The Vote which has just been submitted covers naval and military operations in connection with the War. I desire to ask the Government for a little information in regard to the military forces at present in Ireland. I think that the House generally will recognise that the policy both with regard to both military and civil administration in Ireland was left in a very unsatisfactory state when the matter was last before the House, and in these times, when revolutions are in the air, it seems to be opportune, in view of the grave state of things in Ireland, that we should have a frank declaration from the Government both as to the present position and as to the future policy. Revolutions, if they fail, are a crime against humanity, and if they succeed are a blow for freedom. I should like to ask the, Government whether they intend to leave this matter exactly where it was left in our recent Debate. At that time the Government expressed itself willing to consent to the appointment of a Commission in order to see whether this opportune moment could not be taken advantage of in order to bring about a better understanding between this country and Ireland. There are only three courses open to the Government. They may leave matters exactly as they are and allow them to drift, which is, I think, an impossible, and certainly a dangerous policy. There is the other alternative of accepting the suggestion put forward by the late Prime Minister that a Commission of powerful representative men, with a Colonial element, should be appointed to try and bring about a peaceful settlement between the two countries. And there is the third alternative, that the Government itself should provide the machinery for carrying out the declared policy of the Government, which, as I understand it, is that every portion of Ireland which is favourable to the immediate establishment of free institutions there should have the opportunity of declaring their will, or, in short, I take it that means what is commonly known as county option. I invite the Government to face this question at the present moment, because it is essentially a war question. My information from Ireland is not at all of a reassuring character, and I do not know whether anyone acquainted with that country will deny that fact. There are greater Imperial issues even than the domestic position of Ireland. There is the Irish element in America, and there is the overwhelming necessity that no domestic questions should interfere with the concentration of public opinion on the vigorous prosecution of the War. I look forward with dismay to the possibility of party debates in this House during the very serious times through which this country is about to pass. I think every Member's mind ought to be on the War and on nothing but the War, and in the interests of the Government itself, not to speak of the country, I invite my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the House, to be as frank as he usually is with regard to this question. Ten days have elapsed since this question was before us, and practically nothing, so far as the House knows, has been done. I want the right hon. Gentleman to tell us, if he can, whether the Government still adhere to their approval of the appointment of a Commission to deal with this matter. And are they willing, as far as possible, to collect the views of the House in regard to that policy. Let me point out this is no-longer purely a Government matter, it is no longer an Irish matter, it is a matter which belongs to this House. Judging by the manner in which we have pressed Governments in regard to previous procedure, I do not think we are justified in being absolutely silent so long as we have responsibility. I regard this as of a most pressing character. I would not have intervened to-day, but I invite my right hon. Friend to tell us whether the policy of the Government is still a conciliatory policy. Is it still their policy as to the whole of Ireland that desires self-government that that desire shall be fulfilled? Are they themselves prepared to take some steps in order to settle what I think is a most dangerous problem at the present time?

No doubt there are many causes which have brought about (he revolution in Russia, but undoubtedly one of the main causes is the lack of transport facilities in that country, which has brought about scarcity of food in that wide area. Contrast the position in Russia with the measure of success of our forces in Mesopotamia. Up that long winding river of some 500 miles our troops have gained a great success, and that is largely due to the excellent transport facilities up that river. I had hoped yesterday that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have told us something further about the successes in that part of the globe. The House may be interested to know that I had a letter a few days ago from a responsible officer in that part of the sphere of operations, in which he assured me that the arrangements for the sick and wounded, taken by motor ambulances and by quick steamers to their hospitals, left nothing to be desired. My object in rising is to see if this country cannot gain some experience from what has happened in Russia during the last few days. The revolution there, as I have said, has come about from scarcity of food and scarcity of transport facilities, largely due to men being taken from productive industries in Russia and transferred into the ranks of the military. No amount of management will control famine. We know full well that in Germany to-day food tickets are plentiful, while the food itself is scarce, and it is true that the gaunt spectre of famine is stalking through the world today. I say let us be on guard against it in this country. The advance of famine will have far-reaching results, not only on ourselves, but on our families, and if we are to avoid being driven into any dishonourable peace we must face this matter "with more determination and more cour- age than we have even during the last few months. Scarcity is apparent, because the high prices of foodstuffs speak for themselves. Profiteering no doubt exists, but that would not exist if the supplies were plentiful, and to ward off famine I think the Government should take further steps to deal with two items. We have too long neglected our agriculture. We are neglecting it to-day if we withdraw a single man from agriculture in this country. We are neglecting it to-day if we do not return to the land its skilled men who are now in the ranks of the Army. On Wednesday I was in Scotland, and a man who came through from Edinburgh told me a large number of ploughmen had been withdrawn from the military to be lent to farmers in Scotland. But they are withdrawn only for a few weeks. Has not the time arrived when the Government should insist on those men being permanently retained on the land instead of being withdrawn for a very few weeks, and then returned to the military?

