truth—that Admiral Fournet, who, I am glad to say, has been recalled, trusting to the word of the King of Greece that there would be no disturbance or attack, allowed absurdly small naval detachments to march upon Athens, and when these men, under the trust of that pledge—it was an act of michievous folly to trust to it—marched through Athens, the King, in his own Royal Gardens, had disposed a number of machine guns, which were turned upon a number of our unfortunate detachments without any warning at all. The result was, in the first place, that numbers of men lost their lives; in the next place, a great number were wounded; and in the third place, humiliation of the most disastrous and far-reaching kind was inflicted upon our troops and sailors, and upon the whole prestige of the Allies throughout the Near East. Ultimately, horrible to relate, they left Athens escorted by the King's troops. If it be true that a week or a fortnight after this occurrence our Minister dined with the King of Greece, then I say that this country has never had to endure such a humiliation, and the Minister responsible ought to be called upon to answer for it.

There cannot be the slightest doubt the whole of this Eastern campaign has been ruined up to the present, and the power of Great Britain in the Balkans and throughout the East has been immeasurably injured by the fact that, when we went to Greece a year ago, at a time when we had upon our side the majority of the Greek people and the local Government of Greece, we did not say to the King, "Either you shall be our friend or our foe; if you are our foe, we came here by the verdict and at the invitation of the majority of the Greek people, and we Will defend the Greek people against any system of military terrorism which seeks to defeat their lawfully registered voice." If we had done that we would have had a year ago at our back the Greek Army, instead of having our unfortunate men immured in the swamps of Salonika, where 60,000 of them were down with the poisonous malaria of Greece throughout last summer. Is it any wonder, in view of this, that we have gone from disaster to disaster? We have for a whole year allowed the impression to go abroad, and to be strengthened day by day, that our friends are deserted, that we have neither the courage nor the decision of character nor the power to stand up for those who take our side in the Balkans, and to see that they, at all events, are free to join us. Even at this eleventh hour, after a whole year has been frittered away, we have this awful spectacle that in Athens and throughout Greece our friends are insulted. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman read the description published in the "Daily News" and the "Daily Chronicle" from thoroughly trustworthy correspondents, in which it was stated that the Mayor of Athens, one of the best friends of the Allies and a supporter of M. Venizelos, was dragged from his house and through the streets of Athens with blood streaming from his face, an object so horrible that the correspondent said he could hardly look upon it. Thus are all our friends treated. How long is this to go on? I do ask the right hon. Gentleman, without attempting to answer on the general questions, to let us know here and now whether it is true that our Minister dined with the King of Greece?

I did not intend intervening in this Debate, but after the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman below the Gangway (Major Redmond) I feel in my position, both as a Member of this House and as an officer, that it is only due that somebody should say something. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is a very old Member of this House, and I think a very young soldier. On the contrary, I am a very young Member of this House and, for many years, perhaps in these unfortunate days when so many of the senior officers have gone, I am rather an old soldier. I hope he will not think it impertinent on my part if I say that I and all soldiers have always looked with the greatest admiration upon a man of his age who has given up everything and taken on at his late stage in life a dangerous profession, and a profession which many young men are very loath to adopt. His conduct has been above all praise, and I am sure that it is fully appreciated, not only by his own party, but by the party to which I belong. The hon. and gallant Member talked of the Ulster and of the 16th Division. I had the honour of raising a battalion of the Ulster Division, and, although I have not seen it for some time, I know a good deal about it. He said that the two political parties frequently sit together in France, and they feel very sorry about the state of affairs at home. I have had some experience of Irish soldiers, I have had the honour of serving for some sixteen years in a regiment composed of both parties, and, although I accept willingly his view of their conduct out there, I cannot help feeling that there is another subject which worries the Irish soldier just as much, and it is a subject upon which he did not, if I may say so, lay quite enough stress.

What worries the Irish soldier much more out there than anything else is whether the Irishmen at home are going to keep up the Irish regiments. My chief reason for saying anything upon this subject is that I believe if the hon. and gallant Member and those of his own party who, like himself, have become soldiers, were to meet and discuss this all-important man-power question with those like myself who are both officers and are Members of the other party in Ireland, a great deal of good might be done. No one would be more pleased than I should be if, as he says, the feeling of bitterness in Ireland were removed—because Irishmen of all creeds and classes have fought together in the War—no one would be more pleased than I should be, and no one would be more pleased than the party to which I belong, or did belong before the War, if that feeling were removed. But I am quite certain that at the present moment we have got to consider this other question. It is the more important question, and I hope very much before the service Members return to France that they will hear something from the Front Bench on the subject of recruiting for the Irish regiments. It is not a matter which can be put off. The hon. and gallant Member knows, as well as I do, that if these men are not forthcoming during the next few weeks the Irish regiments, as such, will cease to exist directly the Spring campaign is started. I trust before he returns to France he will use his influence, as I shall use such very slight influence as I have got, to persuade the Government that something must be done to maintain those traditions of which Irishmen are so justly proud, so that at this time next year, if unhappily the War be still going on, we shall still be able to congratulate ourselves on the gallantry displayed by the Irish regiments in that year's campaign, just as we are able to do this year.

The hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon), has himself indicated that he does not expect me to make any statement as to our policy in Greece, or indeed as to our policy generally in connection with the. War. He has seen a rumour, which I have not noticed, that our Ambassador has been dining with the King of Greece. I have seen, I think, all the Foreign Office telegrams, even during the strenuous days which have passed recently, but I have seen no indication of any such occurrence as that, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House, after what has happened in Greece, that the views expressed by our Ambassador on behalf of this Government are of such a nature that I cannot believe it is within the bounds of possibility such a social engagement could have been attended by him. As a member of the Government I was pleased to see the thin state of the House to-day, because it is always a good sign for getting through bnsiness; but I am bound to say that I was sorry there was not a larger representation to listen to the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has returned to our midst for a short time (Major Redmond). I feel, as I am sure the House will understand, some difficulty in dealing with the points which have been raised by both hon. and gallant Gentlemen. The speech of my hon. and gallant Friend who spoke last (Colonel M'Calmont) shows how difficult this problem is, and I do not think the House will be surprised if I say little on the question raised as regards the Government of Ireland by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. One thing, however, I think I may safely do, and that is to repeat the statements and express the views which I have expressed before in this House. The desire for a new state of things in Ireland, if it can be obtained, is not confined to Irishmen. It is shared by every man, woman, and child in the United Kingdom. It is the feeling of everybody. In my view it is a great thing—I am only repeating what I have said before—in spite of the rebellion, that for the first time in our history the official Nationalist party has been on the side of the Empire in the war in which we are engaged.

I will say something more. The hon. and gallant Gentleman pictured to us what is happening on the front to-day. It was pictured by an hon. Member who spoke on that side of the House yesterday (Lieutenant Shaw). I think it is well for us here at home that we should realise how small in reality are all the incidents which are exciting us at home—incidents even of changes of Government, much less of personality, and everything of that kind—how small it is except as an instrument to give support to the men who are risking their lives on our behalf to-day. What has distressed me more than anything in connection with this War has been the way in which young men, the flower of the present generation, are being wiped out from the assembly of nations. War at all times is terrible, but to sec: these young men and to read of their deaths, young men who are little more than schoolboys, to hear of their heroic actions, and to realise that they have gone without their share of life and without giving the country the benefit of what was in them for the future, is terrible ! But there is something else I should like to say. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite is different. He is, if I mistake not, almost as old as I am myself, and that he should not merely have joined the Army but should have gone through the hardships which he has described is something which is a lesson to everyone of us who are doing in one way or other what little we can to help the Empire. I can only say this further: It is my heartfelt wish, quite as deeply seated as that of my hon. and gallant Friend, that some change in the feeling between Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, and between one part of Ireland and the other, should be brought about. There is no wish that I feel more strongly. As far as the people of the United Kingdom are concerned, the one thing which will influence them on this question is the feeling that the Irish are willing to run the risks which are run by the rest of us, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman has done more service to the cause of Ireland by the fact that his name and his action, in connection partly with the hon. and learned Gentleman who leads his party, stand out as a landmark for all the people of this country as to what is being done by those who represent Nationalist feelings.

The House has listened with keen interest and warm sympathy to the moving speech which was made by the hon. Member (Major W. Redmond). We all know what his action has been during the War and we are grateful to him for it. The House, I am sure, has welcomed also the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel M'Calmont), who re-echoed many of the sentiments that we heard from the hon. Member below the Gangway. This, of course, is not the occasion for anything in the nature of a Ministerial statement of intentions with regard to Ireland. None of us expected that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to say anything of a definite character. We welcomed, however, most cordially the tone and general sentiments of the remarks that he has addressed to the House. If, indeed, it were possible under the new auspices of the present Government to arrive at anything in the nature of a settlement of the Irish question, how warmly would that event be welcomed, not only in Ireland, not only in Great Britain, but throughout the whole of the British Empire; and how grateful would this House be to any Administration which arrived at so happy a consummation. The difficulty that is now in the way of the solution of the Irish question is not anything in the nature of a quarrel between Great Britain and Ireland, or between any parties in Great Britain, I believe, and Ireland. It remains still the outstanding difficulty of devising a practicable and a generally acceptable solution of the divergence of view between north-east Ulster and the rest of Ireland. It was that difficulty, and not any quarrel between any parts of the United Kingdom as a whole, or between Great Britain and Ireland, which caused the attempt made last summer under the auspices of the present Prime Minister to miscarry. If the new Government finds itself able to address itself to this problem, amid the many that press upon it for solution, and if it is so fortunate as to find a means of escape from that central difficulty, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we on these benches will consider that it matters not one jot under whose auspices a solution is reached, so long as a solution may be reached, and that if his Government is able to put a term to the Irish question and to strengthen the Empire by reconciling at long last the Irish people with the British Empire as a whole, the whole House will unanimously express its gratitude to it and believe that it will have rendered one of the greatest services that any Government could bestow upon the British Empire.

Whilst we on these benches appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's attitude towards this question, we cannot accept the reason that he has put forward for the breakdown of the negotiations that took place earlier in this year. The difficulty really was not one, as must really be in the recollection of the House, between the North and South of Ireland at all, but one which, I think, mainly concerned politicians in this country. I merely rise to draw attention to a very small matter in comparison, but one which I feel, though the instance I propose to bring forward concerns my own Constituency, must concern people not only in Ireland but throughout a great part of the United Kingdom. I refer to the present conduct of the Sugar Commission. I regret that it is necessary to bring this case forward now on account of the fact that I presume the change of Government has left things with regard to the Sugar Commission in a somewhat uncertain state. I am not complaining, either, of the fact that there must naturally be very great difficulties in the working of that Commission because, on account of the shortage, complaints must be very general from various parts of the country. I do not think, on the whole, people have shown themselves unreasonable on account of the fact that their supplies of sugar have been curtailed. What I complain of is, in the first instance, that it appears to me that the starling of the Sugar Commission has been wholly inade-quate to meet the emergency they have had to deal with and that they have not been supplied with a sufficient staff to handle the enormous amount of work which has fallen upon their shoulders. The particular ease to which I wish to draw attention is with regard to the supply of sugar to the small town of Headfort, in my Constituency in Galway. Ten of the traders in that small town, who comprise the great majority of the traders there in that line of business, used to get their supplies from one firm in Galway City. Recently the head of that firm died, and, in consequence, the firm went out of business. One of the Regulations of the Sugar Commission is that traders must get sugar this year from the same people they got it from last year. In this case that was, of course, no longer possible. But instead of other arrangements being made, will the House believe that for months past these ten traders, who practically are the only traders who sell sugar in the town, have been without one ounce of sugar, and arrangements have not yet been made to supply them.

