House of Commons
Thursday, August 16, 1917
Education Bill, 1917
Copy presented of Notes on certain Clauses of the Education Bill, 1917 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
College Charter Act, 1871
Copy presented of Petition of the Corporation of Swansea praying for the grant of a Charter incorporating "the University College of Swansea and West Wales," in the said county borough, together with a Copy of the Draft of the Charter applied for [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
East India (Progress and Condition)
Copy presented of Statement exhibiting the moral and material Progress and Condition of India during the year 1915–16. Fifty-second number [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 136.]
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—
County Courts Act, 1888
Copy of Order made by the Lord Chancellor, dated 7th August, 1917, under Section 45 of the County Courts Act, 1888, directing that Alleyne Brown, Registrar of the County Court of Lancaster, shall not practise as a Solicitor [by Act].
Oral Answers to Questions
War
Hospital Ships
Neutral Commissioners Appointed by Spanish Government
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government has agreed that in future British hospital ships shall carry a Spanish naval officer in order to prevent them being attacked by enemy submarines, and will he state if any agreement to this effect has been made with the German Government; and whether all British and Allied hospital ships are registered under the Red Cross Convention at Geneva?
asked the Prime Minister whether an agreement has been made between the Allies and Germany under which Allied hospital ships will not be torpedoed providing Spanish naval officers on board them guarantee that such ships are being used exclusively for medical service; and whether the arrangement is now in operation?
In order to remove all pretence that British hospital ships are misused, His Majesty's Government have agreed that each ship shall carry a neutral Commissioner appointed by the Spanish Government. I understand that the French Government have agreed to a similar arrangement. We hope that this may put an end to enemy attacks on these ships, though we have not yet received a definite assurance to this effect from the enemy Governments. The names of British hospital ships have in all cases been communicated to the enemy Governments before employment, as required by The Hague Convention for the adaptation of the Geneva Convention to maritime warfare, and the same is no doubt the case as regard hospital ships of Allied Powers. Moreover, in the case of British hospital ships, in addition to the names, full particulars to ensure easy identification have been supplied to the enemy Governments.
Did the suggestion arise from our Government or from the German Government?
I am afraid that I cannot say that without notice, but I rather think from ours.
Inter-Allied Conference
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement concerning the proposed conference of Allies to consider war aims; whether the various inter-Ally agreements made during the War will be reconsidered and, if necessary, revised as the Russian Government desires; and at what date and in what place the conference is expected to assemble?
I am afraid that I have nothing to add to the reply returned to the hon. Member's question on the 12th of July.
In view of the importance of this subject, may we know whether, on the Adjournment, the Prime Minister intends to refer to it this afternoon?
I should hesitate to pledge myself as to what will be the contents of my right hon. Friend's speech.
May I ask whether an entirely sympathetic attitude has been taken up in our communications to the Russian Government on this question?
I am quite sure that all our communications to the Russian Government have been entirely sympathetic.
( by Private Notice )asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the desirability of circumventing the proposed labour conference with our enemies, he will invite the Governments of all the Allied Powers to join with the British Government in affording immediate facilities for an international labour and military conference in London, consisting of delegates representative of all labour organisations in this and Allied countries who shall have been elected for this purpose by a special vote, and representatives from the Allied Armies similarly elected, thus providing an opportunity for the representatives of the great majority of peoples engaged in fighting for the Allied cause to give expression to their wishes and their views?
The answer is in the negative.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that by taking this light and airy view of the matter he is encouraging unofficial conferences, which will eventually become a menace to our cause in this War?
The answer did not take a light and airy view, but the question did
Paper Commission
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland (1) what representations have been made to the Paper Commission in consequence of their action in prohibiting the carrying on of the business of James Walker, Limited, of Dublin, as far as the printing, on satin, of pictures to-be enclosed in cigarette packets is concerned; can he state the result of his action in the matter; (2) whether inquiry has been made into the action of the Paper Commission in prohibiting the printing on satin of pictures to be enclosed in cigarette packets; and whether steps have now been taken to prevent any further interference of this kind with a new Irish industry which has been started since the outbreak of the War in order to take the place of a former German monopoly?