I ventured yesterday to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the fact that in connection with the three Votes of Credit which he has introduced into this House he has dealt hardly at all with the question of what effort the Government are making to secure that we shall come to some larger approach to value for our money in the enormous expenditure that is going forward. It is staggering to think that the Votes of Credit this year, 1916–17, amount to £2,010,000,000. The saving of a paltry 3 per cent. on this two thousand millions means £60,000,000. If that small saving had been effected all through there would have been no necessity to ask for this £60,000,000 Vote. The expenditure of the year now exceeds the original Estimate by no less than £410,000,000, and brings up the expenditure to five and a half millions per day. The total Votes since the beginning of the War amount to £4,042,000,000, and it increases the deficit of the two years ending 31st March to £2,955,000,000. The War Loan was an enormous success, on which I congratulate my right hon. Friend. The spirit of sacrifice entered into it and made it a success. On the occasion of the last Vote of Credit I ventured in this; House to say that if the new money did not amount to a thousand millions it would be inadequate. I was laughed at for that prophecy. I am glad to say that it was realised. It included £130,000,000 of Treasury Bills which were transferred into the War Loan, and were, therefore, not exactly new money. That reduced the new money to £870,000,000. What do we find as the final result? When the War Loan closed we still had outstanding £920,000,000 of short-dated Treasury Bills, with £870,000,000 of new money to place against them with which to liquidate them. Therefore, the position in which we stand to-day is that if we pay off those Treasury Bills we shall have a deficit of £50,000,000, with £276,000,000 of short-dated Exchequer Bonds standing over. What does that mean? It means that we need to conserve our financial resources more than ever before, because after our present expenditure we shall merely have begun to pile up short-dated borrowings again.

My right hon. Friends have mentioned a subject to which I desire to call the attention of the Chancellor of Exchequer, namely, the need for some economic control of this vast expenditure. If ever there was an occasion on which the House ought to be willing to consider this matter, it surely is to-day. It is only a month since we had the largest Vote of Credit which any Parliament has ever had to face, and yet within a month of that time we have to supplement it by this extremely large amount. Therefore, I think that my hon. Friends are well entitled to call attention to this question of the necessity of some machinery for more economic administration of the resources of the country. About a month ago we had the pleasure of receiving a letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was marked "Private." The preliminary sentence of that letter I should like to read to the House, with his consent.

No, no!

Certainly.

With the leave of the right hon. Gentleman, I will read it to the House. I will not go into the private part at all.

Perhaps it would be interesting to the House.

I do not want to commit any breach of the ordinary standard of House of Commons morality, but I will read the first sentence. It produced a powerful effect on my mind.

On your pocket too!

Yes, on my pocket too. The letter says:

"The War has reached a position in. which it is evident that the issue must largely depend upon the staying power of the combatants, and in my belief there is nothing which would do more to hasten a satisfactory peace than evidence of the financial stability of the United Kingdom."

While not wishing to interrupt an interesting discourse, I should like to ask for your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order. A letter has been produced, which may be an official document. Part of it has been quoted. I would like to know whether Members of the House are entitled to have the whole letter laid on the Table.

If the right hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) occupied the position which ho did at one time as a member of the Administration, he would have been obliged to produce the document, but in his present position the rule does not apply to him.

I can assure my hon. Friend that I only quoted that which was relevant to my argument. It is our duty to do everything we can to maintain the financial stability of the United Kingdom. We are concerned with the expenditure of vast amounts of money, and I can well understand that my hon. Friends feel deeply concerned if every step is not taken to secure economy. I want to make two or three specific proposals in regard to this matter, and I would be very glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer or some other responsible Minister would give an answer. The complaint we make —it was voiced by my hon. Friends and I desired to put it forward—is that we get no answer. There were four speeches about economy in the earlier part of a debate some months ago, but no reply was given. Where a reply is given it is something to this effect—a particular case is dealt with, and there is a promise given that that case will be looked into. This House wants something more than that. We want an alteration of the system, and we want to be assured that the old economic principles which Parliament has set up are going to be brought into operation once more. I have no desire to embarrass the Leader of the House, because I think he is performing a very difficult task, but I wish to remind him that the instrument of economy in every Government is the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. We have not yet seen the new Financial Secretary, and we cannot see him because he is not a Member of this House. We know this member of the Government has been engaged on very important work, and we know that he is a man of great ability, although I have not the pleasure of knowing him myself. My point, however, is that the work that used to be discharged by the Financial Secretary in this House wants doing, and, with great respect to my right hon Friend, I do not think it is being done at the present time. What is the duty of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury? He has always been regarded as the watch-dog of economy, and there never was a time like the present when a watch-dog was so much wanted. We wanted an assurance that the will of the House of Commons will be carried out, and that is not being done at the present time.

Luxuries!