It has been my duty to go to the Commission and inquire about this, and I have put the facts before them. The reply I got is that the Sugar Commission cannot and will not make any arrangement whatever to supply the traders of Headfort with sugar until they have found out all about the late firm and its late owner in Galway, and where he drew his supplies from, and such similar particulars as that. That is an extraordinary case. I suggested to the Secretary of the Sugar Commission myself that they ought at least to give the previous supply of sugar to these ten traders, and then afterwards readjust the amount—if they are not entitled to so much, reduce future supplies, and if they are entitled to more, add to the future supplies, when an arrangement can be properly gone into. To leave a town in this condition with regard to this matter, especially with Christmas time coming, is nothing short, of a scandal. I most sincerely hope that the other Departments and branches of Government are not being worked on the extraordinary inefficient system on which the Sugar Commission appears to be working at present. I make no complaint against the officials. I have found them most courteous, obliging and anxious to do anything which it appears to them they could do, but they are overwhelmed by work. There is nobody there but the secretary to deal with the whole of this organisation, not only for Ireland but for the United Kingdom. He receives hundreds of letters a day and has to look into them and answer them personally. If he were laid up for a week with influenza, I tremble to think what would happen to the organisation. We had a somewhat similar condition of affairs with regard to the Petrol Supply Committee some months ago, although that was much less important so far as the public were concerned. I would ask the Chief Secretary, with whom I have spoken on this matter already, to press this case and to find some method of supplying Headfort with a small amount of sugar and not to allow this extraordinary state of affairs to continue for a day or a moment longer.

I desire to make a few remarks on the question of food supply. It must be admitted that the conserving and developing of sources of food supply during the War are essential and vital to the interest of the nation. At any moment the War might collapse and the country be driven into an ignoble peace if by any chance the food supply should run out. We are faced with that possibility and every one who takes an interest in the country realises the danger. It is necessary that every means should be taken to develop and improve the sources of food supply. I wish to point out the advantages which I believe would be conferred upon the nation by an intelligent consideration of the sources of food supply in Ireland and by the taking of practical steps to utilise to the fullest extent those untapped sources of supply. In the first place, there are huge tracts of untenanted land in Ireland consisting of virgin soil which, if tilled and sown, would produce immense quantities of foodstuff. In my own Constituency there are several of these untenanted tracts, for instance, on the borders of Carlow there are two estates covering about 1,200 acres of land which could be made available immediately for the production of food, if the Estates Commissioners were invested with powers to acquire those lands or if under the Defence of the Realm Act the Government itself would take over the land and allot it among the small holders and labourers in the district. In every county in Ireland there are similar tracts of land. That is a fact well-known to the Chief Secretary.

There is an immense portion of land in Ireland which, owing to the neglect of arterial drainage, is at present practically useless. You have it both in the North and the South of Ireland. There is the Barrow in the South and the Bann in the North. In connection with the Barrow, three Commissions have sat during the last twenty-five years and, as the result of their investigations, they have urged on the Government the necessity of draining this river. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, at the time the War broke out had circulated a draft Bill for this purpose, under which the local bodies in the district had agreed to tax themselves for one-third of the amount required. Unfortunately the War broke out and the money was not available. There is now a different aspect put upon the matter, because we now see the necessity of trying to develop to the fullest extent our resources of food supply. Here in the Barrow catchment you have 46,000 acres of land which, by the expenditure of one-twentieth of the sum that is spent daily on the War would be made available immediately for the production of all kinds of food, potatoes, wheat, etc. At present this immense tract of land is left practically useless, derelict and waterlogged. I know that under ordinary conditions there would be very little hope of any immediate action being taken in the matter, but under present circumstances, when the very existence of the Empire depends upon the result of this War and when food production and supply form such an important factor in the successful carrying on of the War, it is the duty of the Government to take every possible step to utilise for the benefit of the United Kingdom and Ireland the untapped sources of supply in that country.

With regard to the Petrol Supply Committee, there is a local industry in the county of Kilkenny known as the Castle Comer Coal Mines. The coal is taken from the pits in motor lorries, but owing to the action of the Petrol Supply Committee the company have had to take off the road already two of their lorries, leaving only one running, and they have only sufficient petrol at present to run that until the end of the month. They put the facts before the Petrol Committee and told them that it was necessary to have 300 gallons a month for the working of the three lorries, but they have not succeeded in getting anything from them. What is the result? Coal is being locked up in the mine which could be sent round the country, and thus free a certain amount on this side. The stuff is there, but owing to the action of the Petrol Committee there are no means of transporting it round the country or to the railway at Kilkenny. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to take immediate action in this matter. It is not a question of building a railway or of getting money to develop the mine. It is only a question of getting the Petrol Supply Committee to give a proper supply of petrol for the conveyance of the coal from the pit to the railway.