My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to these questions. I understand that the representations in regard to the use of satin cigarette pictures are now receiving the careful attention of the Paper Commission who, pending the result of their inquiries, have decided to postpone further action in the matter.
Can the hon. Gentleman say what power the Paper Commission has to issue instructions about printing on satin, seeing that satin comes from France, one of our Allies?
As I have endeavoured to explain before, the Paper Commission entered into negotiations with tobacco manufacturers with a view to saving cardboard, and that tobacco manufacturers should cease to issue packets of cigarettes printed on cardboard. It was felt that if satin pictures were allowed to continue it would be considered a form of unfair competition. That was the attitude taken up at the time, and the other manufacturers of tobacco entered into an arrangement whereby a saving of 800 tons of cardboard was contemplated. The Paper Commission is giving special consideration to the case mentioned by the hon. Member, and they have agreed to postpone the question of the prohibition.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of girls will be disemployed by this action, which interferes with a private and prosperous industry in Dublin?
All those considerations are receiving sympathetic attention.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that cardboard pictures are still enclosed in packets of cigarettes?
My hon. Friend is quite correct, but the manufacturers are using a supply that they have in stock. No further stocks will be printed.
I will call attention to this matter on the Adjournment.
Bushey Park (Allotments)
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he can arrange to grant the application of the urban district council at Hampton-on-Thames for some additional acres of land in Bushey Park for the purpose of allotments?
I have agreed to grant 4 acres of additional land for allotments as a war measure on conditions readily accepted elsewhere, but I regret that I cannot meet the desire of the urban district council for permanent alienation of land in the Royal Parks.
War Contracts (Ireland)
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state, in connection with the issue of war contracts and the receiving of supplies, how many sub-offices there are in Dublin and elsewhere in Ireland; will he say where the stores are situated and the total number of officials engaged; whether, in the interests of economy and convenience, he will arrange for a fully-equipped depot in Dublin; whether it is intended to have a temporarily centralised institution immediately arranged pending the erection of a permanent depot in Dublin; and whether he is aware that the Irish Trades Congress have passed a resolution demanding fulfilment of the promises made in this matter?
So far as ordnance stores are concerned, the position is as follows: As to' sub-offices, there is a pattern room and information bureau in Dublin which has recently been moved to premises in Westland Row. There are no other offices or sub-offices of which the main or primary object is the issue of war contracts and the receiving of supplies, but there are various ordnance depots in Ireland at which goods manufactured in Ireland are delivered for issue to troops in Ireland.
As to the number of officials engaged, there is an officer in charge of the pattern room in Dublin; but, apart from this, the number of officials cannot be definitely-stated, as it varies, from day to day. A large part of the goods manufactured in Ireland are inspected at the manufacturers' works, and the number of inspectors and viewers employed depends on the quantity of goods ready for delivery. As to the establishment of a fully-equipped depot in Dublin, I am afraid I can at present add nothing to the answer given to my hon. Friend on the 2nd instant.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a most influential meeting Was held in Cork yesterday, or the day before, and that a telegram was sent to the Prime Minister and the Secretary for War on this subject, and will it be reconsidered during the Recess, as it is causing an immense amount of dissatisfaction to everybody concerned?
I will bring the matter to the notice of the Financial Secretary, who is dealing particularly with this matter.
I will call attention to this subject on the Adjournment.
Merchant Service (Silver War Badge)
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it has now been decided to issue the silver war badge to officers and men of the merchant ser-vice who are incapacitated by enemy action and unable to follow their occupation; and whether any alteration in any Royal Warrant is necessary to this end?
Arrangements are being made for the distribution of the silver war badge to officers and seamen of merchant ships who, by reason of wounds received through enemy action, or by reason of illness attributable to war service, are compelled to give up their employment in the mercantile marine. I learn on further inquiry that no alteration of any Royal Warrant is necessary.