It is very difficult to say what is a luxury, and, as the hon. Member has just addressed the House, I would rather that he allowed me to submit my own argument. The House will see how necessary it is to be careful in this matter. The Government now take all the ships it needs and sends them where it pleases. If the Government does not fill up a ship on a particular occasion, why should it be prevented from bringing some of the necessary commodities to this country? Supposing a ship is passing down the St. Lawrence to Halifax, and Halifax has 1,000 cases of apples, why should it not bring those apples? Is not this general broad prohibition likely to result in great waste, causing ships to come with half cargoes or no cargoes at all? Would it not be better if the Government allowed the commercial community to bring in all the commodities they can? It appears to me that this matter has not been fully thought out and that the operations of the Department of the Shipping Controller may involve the country in great waste and loss in a most critical time. We had a most extraordinary scene in this House on Tuesday. I went upstairs and found the greatest deputation I have ever seen in this House. It represented all the 3,500 controlled establishments of the country, and we heard from my hon. Friend who introduced it that there was £2,000,000,000 of capital represented in the room. They all put one plea to the Government. What was it? It was that the various Ministers should consult with the trades that were represented there before issuing their Orders. That is all. They asked that you should speak to the people who know about things before you act. The moment we say that it appears to drive the War Office wild. [AN HON. MEMBER: "It is done!"] It is done in the most restricted way, and it is not done until the last moment. Why did that deputation come to the House of Commons? Would all those gentlemen have come here to talk nonsense and waste their time if the thing were being done? They mentioned case after case of the most ridiculous Order-having been issued. Many of these Orders were afterwards withdrawn, and they were only issued because the trades affected were not consulted. Whenever a particular trade is mentioned, attention is directed to that trade, whereas my object is to get the principle looked into and some economic machinery set up, such as any business man would create. It would be a disgrace to any business to have anyone of the thousand things which goes on in connection with the Government. Still, I will break the rule that I have been trying to lay down, and I will say a word about my own business—tea. That business was carried on in a most creditable way from the standpoint of the trade of the country until about two months ago.

Not with regard to the paper in which it is sold.

That is a detail.

It is not a detail.

I assure the hon. Member it is a perfect detail, and I will not digress and go into it. It was examined by a Committee, and I do not speak of that branch of the business at all. As lately as October last the State was buying tea at 10d. per lb., and it is now paying between 1s. 4d. and 1s. 5d. per lb. That alone represents a loss of about £25,000 per week. The House may say, "Why did not you go to the Government and speak to them about it?" I have been speaking to the Government for sixteen months, and trying to get them to consider the general interests of the country and to make a businesslike arrangement. I went to the present Prime Minister when he was at the War Office, but I could not interest him in a trifle of this kind. That was fifteen months ago. I also spoke to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I have spoken to the present Financial Secretary. All I did was to ask them to consult the trade before they took violent steps with regard to the matter. Look at the example we have had within the last fortnight. Happily this does not affect the War Office. I do not want to be hard upon the War Office, because I believe in a great many respects they have placed the country under the most lasting obligation, but I do appeal to them that, in matters of business they should adopt the principle of consulting those who know before making their purchases. Look at what another branch of the Government did a fortnight ago. The Food Controller, a fortnight ago, plunged into this tea question.

And the bacon question.

I will leave the bacon question to be dealt with by my hon. Friends from Ireland, although I agree it is a question of vast importance. What occurred? Really, if it were a comic opera the thing could not be more amusing. The Food Controller sent for a few representatives of the business and then swept them all aside and said, "I know all about it. The price of tea must be reduced by about 40 or 50 per cent." He did not take into account the operations of the other members of the Government. He fixed a certain price, but the Government themselves were giving 33⅓ per cent. more than that price for all the tea that they could buy. What was the good of one member of the Government stating this and another member of the Government stating exactly the opposite? The effect was that the tea sales almost produced a famine. In the same way a famine in potatoes has been produced. The Government makes everything dearer it touches. It creates scarcity and famine instead of cheapness and plenty. The Food Controller said to this tea deputation, "If you do not behave well and alter the price immediately, we will treat you as we do sugar." How did they treat sugar? They doubled and trebled the price of sugar, and within a month of taking it over they made the people suffer more both in the price they paid for it and in its scarcity than ever the unhappy people thought they could suffer.

Is the Treasury Bench feeding itself on rations?

We were promised some information about the appointment of Mr. Tristram Eve by the War Office to grow corn at a salary of £3,000 a year. When this case was raised two things were said —one was, is it not extravagant, and the other was, is it not a matter which the Board of Agriculture should take in hand? We were promised that it should be in quired into. We have heard nothing more since. I want to know if the case has been inquired into, and, if so, what is the result? I do not want the Government, or the House, to think that because I have laid emphasis on these matters I desire to make any attack on the Government. I quite appreciate the fact that they are faced by extraordinary and extreme difficulties. I am only anxious to help them, but we are grieved at the waste we see going on, and every one of these things adds to that waste. They add to the huge sums which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to provide, and enormous economies would be effected if the reforms we suggested were carried out. It is the system which is wrong; it is the system which will have to be altered. I would like to quote, in conclusion, without asking the House to endorse the sentiment, something which was said by Thomas Paine in this House, and I quote it because I want the House to realise that we here are only expressing public opinion when we raise these questions. Thomas Paine said:

"A change of Ministry amounts to nothing: one goes out another wines in, but still the same measures, vices, and extravagances are pursued. It signifies not who is the Minister: the defect lies in the system. The foundation and superstructure of the Government is bad. Prop it up as you will it will continually sink. England has been the prey of jobs ever since the Revolution."