It is a great pleasure to see the Under-Secretary of State for War in his place, and I hope I may be allowed to congratulate him most full-heartedly on his appointment. The House is already very greatly indebted to him—every Member of the House is, I suppose—for many kindnesses and for great assistance ever since the War began, and I am sure that no appointment made by the Government has given more satisfaction. I can say that for myself and, I believe, for many others. I hope we are to have the pleasure of hearing the hon. Gentleman in a few minutes, and I want to ask him whether he will take an early opportunity, if not to-day, at any rate, during the course of next week, to refer to a question which has been raised by several speakers yesterday and to-day—the question of the dissatisfaction felt in many quarters with the higher Army commands. It is very difficult to speak on this subject without some risk of being misunderstood. It is very difficult to say what many of us feel, that we are dissatisfied with the military position and with the military results, without seeming to reflect on our brave and gallant men.

If any of us have any feeling upon military operations it does not mean that we have anything but the highest admiration for and appreciation of the gallantry and magnificent discipline and efficiency of our forces. But we have a very great deal of dissatisfaction with the generals in the higher command. I feel very strongly indeed, because this is at the present moment perhaps the most vital question to be considered by the Government in connection with our military operations. I look back on a period of years, and I find that if there is one thing that stands out above all others it is that our generals have failed. Our soldiers have been magnificent. The bringing of large and wonderful Armies into the field composed of mere citizens has been an achievement without parallel in the history of the world. The achievements of the Ministry of Munitions have been wonderful and beyond all expectation. But when I consider the generals I ask myself the question, Is there one general with whom we can say we are satisfied? Is there one general who has made any reputation?

I believe if an Army that is well equipped and that is splendid in spirit and discipline does not succeed, the only policy for the Government to pursue is to get rid of the general. That is proved by military history beyond controversy; and when we study the history of the Civil War in America we find it demonstrated that if you do not succeed with your Army, and if you have no fault to find with your Army, the proper policy is to scrap your general and to get another. Again and again mistakes were made in that war, but they were retrieved by scrapping the generals, until at last when they had secured the services of men like Grant and Sherman, they won magnificent victories out of defeat. Unless the Government is going during the course of the Debate next week to face this question and give us some satisfactory reply—and I am not the first to mention the matter, although I may have had the courage to put it more clearly than others—I say unless the Government during next week is going to answer this question about the military commands, there will be a great deal of dissatisfaction, a great deal of disappointment, and a great deal—well, I will not say anything more, but a great deal will ensue before we get to the end of the War. I make no bones about it. There are many people who are dissatisfied with the position of Sir William Robertson as Chief of the General Staff—very dissatisfied indeed. I am not saying that everybody is dissatisfied, but the very best people with whom I have had to do are, undoubtedly, very dissatisfied.

With him personally?

With his judgment I wish to state the case as clearly as I can. I may be wrong in my view. If I am let the Under-Secretary get up and convince me. But let me quote a few facts. I suppose Sir William Robertson was responsible for the judgment arrived at eleven months ago that the first Military Service Bill would give us all the men required for victory. Who now will get up and say that he was right about that? Is it not a perfect condemnation to repeat his words on that subject? Of course it is. Yet you place your faith on that man, and anybody who dares to doubt that he is as infallible as the Pope is regarded—

I hope the hon. Member will not interrupt. I will listen to him patiently when his turn comes. Let me deal with the case of Roumania. We have been supplying that country with a great many millions of money. She came into the War, and all the newspapers, which are supposed, I suppose rightly, to represent the official view on the War, declared that this was probably the greatest event in our favour since the War began. If hon. Members read the articles in papers which I could name, the "Times" amongst them, they will see it was represented that the coining of Roumania into the War was most decisive for the speedy ending of the War in a complete victory for the Allies. That apparently, too, was the view of Sir William Robertson. It was the view, so far as I can make out, of the Military Intelligence Department of the War Office, and it was the judgment of the General Staff on the facts laid before them. They held that if Roumania came in she would bring the scales down in our favour. That was four or five months ago, and, unfortunately, there are people in this House who still believe in Sir William Robertson. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am sorry for my country that it has men who have not the courage to say that what we want is, not more men, but more brains in the directing force. That is what we do not get and what we shall not get until we get a change in the higher commands, and especially in the General Staff at the War Office. A short time ago Sir William Robertson took to making speeches. I am very sorry that the War Office does not keep him at the War Office and prevent him making speeches. It is not the place for a man in the War Office to go about making speeches, and certainly not the Chief of the General Staff. And when he makes ridiculous speeches it is worse than ever. I am going to quote some words which Sir William Robertson used a few days ago. He said:

"With regard to the military situation we ought to be more than satisfied."

With Roumania threatened as she is, after coming into the War and being assured that she would be supported, I say it is ridiculous that we should be told to be more than satisfied with the military position of the War. The man who can go about making speeches of that sort—

On a point of Order. Will the hon. Gentleman continue to read what Sir William Robertson said on that point?

That is not a point of Order. I have not got the rest of the speech, but I read the speech.

He qualified it.

He told the people to keep looking cheerful. I look cheerful, I hope, though I have precious little confidence in the way the War is being managed and in our commanders. I am led to be all the more cheerful because I have the courage to say here what a great many people are thinking and saying. I rose to make a point of considerable importance, which has been touched upon by at least three other speakers. I have said before, and I say it again, in terms which hope will be clear enough, that what we are suffering from in the present time in the War is not lack of men, not lack of munitions, not lack of Magnificient courage, daring and discipline on the part of unexampled soldiers. We are not failing through any lack of spirit and determination on the part of the people at home, but we are failing because of lack of brain power. The brain that directs the Army is the brain of men who have been placed there not, I believe, on their merits, but by some traditional rule of War Office procedure. Those men are not retained there because they give victories. The only thing we want from a general is to give victory. A general may be popular with his men—and I hope our generals are popular with their men—but that is no reason why a man should be retained in his position if he does not give us what the Army is fighting for, and that is victory. I have tried to state my case moderately and fairly, and certainly it has been stated with a conviction which has been growing upon me for months. If I have failed to state what I believe to be the real vital necessity of the time, it is not because I am not perfectly clearly convinced of what that vital necessity is, but because those who listen to me refuse to understand me.