Will that be retrospective, and apply to all men incapacitated?
I think so.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will at once take steps to alter the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act in respect to the stoppage of pay of officers and men of the merchant service as from the date of the sinking of a vessel; and whether he will see that provision is made in future not only for these men to reach their homes without having to appeal to charitable organisations, but to supply them with the necessaries of life until they can continue to earn their living under existing conditions?
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the crews of British ships that are sunk are, when saved, paid off at the port they are landed at and that often the amount of pay they have to receive will not pay their fare to their homes, thus forcing them to rely upon charitable associations for financial assistance; and whether, seeing that the greater number of ships now sunk are sunk by enemy submarines, he will make arrangements to provide crews under these circumstances with food and tickets to their homes?
asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking as regards the treatment of British crews after the sinking of their ships; and if he is willing, and in a position, to give instructions that officers and men of British merchant ships sunk through being caused by a war risk shall, after being brought to England, be sent back at the expense of the Government to their port of signing on and there paid off?
Arrangements have been made to secure that every officer or seaman of a ship lost by war risks shall be entitled, as a matter of right, to one month's wages, or wages up to the date of arrival in the United Kingdom, whichever is the greater. The machinery which already exists for forwarding seamen to their homes has worked very efficiently, and I propose to continue to avail myself of it, The cost is in most cases recovered from the owners of the ship, and arrangements have been made to prevent any financial loss falling upon private funds. There can, therefore, be no question of charity in the matter.
Does the one month's wages mean one month dating from the time at which the vessel was sunk—one month after the vessel was sunk?
Yes.
Shipwrecked Sailors (Insurance)
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the Government's proposals for the free insurance of shipwrecked sailors; and if the scheme provides for passengers?
The arrangements made for giving compensation to officers and seamen who lose their effects through enemy action are shown in the White Paper (Cd. 8706) which has just been issued. These arrangements do not apply to passengers.
Merchant Service (Officers' Uniform)
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make any announcement as to a decision having been arrived at with regard to a standard uniform for officers in the merchant service?
The question of a standard uniform for the merchant service is being considered by a Special Committee, which has not yet reported.
Petrol Supply
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Petrol Control Board for Ireland has as yet been finally constituted; whether his attention has been called to the delay in bringing the work of such Board into operation and to the inconvenience caused to the public thereby; and will he take steps to have any necessary arrangements connected with the Board and its entry on its duties expedited?
I have appointed a Committee to advise the Petrol Controller on the distribution of motor spirit for civil and industrial needs in Ireland. The necessary arrangements have been made for the Committee to take up its duties immediately.
Will the right hon. Gentleman make arrangements in case of invalids making application with doctors' certificates that they are to receive a supply of petrol?
As I explained, every case is considered on its merits, and that indicated by the hon. Gentleman is sympathetically considered.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Mr. Nobbs, acting on behalf of the Farmers' Union in Norfolk and Suffolk, is using motor vans for the purpose of supplying farmers with men to act as strike breakers, and also using the same motor vans to supply bedding, chairs, and tables for the housing of these men at Honington and Euston, in the Fakenham district, in Suffolk; and cm he state whether petrol supplies have been issued for this purpose; and, if so, will he take steps to cancel the licence for such supplies of petrol?
I am not aware of the circumstances mentioned in the first part of the question; no petrol supplies have been issued specifically for the purposes mentioned, but Mr. Nobbs, of the Station Hotel, Attleborough, holds a petrol licence in respect of two cars which he lets out for hire.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state whether an alteration can be made in the form of motor spirit licence at present being issued so as to provide for the issue of a larger quantity of second-grade motor spirit in place of the limited quantity of first-grade motor spirit now allowed where the applicant may be prepared to use the second-grade spirit instead?
An alteration in the form of motor spirit licence at present in use would involve considerable administrative difficulties; the question of the encouragement and distribution to commercial users of home-produced second-grade motor spirit is now being considered by a Special Committee.
When was the Committee set up and when may we expect its Report?
I think my reply indicated that the Committee has only just been set up.