My right hon. Friend has dealt with many interesting subjects. The beauty of his speeches is always that he does not confine himself to any particular point; he has a fertile mind which ranges over the whole field of politics.

By way of illustration.

And he has done so to-day. I cannot deal with all the cases he has mentioned, but I would like to refer to one or two. I am told to be on the look-out for storms in the House of Commons. I do not think that that warning is necessary. I do not think that anyone who occupies my position is likely to neglect that field of his duty. Anyone on this bench would try to avoid storms at any rate, and I will certainly make the attempt. But obviously a mariner in the sea of politics like a mariner on the ocean cannot always avoid storms, and when he cannot, he has to make the best pace he can to try and get through. That is what the Government are trying to do. My right hon. Friend gave a number of particular circumstances, but it is impossible obviously to judge even the value of his illustrations till we hear what the other side have to say. As it happens, I was myself able to understand one case which he gave, and that was when he spoke of the Shipping Controller. He said that if a ship was going empty down the St. Lawrence he could easily stop a little while in order to take on board some apples. That is what every sensible man who is not a shipowner might do, but it is the last thing which a sensible man, who is a shipowner, would do and for this simple reason that every hour's delay means so much money, and if the loss of freight corresponds to the amount of the delay, nothing would be more foolish than for a shipowner to stop to take on board a very small quantity of cargo.

Four per cent.

That is not so easily secured. I wish the House to realise that, on the whole, pressure from this House, even in time of war, is not in the direction of cutting down expenditure, but in the direction of increasing it. Let me give an. example. Since I went to the Treasury the new scales of pensions have gone through. I confess to the House—no; it is not a confession—I say it to the House that from the beginning of the War I have taken the view that that was not a field in which we ought to exercise economy, and it did not seem to me, because I happened to fill that office, that, owing to the universal rule that the Treasury is to try to cut down expenditure of that kind, I ought to be expected to take a different view from that which I should have taken in any other office. The result of that has been—we do not complain of it—that a tremendous new burden has been added to this country for that purpose by this House.

Quite right, too!

Yes, quite right. I think we ought to have taken that course. I only mention it to show that while the House criticises the Government for its expenditure, the general pressure so often is in the direction of increasing expenditure. In regard to the big spending Departments, there are three of them—the Ministry of Munitions, the War Office, and the Board of Admiralty. I wish to tell the House what has been done to try to control expenditure in these different Departments. A Committee was appointed by the late Government in connection with the Board of Admiralty, a Committee which, I think, did useful work. What happens now? The Treasury Committee, on which, of course, the Admiralty are represented, meets two or three times every week, and goes over the expenditure, and knows what is being done. So far as it can be done without encroaching on policy, which is generally decided by the Cabinet as a whole, but so far as it can be done we know of the expenditure, we make our representations and, I think, have some effective say in seeing that contracts are properly placed. I do not pretend that if the Admiralty were not over head and ears in work that has to be done I would be at all satisfied with the arrangement as it is, but it is idle for the right hon. Gentleman—if he will excuse the expression—it is not correct to suggest that you can have an overhauling of these Departments during the War, to have them up before Committees, and to get them to go into all the details without taking away to an enormous extent the very men who are necessary in carrying on the War. I will take next the War Office. I think the House has the impression that it is worse than the Admiralty.

It is according to the Public Accounts Committee's Report.

There are difficulties in both Departments. What was done in the War Office was to set up a Committee, not from the House of Commons, but from other members of the Government, to examine the methods which are followed in spending the money. That Committee met regularly, and issued two Reports, and the result of that was useful. After all, that is not enough. I am only repeating now what I used to say in Opposition. I do not think myself that Committees are the best way to see that this kind of work is well done. I think it is best done, as a rule, by a man who under-stands the job, and can take it in hand himself. That has been done in several particular Departments, particularly in relation to the Clothing Department to which reference was made. More than that, the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Cabinet, has appointed a well-known business man, Mr. Andrew Weir, who is well known to the President of the Board of Trade, to go to the War Office, and to make it his job to look into all questions of the way in which contracts are placed, to make a report as to where he sees extravagance, and, if necessary, to suggest even a reorganisation in the way that this Department is working contracts. I only say that to show that we all realise how vital this is, and that, whether we are taking the most effective method or not, we are taking some methods to try to keep down expenditure.

He is a keen economist.

That is why he is there, and we have here a competent re-presentative doing the work here of Financial Secretary.

I did two or three days ago.