I hope the House, small though it is in attendance this afternoon, will resent, as far as it can, the speech that has just been made. The hon. Member has made an attack on all generals.

No.

Yes; on generals of the higher command, which includes a very large number, and specifically upon the one man who, I think, commands and ought to command the gratitude of this House, as he does the respect and admiration of the Armies of this country and of our Allies. The hon. Member was so far from the truth that he suggested that the present Chief of the Imperial General Staff owed his great position to favouritism or to some reason other than merit.

I did not say that.

The hon. Member did say so. One of the greatest possible testimonies to the capacity as a soldier of Sir William Robertson is that he is the first Chief of the Imperial General Staff who has worked his way up from the ranks to the high position he now holds.

That does not say he is right.

The allegation was that he owed his great position to something other than merit. I must confess that any reflection upon that distinguished soldier is an expression that can come only from one who has no knowledge of the Army, who has no knowledge of the difficulty of getting to the rank of major, let alone the rank of a general and Chief of the Imperial General Staff, and who has no knowledge of the desire of every soldier of every rank to have those in command over them who are there from merit and merit alone. To suggest that Sir William Robertson is responsible for the military difficulties of Roumania is to suggest that which is absolutely untrue. If the hon. Member for North Somerset, or any other Member, wishes to find fault with military situations, or what they are pleased to call retreats, reverses, and so on—which may, by the way, merely be parts of some greater scheme, and generally are—they should find fault with the Governments who appoint the generals. To drag the name of a general on to the floor of this House in specific words, or to drag on to the floor of the House a class of distinguished soldiers by referring to them as the higher command, and to hold them up for opprobrium in every neutral paper and in every paper of an enemy Power, is to do a most unpatriotic service to this country and to the Allied cause. I could imagine nothing more serious, if it came from any other source than from the hon. Member, than to deal in this way with these generals who have served us so well. If there be generals who have not served us well, they are there in the higher commands because they have been ordered there by the Government;. Then you should damn the Government and leave the general alone.

I was doing so.

No, you were not. You were condemning the generals. I support the constitutional principle, that no soldier or sailor should be condemned in this House, but if he is to be condemned let the Government which has appointed him suffer, because that Government has not only the power to appoint him, but the power to remove him, and, if things have gone wrong, should have removed him.

Hear, hear!

That was not the attitude of the hon. Member To condemn the Chief of the Imperial General Staff in set terms, as the hon. Member has done, is to forget all that has happened since 4th August, 1914, at a time when the Government of that day abdicated in favour of Lord Kitchener, and promoted him to destroy the General Staff at the War Office, composed of our best generals, and to all but destroy the Territorial system upon which our recruiting was to be made. Do not blame the generals. I do not blame Lord Kitchener now that he is gone. I think the constitutional principle of condemning the Government and Cabinet Ministers, and not generals, is the safest. It is the most honourable course for this House to take, and the least we can do to these gallant officers, who have done what they were ordered to do, and, in the main, have done it as British soldiers have always done it, with no consideration for personal safety, but with the sole desire to lead their men to victory and to serve their country's cause.

I desire to add only one word to what has been so excellently put forward in regard to speeches which those who are present would be almost unanimous in regarding with great regret and in wishing that they had never been uttered. The hon. Member opposite dealt with the hon. Member for North Somerset well, I think, in respect to what was said with regard to Sir William Robertson. I listened with pain and regret to the use of the plural pronoun by the hon. Member for North Somerset. Speaking for some body of men in this House—I cannot imagine who they are—he used repeatedly the words "we" and "us." I believe that the hon. Member for North Somerset, in condemning the general in command of the troops in France, spoke solely for himself. I am very sorry that he said what he did, because I regret that it has been said in this House. Anyone, even a humble civilian, can look back upon what happened last year and this year—the magnificent defence at Ypres last year against the onrush of our enemies and the magnificent offensive of this year carried out by Sir Douglas Haig—with pride and gratitude to the generals who have served their countries so well, and I believe that practically everybody in this House will agree that the hon. Member for North Somerset in what he said spoke for himself and himself alone.