Railway Station Cabs
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any steps have been taken to bring about a settlement of the railway station cab-toll dispute; and, if so, can he state the result?
I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply given on this subject yesterday to the hon. Member for West Newington.
Enemy Aliens
asked the President of the Board of Trade why the Pera Cigarette Company, whose sole proprietor is Reshid Sadi Bey, an interned Turk, has not been wound up and sold as an enemy concern; if he can say who has been endeavouring to secure the release of this man from internment; and is he still a director of the Turkish Tobacco Export Company?
As to the first point, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which was given to the hon. Member for Plymouth on the 25th July last. As to the second point, I have no information. The question of internment is one for the Home Office to deal with. I understand that Reschid Sadi Bey is still a director of the Turkish Tobacco Export Company.
May I ask why, if he is an interned enemy alien, he is allowed to be a director?
As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, the procedure adopted is that the Board of Trade set up an advisory committee, and it is on their representation that this result has been adopted.
asked whether Szarvasy is an enemy alien and still at large; if so, why is he allowed to be the managing director of the British, Foreign, and Colonial Corporation; and whether he is able to obtain the consent of the New Issues Committee, while British-born financiers are unable to obtain any facilities whatever?
The person referred to is a Hungarian who has been resident in this country for twenty-two years, and has been exempted from internment on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee. The matters referred to in the last two parts of the question concern the Board of Trade and the Treasury.
Silk Trade
asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the results to British trade from the import from the Continent of silk veilings and nets, which are delivered at lower prices than it would cost to buy the silk in the United Kingdom, whereby manufacturers and operatives in this class of textile business are suffering something approaching extinction; and when an embargo will be placed on the import of such goods?
I have at present no information on the subject, but I shall be happy to institute inquiries if the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of the cases referred to; the import of these goods is restricted to 50 per cent. of normal imports.
Matches (Home Supply)
asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he has received complaints from country districts, including the Hemel Hempsted district, with regard to the shortage of matches; whether the Home supply of matches is adequate to meet requirements; and, if not, whether the Board of Trade are considering the adoption of any measures and, if so, what measures for increasing the supply; and whether the prohibition of the import of matches can be relaxed?
Representations Rave been received from traders and others in several districts to the effect that the supply of matches is not so great as the demand. This I readily admit is doubtless the case in many places, but it is hoped that the home supply can be adjusted to meet requirements without serious hardship, thus avoiding the sacrifice of freight for the import of additional supplies.
What is going to be done to supply those people who cannot get matches?
We are endeavouring to adjust and reorganise the supply.
Does the hon. Gentleman not recollect that it was pointed out that this would happen, and has the Board of Trade taken any steps to meet the situation which was anticipated?
I acknowledge that my hon. Friend directed my attention to it, and I have kept the matter constantly under review.
Munitions
Workers (Railway Facilities)
asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the fact that munition workers who visited their homes in Bradford last week, and who had received vouchers entitling them to cheap fares, with which they had obtained return tickets, were refused permission to use the return halves of their tickets at the Midland Railway station at Bradford and told that they must book again and apply for a refund; if his attention has also been called to the fact that some of the munition workers concerned were compelled, in consequence of this action on the part of the Midland Railway Company, to remain in Bradford until they could get the money to pay the unexpected charge and lost a day's work in consequence; and whether he will recoup the munition workers who were thus deprived of their earnings for the loss they have sustained?
My hon. Friend has called my attention to a complaint which he has received to this effect. I am making inquiries into the matter and will let him know the result.
Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic)
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he will inform the House before it rises what action the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic), of its own motion or under direction of the Government proposes to take, or what action the Government proposes to take, in order to provide more beer for consumption by munition workers and others; whether the increase sanctioned for the hot weather will be extended; and whether further barrelage of light beer will be sanctioned?
The Government are aware of the existing shortage of beer, and the whole matter is now under consideration.
Would the hon. Gentleman mind stating, in order to remove a popular misconception, that the action of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) has nothing to do with the recent restrictions?