The right hon. Gentleman suggested it. I do not complain of that, except that I really should have liked to have more time not only to think about what I would say, but to consult the Prime Minister about it. The right hon. Gentleman asked me to speak frankly. I think if I make mistakes it is on that side, and I am going to risk making the same mistake now. Nothing that has happened in the House of Commons since I became a Member of it has seemed to me so deplorable as the ending of the Irish discussion the other day. There is in the House of Commons, among all parties a stronger and more universal desire to get some settlement of this question than has ever before existed in the House of Commons. That at least is my belief. If good-will would do it, it would be done to-morrow. But, as Burke said, "Idle wishes are the most idle of all things," and though what I am saying certainly shows the spirit with which I should like to deal with this question, that is not of much value unless you can find some practical way of dealing with it. I said that the whole House of Commons desires a settlement, but I am not sure that there is as much sympathy with hon. Members below the Gangway in the country as there is in the House of Commons. Hon. Members are doing what they think their duty—they must be the judges of their own action—in going into opposition in something like the old way to the Govern- ment. It might happen, because the Government could not be conducted at a time like this with the ordinary methods of Parliamentary opposition, that their action would have an effect which I should deplore above all others of compelling an. appeal to the country, and, what is worse for the future of the Empire, having to appeal largely on the ground that the Nationalist Members would not let us get on with the War. I do not think anything could be worse than that, and I am sure hon. Members opposite as well as we here would desire to avoid it. The House knows that the Prime Minister clearly indicated, and it was the suggestion afterwards made by the late Prime Minister, that if he thought there was any hope of a good result from appointing a Commission in any of the ways suggested, he would be glad to do it. Since then we have received no communication from any of the parties in Ireland, but in spite of that, we are now, as a Government, considering whether any action on our part is possible. That is all I have to say, and I am afraid it only comes down to this. We recognise as well as anyone that this is not a domestic question alone. If any method can be found for solving this old sore it would be one of the best things, even from the point of view of bringing the War to a satisfactory conclusion. I should like, if I may, to ask the House if they could not allow us to have this Vote pretty soon so as to enable us to get one or two other things this afternoon. The House heard yesterday the news from Russia. They realise, perhaps on that ground, that there is no want of respect on the part of any of us for the House of Commons, but that we really are taken up every hour with things that are pressing and vital, and I hope the House of Commons will do what they can to enable us to get through.

The conciliatory tone which the Leader of the House has shown, and which indeed we are accustomed to find in him in the exercise of his present most important duty, will, I am sure, be responded to, and I think there are many in the House who feel that the very important statement he has just made is one that they would rather think over and consider than debate, at any rate in any controversial spirit, or at any length. But as he has made on two separate subjects statements of the very greatest importance, I should like to be allowed to say a word about each, certainly not in any hostile spirit, but rather marking, for my Friends on this side and for myself, our sense of the importance of what he has said. He began by dealing with the immensely important question of the relation between the claims of agriculture at this moment and the claims of the Army, and the House will have noticed that the right hon. Gentleman made this statement. He stated, as I followed him, that at thi8 time, and in so far as these two great services may be said to come into competition with one another, the Government regard the production of food as more important even than the addition of men to the Army. That is a most notable statement, for, of course, judgment on this matter must primarily rest with those who have the facts and the figures before them, and I am sure that the country will note the great importance and the great gravity of that statement. But that being the conclusion to which the Government have arrived, we may be well assured that they have arrived at it, not because they have any doubt as to the great importance of keeping up the supply in the field. It-must be in spite of the immense importance of that that they feel there is something of more importance still, and, that being so, it must be of course for the Government to make that policy good. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman's statement on this point leaves the matter, if I may say so, quite clear. He gave us some information as to what Government Department it is which does not decide these things. He told us, for example, that it was not the Board of Agriculture that decided these things.

"I cannot give any undertaking with regard to men who are working on the land who are included in that category."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 15th March, 1917, col., 1378.]

I do not wish to have any misunderstanding. I did not say that we had given any pledge to do it. I said that the Government were earnestly considering whether it would be possible.

I am glad to have the accurate statement, and to know that, at any rate, the Government is undertaking the responsibility of considering it, and that is a matter in which conciliation is obviously the only way by which this problem can be solved. It involves, no doubt, sacrifices, but it involves sacrifice from all parties and from all sides.

Some reference has been made in this Debate to the startling news received from Russia this morning. If Kings and Governments will make playthings of their people, and set them up to shoot and to starve one another, they must expect that their thrones will be shaken. I want to suggest to the Government—and I am rather sorry that the Leader of the House has just gone out—a different way of winning the War. We have been two and a half years striving to overcome our enemies by physical force. I think that a better method would be to try to arrange with them by reason. I believe that we could get a satisfactory settlement and a durable and honourable peace more easily by the weapons of diplomacy than by the weapons of artillery. I know that the Prime Minister has not got sympathy with any such suggestion. I remember very well his famous interview with an American journalist, generally known as "the knock-out blow interview," in which he warned off all influences that approached us in the direction of making peace. He said, in effect, "If a dove flies to you with an olive branch in its mouth, do not open the window of the ark to him; drive the bird away—shoot him." A few days before we adjourned for the long Christmas recess the evening paper placards —for we had placards then—announced an offer of peace from Germany. Hopes sprang high in millions of hearts in this country because people thought that this meant the beginning of the end. What happened? We waited—day by day—and no answer. The day that we sing "Peace on earth, goodwill to men" came and went, and some weeks later the whole invitation was thrown back in the face of the enemy. I think that that was a remarkably fine opportunity for beginning negotiations which might result in ending the War.