I wish to say a few words on the question of food supply in Ireland. At the present time Ireland, at least, is so situated that the wages which the working classes derive from their employment are not sufficient to keep body and soul together. Therefore, I think that it is the duty of the Chief Secretary to consider whether he should not take over the whole of the food distribution in Ireland for the benefit of the working class in their country. Take the question of coal. The average price of coal for the poor is about 2s. 8d. per cwt. in the rural districts of the country. That is equal to about 56s. per ton. With regard to potatoes there is no necessity for the very high prices now charged—from Is. 3d. to 1s. 6d. a stone. If I am well informed, Ireland stands almost as well with regard to potato supplies this year as it did in 1914 and 1915. There has not been any greater export of potatoes this year—indeed, it has been not quite as much as in 1914 or 1915. Then I come to the prices of beef, mutton, and bacon. Taking the average price of 92s. to 94s. a cwt. for pork in the public market, that could be retailed at about 118s. to 120s. a cwt., but instead of that the present price is 142s. Coming to the price of beef. The graziers are certainly making much more money. Of course they have to pay more for their stock. At the same time, the average price is about l1d. per lb. on the foot, and the offal of that is worth about £4 per head. Still the retail charge is 1s. 2d. to 1s. 8d. per lb. Therefore it is the duty of the Government to take all these things into consideration, and see what they can do for the benefit of the poor and the working classes in Ireland. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Duke) to impress upon the Government the necessity of taking over the cargo boats which carry coal from Scotland to Belfast or Dublin, so that they will not get those great extra charges that they are getting at the present time. In normal times the rate would be about 3s. per ton. At the present time they are charging from 10s. 6d. to l1s. 6d. per ton. These things are worth consideration, and the British Government should have regard to the sufferings of the poor in Ireland during the present winter. The Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture has announced in Dublin that he is about to issue an Order against the export of sows. If the Vice-President had under his control men who understood the question of what animals were fit for the production of further stock he would say that there was no necessity for such an Order, but that there is a necessity for an Order prohibiting the killing of young pigs of from six to nine weeks old, and prohibiting them altogether from being killed until they come to maturity, so that they might make bacon. It would have suited him better to have made such an Order instead of making the Order against the export of sows. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take these matters into consideration for the benefit of the poor in Ireland.

I hope that I may be excused if I ask the Chief Secretary to make a statement in connection with the threatened Irish railway strike. I have informed him that a number of delegates from almost every trade union in Ireland are in London to-day anxiously awaiting a decision on this question. Considering that the men's notice expires on Monday, and that this is the last day of the sitting, I think that some announcement should be made by the Government. Every possible nerve should be strained to avert a strike. The Great Southern and Western Railway is one of the principal railways in Ireland for the carrying of foodstuffs, and if a strike takes place on that line it will spread all over the country. Ample notice has been given of this matter by questions in the House. I had at least one question down every week for the last six weeks in reference to this threatened struggle, yet here we are now on the last day of the week, with the notices expiring on Monday, and no announcement from any Government official that would save this trouble in our country. I hope the Chief Secretary will be in a position, or the President of the Board of Trade, to make some friendly announcement, even if the matter has to be put off for a few days, so that the men may learn that their case is being carefully, and, I trust, sympathetically, considered by the Government. Another point upon which I feel very deeply has reference to the statement which appeared in the newspapers of London last night, to the effect that a number of Irish prisoners have been removed from Frongoch to Lewes, handcuffed and in chains. Anyone who read those reports about Irish prisoners being thus transferred from one place to another will be reminded, as I was, of the days when I saw pictures of Russian prisoners on their way to Siberia, in gangs and in chains.

I doubt very much whether there is any charge in this Vote having reference to these prisoners. This is a Vote for naval and military operations, and for other services.

Am I not entitled to touch on this point, having regard to the fact that the prisoners received this treatment at the hand of the military commandant at Frongoch, whose salary is paid out of this Vote?

I do not believe that there is any charge on this Vote at all in respect of these men, but that it comes under the ordinary Vote.

I will try to keep within your ruling, Sir, and perhaps I may be excused as a junior Member if I have not yet learned completely the Rules of the House. At the same time, this is the last opportunity I shall get this week of referring to the treatment of these prisoners, and I would ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in conjunction with the Home Secretary, to see that Irish prisoners will not be treated as slaves, but will receive humane treatment, and may I further express the hope that next week the Government will be in a position to recommend the release of prisoners? I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will make some announcement on these questions.

I should like to join my hon. Friend in what he has said in regard to the railway strike in Ireland. I think the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that during the last five weeks railway strikes have been threatened, and this question is not alone put forward by the hon. Member who has just sat down, but it is one which has interested the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. The hon. and learned Gentleman has been in communication with the secretary of the railwaymen's union during the last five weeks. The Premier, who was then Secretary of State for War, had the necessity urged upon him of taking over the railways in Ireland on similar conditions to those which obtains in this country. I understand that negotiations in that direction have been carried on, and I hope that they will end in a satisfactory settlement before very long. I would like to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the absolute necessity of his using all his influence in order to bring about a settlement, especially at a time like this, when people want to get about, and to obtain all their food supplies for Christmas. An important question for Ireland at the present time is the potato supply. This year's potato crop is not within one-third of what it was last year. A great deal of discussion is going on as to the necessity of prohibition or non-prohibition. The party to which I belong: some time ago passed a resolution asking the Government to prohibit the export of potatoes; but the proposal has been flouted because interests of those concerned in the export of potatoes would he affected.

How is it possible that at this moment you can have a Committee dealing with the export of potatoes, and with the question of the supply of seed potatoes to Ireland, on which the only representative of Ireland is the largest exporter of potatoes in the United Kingdom. I am not speaking of it as a question of North or South, nor do I desire to east any reflection on Members of this House or anybody in Ireland, but it is a fact that this Gentleman, and others associated with him, for the last five or six weeks have been buying potatoes in Ireland to export to this country. I would only say, in conclusion, that it is no use talking about the prohibition of the exportation of potatoes, for it is just as well to face the fact that the people in Ireland have absolutely no confidence whatever in the officials of the Department of Agriculture. We know who they are. We know where their interests lie; we know they are more interested in Tedcastle, McCor-mick and Co., and the firm of Hugh Barrie than they are interested in the farmers and labourers of the South and West of Ireland. I feel it my duty to ask the right hon. Gentleman how it is possible that Ireland has no representative on this Committee save the one who, as I have said, is a Member of this House, and the largest exporter of potatoes in the United Kingdom. Whatever may be said as to self-preservation being the first law of nature, the Hugh Barrie potato exporter will mind himself before he minds anybody else.