I think that idea has originated through a popular misconception of the duties of the Control Board.
asked the Minister of Munitions what are the conclusions of the advisory committees appointed by the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) to consider the effects on health and industrial efficiency produced by the consumption of drinks of various alcoholic strengths; and whether any, and, if so, what, action has been, or will be, taken on such conclusions?
The Advisory Committee appointed by the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) to consider the effects on health and industrial efficiency produced by the consumption of drinks of various alcoholic strengths is conducting investigations relative to this question, and has not yet formulated its conclusions. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.
Are they proceeding by way of experiment?
Will the Report be published?
Certainly.
asked the Minister of Munitions when the further figures regarding the regulation of the drink traffic in the various munition areas of Great Britain, which on the 17th July were in course of preparation with a view to publication, will be published?
It is hoped to publish these figures shortly.
Damage by Explosion
asked the Minister of Munitions whether he has received claims for damage done to industrial property due to the explosion at Ashton-under-Lyne; and whether he will expedite the examination of such claims and the payment thereof?
A number of such claims have been received. The Ministry's assessors are dealing as rapidly as possible with them and over one-third have already been paid. As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, the Ministry is not legally liable for these claims, but it has assumed responsibility to make good any deficiency, and negotiations are pending with those primarily liable.
Military Service
Local Tribunals
asked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has now had an opportunity of considering the speech recently delivered in St. John's Primitive Church, Bridlington, by Mr. J. D. Fenby, a member of the Bridlington Local Tribunal; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
My right hon. Friend has not received Mr. Fenby's observations with regard to the matter in question. He is again communicating with him.
asked the President of the Local Government Board whether the Central Tribunal has issued any Regulations as to its procedure; in what relation does it stand to the Committee on Work of National Importance; are there any Regulations governing the relations between the two bodies; and whether the Central Tribunal has power to delegate any of its functions or duties to the Committee on Work of National Importance, such as the power to impose conditions on which exemption from military service shall be granted?
I am not aware that the Central Tribunal have issued any Regulations as to their procedure. The Committee on Work of National Importance is an advisory body to assist tribunals, and it is open to the tribunal to refer any case which they think fit to the Committee. It is for the tribunal to decide on what conditions exemption shall be given, and it is open to them in suitable cases to provide that exemption shall be conditional on the undertaking of work under the direction of the Committee on Work of National Importance.
Conscientious Objectors
asked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. H. L. Prentice, of 9, Lilac Road, Hale, who was granted work of national importance by the Stockport and East Cheshire Appeal Tribunal with Messrs. Clibrans, of Hale, Altrincham, at £l a week; whether the firm are now willing to pay him 26s. a week, but the tribunal will not allow this; and whether, in view of the fact that he has a widowed mother and four sisters largely dependent on him, and that the other conscientious objectors on the firm are being paid 26s. a week, representations will be made to the tribunal to reconsider their decision?
My right hon. Friend is making inquiry of the tribunal respecting the case, and I will communicate with the hon. Member.
asked the Home Secretary if he has received a letter from the Blackpool Trades and Labour Council about the case of a conscientious objector named W. Pickles, detained in Shrewsbury Prison, in which it is pointed out that his health has been seriously undermined on account of the insufficiency and nature of the food supplied to him; and what action has been taken in the matter?
I have received the letter referred to, and I find, on inquiry, that, in the opinion of the medical officer, this prisoner's health is not impaired. He cannot be released for employment under the Home Office scheme because the Central Tribunal, after hearing him, were unable to report that he had a conscientious objection to military service.
In view of the very large number of complaints of a character similar to this of insufficiency of food given to prisoners in a great many prisons, will the Home Secretary have special inquiries made into the question?
No, Sir; I have not received complaints, and the Food Controller's scale is observed.
asked the Undersecretary of State for War if James E. Devlin, a conscientious objector now in prison at Gosport, has been on bread and water for three months; if he is in solitary confinement; if he is allowed only half an hour's exercise a week; if so, for what reason is this treatment being inflicted; and will a report on Devlin's physical condition be immediately called for?