I listened with very great interest indeed to that part of the speech of the Leader of the House which dealt with the demands that are being made to introduce some economy into the great spending Departments. I agree for the most part with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington and the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnsley in all that they said upon the subject of waste. We all recognise that in the midst of a great War such as this, it is hopeless to expect that where a country is spending between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000 a day there will not be a considerable amount of waste. That is absolutely unavoidable. But I do think that the Government should direct its attention to devising the best means of confining that waste within the narrowest possible limits. I welcome the statement of the Leader of the House in so far as it indicates that the Government are taking some steps in this direction. But I do not think his statement was altogether satisfactory. He told us of some new arangement that has lately been made with regard to the War Office—he did not say much about the Admiralty—then he went on to use words of considerable eulogy with regard to the cost of the system at the Ministry of Munitions, The impression left upon my mind, and I think upon the minds of Members of the House, by his speech was that in each one of these great spending Departments there is a different system, and he praises that system most which is in force at the Ministry of Munitions. From all I also have heard, I believe that is the most efficient system. But if that be so, why does not the Government introduce that most efficient system into the two other great Departments, as well as the Ministry of Munitions?

"Jassy, 9th March.—At a Cabinet held here yesterday it was announced that Great Britain had agreed to advance to Romania the sum of £40,000,000 at par. The loan will bear interest at 5 per cent."

Agriculture.

That is covered by the food question. It seems to me that this Administration has got so large that an old motto may be applied to it: "What is everybody's business is nobody's business," and it is almost impossible for people from outside, who want to get things done, to know what Department they are to go to. There was a great campaign in the Press when the late Government was in office, about the Cabinet of 23. [An HON. MEMBER: "Now it is a Cabinet of 84."] I do not know whether there is a Cabinet at all, or not, but there is an Administration of 84, and I say that, so far as all the indications that one can judge by go, the country was much better off under the Cabinet of 23 than under the Administration of 84. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is now 86!"] I am told that 86 is now the correct figure, but the House must remember that the list is not nearly completed yet. The hon. Member for Barns-ley (Sir J. Walton) yesterday said there was a new Controller appointed, but I did not catch what he was appointed for— [An HON. MEMBER: "Cat's meat."]—or who he was. I am not going, on an occasion like this, into purely Irish questions, but I would like to give one or two instances that have come under my personal observation to help to prove the case I am making with regard to the inefficiency and cumbersomeness of this present machinery.

Do it now!

When I asked the hon. Gentleman whether the Government would publish the report he said, not that they were considering it, but that they would consider it! I want to know is that a fair way, when supplies and munitions are urgently needed, and have been for many months past, to come to a decision on this industrial question so far as War Office supplies are concerned in Ireland? What has the Chief Secretary got to do with it? He cannot establish this Receiving Depot in Ireland; that is a matter for the War Office, or for the Government as a whole. But this is only one more instance of the extraordinary methods of delay and confusion with which this Administration is run, and with which the affairs of Ireland are managed. Having given these few illustrations—which could be multiplied by the hundred and thou- sand in the case of Ireland, only I do not want to delay the House by raising purely Irish affairs, which I have only referred to because they illustrate the case I have been making, that the new administration is not working well—I only now want in a few words to deal with a few other questions. My hon. Friend the Member for West Clare, in his speech from these benches yesterday, dealt with the military aspect of the War. I do not feel competent, or possessed of sufficient information and knowledge, to raise the important questions of policy upon which he touched. I do, however, feel that there was one matter that ought to have been dealt with from the Front Bench opposite when this Supplementary Vote of Credit was brought down to the House of Commons. That was the present position of the submarine peril.

He can go to the Aldwych Club.

My hon. Friend reminds me that the First Lord could go to the Aldwych Club. It appears to be the practice of the Ministers in this new Administration to give as little information as possible to the House of Commons, and to make as few speeches as possible here, but to come here, as does the First Lord of the Admiralty, as seldom as they can, and to treat the House of Commons with the utmost contempt. The House of Commons will remember the howl that was set up in the days of the late First Lord of the Admiralty in regard to the attack upon the shores of this country by German overseas craft. He was called to account. He was asked to give information, and compelled to do so—I think by an hon. Member who himself is now at the Admiralty. We were told that he must go; that he was not the man for this position, and that this sort of thing must not be allowed; must not occur again. He did go. Since, however, the last statement was made in regard to submarines, there has been another attack upon the shores of this country by the German overseas craft. English towns have been bombarded, and the enemy has got away unscathed. The First Lord of the Admiralty seems to be protected all round from attack from any quarter of this House. He was asked to make an explanation, or to give an assurance that this thing would not happen again.