The hon. Member has disfigured a discussion of the economic question of the prohibition or non-prohibition of the export of potatoes from Ireland with utterly groundless attacks, first of all upon, a Member of this House, and then upon the officers of the Department of Agriculture in Ireland. The hon. Member for North Londonderry (Mr. Hugh Barrie) has been rendering public services in advising the Government, and in advising the Department in connection with the question of food supply, and, to my knowledge, has honourably advised the Government with absolute disregard of any personal interests of his own.

Is it a fact that the hon. Member is the largest exporter of potatoes in the United Kingdom?

Whether he is the largest exporter I do not at all know, but of this I am aware, that the hon. Member for North Londonderry has given to the Government advice which is absolutely opposed to his personal interests. The hon. Member for North Londonderry has given advice which I cannot particularise, as I might be required to state many other confidential communications, but the effect of it is what I said. As regards the officers of the Department who are supposed to have some sinister motive for preventing the prohibition of the exportation of potatoes, the fact of the matter is that the foremost of the representatives of the Department have done all that with them lay to secure the prohibition of export at an earlier date. On consideration of the matter and of all the difficulties in question no prohibition has yet been made. The position is not one of the simple kind which can be disposed of by happy phrases in a Debate in this House. It is a serious economic question. On the one hand there is practically the right of the man who has grown potatoes for export to-be permitted, so far as it is consistent with public safety, to realise the price for which he grew the potatoes. On the other hand, you have the interest of the public to secure that the necessary sources of food supply shall not be depleted. It is the business of the Government to exercise its exceptional powers with due regard to those conflicting interests. The scale has been held evenly without any disadvantage up to the present time to public interests, because the outstanding fact is that while the growth of potatoes in the North has been quite as good as last year, as I am informed, the export from that part has been substantially less than it was in 1914–15. This question of prohibition is not an easy question, and at the time when changes took place in the Administration it was on the point of settlement. I know it is now on the point of settlement. The delay which has been interposed has been due to causes which had not their origin in any of those indirect causes which the hon. Member has imputed. The hon. Member for North Galway (Mr. Hazleton) referred to a difficulty which has arisen about the supply of sugar in the town of Headfort. The first time that was brought to the notice of the Irish Office was yesterday morning, and within half an hour of that time the Irish Office had communicated with the Sugar Commission. I think, therefore, it will be seen that at any rate there was no loss of time so far as the Irish Administration is concerned.

I did not say there was. What I complained of was the action of the Sugar Commission. The grievance is a month old, and I have twice visited them within the last ten days.

The Sugar Commission has not got a direct representative here, but I can say this, that that Commission is dealing with an unprecedented situation, and with the sugar supply of practically every household in the country. I think the number of complaints which I have had from the whole of Ireland on this subject, and they come to the Chief Secretary sconer or later, does not exceed a dozen. With regard to the supply at Headfort, I am sure that those controlling the sugar supply would desire to deal as promptly as they can with that unforeseen difficulty which the hon. Member has properly pointed out. The hon. Member will bear this in mind, that this scheme was devised suddenly under the pressure of war to so arrange, without taking the supply out of the hands of the traders, that the limited supply is fairly distributed, and that is not an innovation which can work without difficulty or without occasional instances of hardship. My belief is that in Ireland, as well as in this country, the instances of hardship have been few. Certainly, as far as is possible, both in the Sugar Commission and by co-operation between the Irish Office and the Sugar Commission, every means will be taken to deal promptly with difficulties such as that to which the hon. Member has referred.

Two other hon. Members referred to the question of food production, and one of them to food distribution. The hon. Member for the Leix Division of Queen's County (Mr. P. Meehan) reproached the Government for not dealing with the present grave situation in respect of food by embarking on the drainage of the watershed of the Barrow. Is that a practical contribution to the question of the immediate advantage of food production to reproach a Government Department for not dealing with the state of facts which has existed for a number of generations, and because they do not set about expending half a million of public money which could not possibly affect the matter for some considerable period?

On a point of Order. May I say that I did not reproach the Government at all. I pointed out that, owing to neglect of this matter in the past, land was out of cultivation, and that by a system of treatment -16,000 acres of land could be made available for food production and that it was very essential that all proper and reasonable steps should be taken in that direction, and that it was a subject worthy of consideration. I made no reproach as to what happened in the past.

The drainage of the Barrow area has been the subject of consideration, and was to have been the subject of expenditure. I venture to suggest to the hon. Member that it does not help in the solution of the present difficulties of the time to divert attention to a question the solution of which must occupy years.

Six months.

With regard to the other matter, that of the breaking up of lands at present used for grazing, in order that there may be an extension of tillage, that is a matter of urgent public consequence, and the hon. Member must not suppose that it is not a matter of which the consequence is appreciated. The Department of Agriculture and the Departments which have control of food supplies and those other departments which have to come to decisions as to regulations for the improvement of our facilities in respect of food supplies and matters of that kind have been engaged upon this subject, and every pains has been taken to see that every advance for the betterment of cultivation or in the adaptation of cultivation to the circumstances of the time which is found possible in Great Britain shall be at least matched by the progress which is made in Ireland. But it is impossible to adopt a policy of breaking up grazing lands on a great scale in the expectation that you may suddenly produce a great new source of supply without running the risk of great waste of money without any practical result. These are matters with which practical agriculturists and practical cultivators are best qualified to deal, and their attention is engaged on the matter. I can assure the hon. Member and the House that no time is being lost in the formulation of the regulations which are necessary and the adaptation of them where it is possible that they should be applied. As to the question of food distribution to which the hon. Member for South Fermanagh (Mr. Crumley) referred, it is impossible that the Government should take over the whole distributing business of the country in Ireland without taking it over in the United Kingdom. Beyond that I have not yet met anybody who is acquainted with the seriousness of interference with the ordinary distributive agencies of the State—I refer to the voluntary distributive agencies—who are ready to advise His Majesty's Government to assume, in addition to their other tasks—which it is often alleged His Majesty's Government ill perform—the enormous task of the general distribution of supplies throughout the United Kingdom. The threatened strike on the Great Southern and Western Railway of Ireland has been referred to. It is true that negotiations are proceeding with a view to avert the threatened strike. The Irish railways are not under the control of His Majesty's Government. Doubts exist whether or not they ought to be. The negotiations which are proceeding are proceeding between employers and employed upon that railway, and I think it would not tend to a solution of the difficulties which we all desire to see solved that I should enter into a discussion, or make any statement, at the present time as to the present stage of those negotiations.