I am making inquiries, and will inform my hon. Friend of the result as soon as possible.
Recruiting
asked the Prime Minister whether he can state to which Department recruiting is to be transferred and who is to be head of the new Department; and whether the whole duties in connection with recruiting will be performed by this Department?
The announcement of the name of Mr. Neville Chamberlain's successor will be made shortly. As regards the other parts of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Loughborough on the 7th August.
I beg to give the right hon. Gentleman notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment and expose the inexcusable and hopeless delay of the "do-it-now" Government?
Arising out of the answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that the Committee actually went to the trouble of bringing in a special Report in order that something should be done before the Adjournment, that the Government gave this Committee because of the injustice done to these men, and does he think it right that the nomination of civilian men should be made in the Recess?
The hon. Member had better put that question down.
I will raise it on the Adjournment.
Review of Exceptions (Special Report)
asked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a statement as to the intentions of the Government with reference to the recommendations on the Special Report of the Select Committee on the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act?
These are under consideration, and an early decision is anticipated.
Will any decision be made before the House adjourns?
I think not.
I will raise this question on the Adjournment to-day.
Can we have an assurance from the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House as to this; that the men who are concerned in. re-examination now shall not be called up for re-examination until the new civilian boards are set up?
I can make no statement beyond that which I have given in my answer.
Have instructions been issued to the military authorities, following upon this Report, so as to make it impossible that these things should recur?
Can my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House say whether the secret instructions issued by General Keogh have now been cancelled, or are they now in operation?
The hon. Member must give notice of that.
I cannot.
Ministry of Munitions (Employes)
asked the Minister of Munitions whether F. A. Martin and F. W. Wright, employed in the Finance Department of the Ministry of Munitions, who have served overseas and have been discharged from the Army as medically unfit, have been ordered by the Ministry to submit to medical re-examination on threat of instant dismissal; if so, whether this is in accordance with the concession granted to discharged men by the Undersecretary for War?
Arrangements are being made for members of the staff of the Ministry to whom the provisions of the Military Service (Review of Exemptions) Act, 1917, and the Army Council Instruction No. 643 of 1917 apply to undergo a medical re-examination. The officer of the Ministry who requested Messrs. Martin and Wright to submit themselves for re-examination was unaware of the concession to men who have served overseas recently announced in the House of Commons by the Under-Secretary of State for War. The request has now been withdrawn, and steps are being taken to prevent the recurrence of such an incident. There was no threat of instant dismissal if the men did not undergo re-examination.
Assessors and Collectors of Taxes
asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Treasury has received a recommendation from the Board of Inland Revenue that financial allowances should be granted to assessors and collectors of taxes called up for service with His Majesty's forces; and, if so, will he state the reasons which have induced the Treasury to decline to sanction such financial allowances while authorising similar payment to all other grades of Civil servants?
I would refer to the replies which I gave on this subject on the 15th instant and the 24th ultimo. With reference to the latter part of the question I would point out that the large majority of assessors and collectors of taxes are appointed by local bodies of Commissioners of Taxes throughout the country; that under statutory conditions they are appointed for one year only; and that the majority of them are part-time servants, concentrating their duties within a few months of the year, and generally combining them with other business. For these reasons they are not comparable with whole-time officers in the direct employment of the State, for whom circular terms were designed.
Customs and Excise Men
asked if the practice of the Board of Customs and Excise now being carried out in regard to the release of men for military service is to release men according to age, if in categories A and B 1, irrespective of the fact that they are volunteers, attested, or un-attested; and whether he will explain why this course is adopted in view of the promise given in General Order 25/17 that, if possible, priority of release should be given to men who had responded to the call for volunteers?
The principle of release according to age was followed by the Board of Customs and Excise in accordance with the wishes of the Government.
That is to say it is a violation of the General Order referred to in the question?
I cannot admit that. The circumstances were different at the time that Order was issued.