It is such a rare privilege to see the Attorney-General in his place that I should like to take this opportunity of ascertaining the position of certain members of the Government who fall upon this Vote of Credit. We have at the present time, not only the ordinary official members of the Government— Ministers, Under-Secretaries, and so on— which appear in ever-increasing numbers from day to day in the pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT, but we have a new series of officials, many of whom are Members of this House. Some of them we are told are not paid, but we know they are discharging important Executive functions, and it is therefore a matter of very high constitutional importance from the point of view of the independence of this House to know first of all whether they occupy proper constitutional positions. They are understood to be discharging the Executive functions indicated by their names as Directors or Controllers. For instance, we have a Controller of Margarine and there is a Director of Enrolment. Their titles indicate that they are exercising independent functions of Government. We therefore, are naturally interested to know from the Attorney-General what is his view of the position of these gentlemen, and whether he thinks that they are occupying a proper constitutional position in the Government as Members of this House who are apparently discharging these Executive functions. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is the only proper authority who can inform us whether the Government are pursuing proper procedure in this matter, and seeing that he has come in when we are in the midst of this afternoon's Debate, it would be well if he would place his knowledge on this subject at the service of the House.

I wish to say a few words in reference to the statement made by the Leader of the House regarding the obstruction of the Nationalist Members and the threat which he held out that if the obstruction, as he seems to consider it, was continued there might have to be a General Election. I do not think he used the word "obstruction"; he used the word "criticism." It is, therefore, rather remarkable that if the criticism continues—as if the Government could not stand criticism at a time of war—they would have to consider the question of having a General Election. As has been already pointed out, a General Election would not preclude the Irish Members from this House. I enter a protest against the threat which was held out. A General Election would not be a solution of the problem of Nationalist criticism. The solution of the problem is to grant Home Rule to Ireland and to see that the opposition of a small portion of Ireland does not overrule the granting of justice to Ireland. I would reply to the Leader of the House that if he wants to have a General Election he could not choose worse ground for his own purpose than that of the suppression of Ireland. It would be an absurdity to appeal for support of War measures and go to the country and say, "We have spent £4,000,000,000 for the purpose of sacrificing hundreds of thousands of lives to uphold the rights of small nationalities, and at the same time we ask you to vote to enable us to suppress the legitimate demands of Ireland." There is such an extraordinary analogy between the position of those for whose liberation we are fighting and the position of Ireland that I have been trying by question to elucidate the point. I would remind the Leader of the House of the extraordinary position he will land himself into if he goes to a General Election on this issue. Suppose you go to this General Election, what will be your position? According to the statement which we furnished to the President of the United States, we are fighting for the liberty of the Slovacs. I put a question to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on this question yesterday. I asked:

"Whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Slovaes are to be found principally in the counties of Nyitra, Treucsen, Turoez., Arva, Lipto, and Zolyon, and to a minor degree in the counties of Abuj and Saros; and can he state whether these latter counties will come into the scheme of liberation proposed by the Allies on the same basis as the other six?

Lord R. Cecil: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his last question.

Mr. Outhwaite: Can the Noble Lord say if the considerations which prevent the granting of Home Rule to Ireland are not to have effect as regards these Slovac minorities?

Mr. Speaker: That does not arise on this question. The information can he obtained from any encyclopedia."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, l5ath March."1917, col. 1244.]

I do not think the hon. Member is right in saying that he is a pro-German, and I am quite sure anyone who has been in Russia would not say so.

Well, at any rate he was associated with M. Protopopoff.

He was given leave of absence because he did not agree.

Of course, I entirely withdraw that. The Russian Government has been getting these vast sums of money from us, and it seems to me that we have a right in a case like that to make very serious restrictions as to where these vast loans are going, and if that had been done there seems no reason why the House of Commons is not informed upon the matter. It is just because we are willing to vote hundreds of millions to anybody, and because those who asked questions are stigmatised as pro-German and seditious that hundreds of millions of our money have gone to be used for purposes against us. In this loan we are expending a large sum of money on the purchase of wheat from Australia. If there is anybody here to answer a question on this subject I should very much like to know what is the sum we are paying for Australian wheat. I have seen it stated that Australian farmers last year got about 4s. a bushel or 32s. a quarter for their wheat, and I am interested to know why the Australian farmers-are getting 32s. a quarter while the British farmers have been guaranteed from 64s. to 80s. a quarter? I want to get the price that is being paid to the Australian farmer in order to compare it with what the British farmer is extorting, and I should be very glad if the figures could be furnished of the price which is being paid to the Australian farmer. I should also like to know whether the Australian wheat is coming entirely to this country, or if it is largely or in part being sent to supply the demands of Italy. It seems to me to be rather unfair that whilst the British farmer should be extorting the enormous price of 80s. a quarter from the British public that the Australian farmers should only be getting 33s. a quarter for wheat sold to the Italian consumer.

You, talking about patriotism!

No doubt, like many others who talk about patriotism, if I were able to make a fortune out of it, I should be able to deal more directly with patriotism, as understood by the hon. Member opposite.

Do you mean that personally?

Certainly; just as you do.

Do you mean that I have made money out of the War? If so, I tell you that it is a gross falsehood.

I have no doubt that the hon. Member has not made a penny out of the War, but he is the associate of people who have. He began the offensive-ness, and now he pretends, as a thin-skinned individual, that no retort should be made. [Laughter.] Let him laugh. I think it was Goldsmith who said

"The loud laugh that spoke the vacant mind."