Do I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that these discussions are proceeding between the employers and employed 1 Is this not a matter in which the Government ought not to be indifferent?

The Government is not indifferent to the risks which arise in a railway strike, or, indeed, in any strike at present. It has rendered what assistance it can, and which the Government always desires to render where controversies arise between employers and employed and where the employed are not servants of the Crown.

Might I point out that this is not an ordinary labour quarrel. This is a matter which arises out of the refusal of the Government to do in Ireland that which they have done so satisfactorily in England. It is not, therefore, a question of sympathy with a particular interest; vital interests are concerned.

The matter has been with me not only for days but weeks, as some hon. Members know. In view, however, of the various interests involved, it would not in our judgment advance matters to enter into a general discussion of the reason why Irish railways have not been taken over by the State, or as to the position of the companies which own the railways, or the rate of pay of the workmen.

As to the question of railways being taken over by the State, have the Government not complete control of them under martial law, and have they not stopped excursion trains running?

That is a different point to the one we are discussing.

Every consideration of that kind, of course, is in the minds of those who have been engaged in any degree in the public affairs of Ireland. The general proposition I make is that in the interests of Ireland it is desirable that we should not prematurely embark upon the discussion of the question which may have ultimately to be discussed. The House will accept the assurance that the Government is taking its proper part, and serious part, which the public interest requires, and in so far as may be promoted an amicable and satisfactory settlement of the difficulties which exist at the present time. In my judgment, and I think in the judgment of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, it is not desirable in the public interest that we should embark on any discussion of the matter. I think I have dealt with all the matters which were raised seriatim. I think, sitting here as a member of the Government, I should not conclude without saying one word only in regard to the random, ungenerous, and unfounded attack which the hon. Member for North Somerset made upon the Chief of the General Imperial Staff and upon the generals who hold high commands in France. That attack has been repudiated by the general voice of the House. Had I not risen to reply to matters which are immediately within my own province it would not become me as a Minister of the Crown to intervene in order to give any further reply to the attack which has been repudiated, so far as the judgment of the House is concerned, by the speeches immediately following. I am quite sure it does not represent in any way the judgment or the sympathies of our countrymen at large.

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman deal with the point as to transport, and the question of the Petrol Supply Committee granting the necessary amount of petrol?

I am always happy, as hon. Members know perfectly well, to intervene at the shortest notice to remove difficulties at present. At the same time, I do not think the House should discuss a matter of that kind as though it were a grave matter.

What about the Irish prisoners in chains?

That is another matter from that which we are now discussing.

I should not have intervened in this Debate were it not for the reference which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just made to the threatened railway strike. One might imagine from the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that this industrial conflict with which we are threatened is purely a quarrel between capital and labour in Ireland. It is nothing of the sort. It is a demand on the part of an ill-paid, scandalously underpaid body of railway servants in Ireland to precisely the same rights and privileges in regard to war bonus as are given to the English railway employés. I have been told that the reason why the 10s. bonus has been given to the English railway employés is that the British Government have taken over the control of the British railways. We have made the demand, and rightly, that the Irish railways should be similarly taken over, because I take it that the purpose of the Government in taking over these railways in England is for War purposes—to carry munitions and to carry men for the War. The same argument applies to Ireland. You carry Irish soldiers; you carry munitions made in Ireland. Therefore the Government should take over the Irish railways. You ought to treat Ireland in this matter precisely as England and Scotland have been treated. It is for that reason that I entirely object to the responsibility of whatever may occur in the future in regard to this industrial conflict being transferred to the shoulders of employers or employed. The Government should bear this responsibility—rightly! I understand negotiations are going on. I hope these negotiations will be successful. I am rather suspicious, for in reading a report in this morning's newspaper I see that the Great Southern Railway has consented to give 2s. a week bonus to their employés. That is not at all a satisfactory solution of the matter. It is far more costly to live in Dublin than in London. It requires more to keep a workman and his family in the capital of Ireland than it does in any of the large industrial centres of Great Britain. It is a perfect scandal that at this time the 10s. war bonus should be given to English workmen by some process—I do not know what is going on behind the scenes—and men in a similar occupation, but with longer hours, have to be satisfied with 2s. The matter, therefore, is not one between the railway companies of Ireland and their employés. It is a vital matter and not only of concern to the Government, but it is a great Imperial concern. I press that consideration upon the Government. If this conflict is not satisfactorily terminated, and if the Government do not recognise their responsibility, then they need not think that they can clear themselves from whatever blame may attach to a continuance of the strike, which is fraught, not only with great danger to the general peace and civil order in Ireland, but to the larger and wider interests that are involved in this country.