I wonder if I might-venture to make an appeal to the House to let us have this Vote now. We have endeavoured, as far as we could, to meet. the crticisms that have been made, but if the House will allow me I will reply to two points in the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down. The first is in regard to Australian wheat. Of course, it is entirely a question of freight, and, as a matter of fact, the wheat could not be-brought here at all except by requisitioning the ships. It is true also that the wheat is going to Italy. Obviously that is right, because Italy is nearer to Australia, and it pays us better to bring wheat here from America.

What is the price-paid?

I cannot tell the-exact price, but I can assure the hon. Member, and indeed he may trust the Australian Prime Minister to see to that, that the full price will be paid. The other point was with regard to the payment of contractors by commission. The disadvantage of that is as obvious to us as it is to the hon. Member, but there are cases where there is no other way. It is difficult sometimes to estimate exactly what is the-cost, and if you leave it to the contractor, when there is great pressure for the-article, it is obvious that he will name a price which will make himself secure, and which will result in the Government paying more rather than less. It is a kind of contract, however, which the Government does not like. I should be very grateful if the House would now give us this Vote.

I wish to rise only for a few minutes to enforce a remark of my hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Hazleton), that when important questions are being raised there is no one on the-Front Bench to hear our remarks or to reply to our questions. Last night the Leader of the House went to dinner. It was natural, but in view of the importance of the occasion it reminded me of the bad steward in the Bible who hid his talents in a napkin. To-day I listened to his previous speech with great pleasure, because he spoke with confidence on subjects with which he is thoroughly conversant, and when a man speaks on any subject, whatever, which he knows au fond, he speaks with authority. The Government are excellent men in a groove and in routine. They are excellent men to drift, but, with the possible exception of the Prime Minister, there is not one man amongst them with a formative, creative mind which entitles him to be a Minister and the Leader of a nation in a great crisis.

My hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Pringle) suggested that I was seldom in the House.

I said it was such a pleasure to see you.

That is an assurance I welcome from the hon. Member. The hon. Gentleman might have reflected, in fairness, that I am never absent from my room from the time the Courts rise at 4 o'clock till dinner time, in consultation, and I am immediately available for the service of the House if the House wants me. There is no difficulty at all about the particular question which he put to me. As I understand it, the matter which has excited his curiosity is that various Members of this House. I will not say have assumed functions but have had spheres of activity given to them under the Government, and my hon. Friend is apprehensive as to the constitutional position. I can assure him that there is no constitutional ground for his anxiety. I do not pretend to keep closely in contact numerically with the various posts—

It is impossible.

But various Members have undoubtedly attempted to discharge functions which are auxiliary to those of the various Departments, and my hon. Friend is anxious to know whether any constitutional difficulty is presented. My own Department has no knowledge of the usefulness of the functions performed by these gentlemen, but I should certainly be slow to assume that they have been invited by Government Departments to place their services at their disposal unless it is anticipated that they will be useful. My hon. Friend is attaching excessive importance, I think, to the labels. If A can do certain work which no one anticipated before the War would be required, surely it is right of the Government to require the services of any Member of this House and to invite him to undertake this work. No one can dispute that those who have been asked to discharge these services, and have willingly undertaken them have been given certain labels, but I think my hon. Friend is unduly impressed by the sonorousness of the different titles.

Window dressing, in fact.

I do not know whether it is due to those who have undertaken these functions or those who asked them to do so. I am certain of this: that they would not have been asked to undertake the functions if the heads of Departments had not believed they would be useful. Hon. Members of this House have shown undoubted willingness to undertake the work, apart from the labels or anything else, and I do not think that any constitutional question of any kind is involved. Under the circumstances I hope the House will realise that the great readiness shown to undertake this work is but a measure of the resources of this country.

At Question Time to-day, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith), the Leader of the House said that if further information were received from Russia he would be glad to communicate it to the House in answer to a question at the time of adjournment. I beg now, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, to ask if the right hon. Gentleman has any statement on the subject to make?

It will be remembered that, in the message which I read to the House last night on the abdication of the Czar and the establishment of a Regency, I was careful to read the exact words of the telegram, which were that the message had been received at the Embassy from the Duma. I noticed at the time, to my regret, it did not say it was from the President of the Duma, and of course I was well aware that the impression on the House would be that it was an accomplished fact. Since then we have received the following message:

"What was stated in my previous telegram does not appear to be quite accurate. The Emperor's abdication and the appointment of the Grand Duke Michael as Regent have not as yet been carried into effect, although decided upon by the Executive Committee."

I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any foundation for the rumours about Ireland? First, I would ask him whether any warning or Proclamation has been issued asking the people to remain indoors; and, secondly, I would ask him whether there is any foundation for the rumour that ten rounds of ammunition have been served out to the Dublin Metropolitan Police?

As I informed the hon. Member earlier, the Chief Secretary is in Ireland. I communicated at once with the Irish Office, and they have been in telephonic communication with him. He has sent the following message, which I am pleased to read to the House:

"No such order or warning has been issued hy the Government. Some apprehension has been caused by rumours of intended demonstrations, but I believe them to have been circulated by mischief makers. I am confident that disturbances on St. Patrick's Day would he resented by responsible people of all shades of opinion in Dublin."