Cases Under Inquiry
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War with regard to the case of Private J. E. Tipping, No. 205,325, 5th Lancashire Fusiliers, stationed at Race Course camp, Scarborough, son of Mrs. Tipping, of 23, Gavin Street, Cross Lane, Salford, whether Tipping was rejected three times for consumption; whether he has been under treatment at Drinkwater Hospital within the last two or three years for consumption; whether he has quite recently been under treatment in the imbecile ward at Hope Hospital, Pendleton, and was called up from there to the local tribunal eight or nine weeks ago and was passed Class A; whether he has been weak and ill since he joined up and has been sentenced to twenty-one days in Derby Prison; whether he is considered to be the kind of man who is likely to make a useful soldier; and whether he can be re-examined with a view to a different classification?
Inquiries are being made, and I will inform my hon. Friend of the result.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, when a soldier has been detained for a month in a civilian lunatic asylum, an intimation is sent by the War Office to the manager and committee of the asylum to the effect that the patient has been discharged from the Army and is no longer under military control; whether, in the following cases such intimation has been sent to the asylum authorities, namely: Private Herbert A. Shorley, admitted to West Riding Asylum, Wakefield, 28th February, 1917; Private A. E. Statton, admitted to West Riding Asylum, Wakefield, 30th March, 1917; Private J. Frost, admitted to Bucks County Asylum, Aylesbury, 30th March, 1917; Private Aneurin Morgan, admitted to Rainhill Asylum, Liverpool, 1st February, 1917; Private F. P. Parrish, admitted to Long Grove Asylum, Epsom, 3rd March, 1917, and said to have been transferred to Severalls Asylum, Colchester, 25th July, 1917; and Private Frank Piper, admitted to Hanwell Asylum, 5th July, 1917; and, in the event of no such intimation having yet reached the asylum authorities, will steps be taken to acquaint them that in all analogous cases the soldier, after the lapse of a month's detention, has returned to the status of an ordinary civilian?
I am afraid that I am not able to inquire into the cases brought to notice by the hon. Member without knowing the numbers and units of the men concerned. If the hon. Member will furnish me with these details I will inquire. In regard to the first and last parts of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given him on the 9th instant.
Is it not possible, when the present whereabouts of these men is known, for inquiries to be made without a great deal of red tape?
Inquiries with the information at my disposal would be extremely difficult.
asked the Undersecretary of State for War with regard to the case of Sergeant Frank B. Green, No. 10815, 18th Manchester Regiment, whether he was on 23rd April this year given the acting duty and rank of sergeant-major; whether he continued to act as sergeant-major till 25th July, when he was wounded; and why it is he has not received the pay of sergeant-major during that period?
I will inquire into this case, and inform my hon. Friend of the result.
asked the Undersecretary of State for War, with regard to the case of Private Thomas Nash, of the 1st Labour Battalion, of Park Hall Camp, Oswestry, whether papers had been sent through for him to work in a colliery; whether the papers were in April last lost in the post; and whether fresh papers will be prepared in view of the fact that various collieries in Pendleton and area are willing to employ him?
Inquiries are being made, and my hon. Friend will be informed of the result.
Time-Expired Men (Leave)
asked the Undersecretary of State for War what steps are being taken to give effect to the undertaking of His Majesty's Government that men otherwise time-expired who are retained with the Colours under the Military Service Act shall have a month's leave and a gratuity?
Army Order 209 was published in 1916 laying down the conditions of the gratuity, and it is issued under it. Effect is given to the undertaking about leave in Instructions issued by the Army Council in 1916.
Recruiting (Somerset)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to establish a new civilian' recruiting office for the county of Somerset with fifteen head officials and 100 clerks under them; and whether it is considered that adequate employment can be found for this staff?
I think my hon. and gallant Friend had better put down his question again when the new Department for dealing with recruiting has been established.
May I ask when that will be?
I think my hon. and gallant Friend must put that question to the Leader of the House.
Empire Parliamentary Association (Mr. Howard D'egville)
asked the Undersecretary of State for War whether Mr. Howard D'Egville, secretary to the United Kingdom branch of the Empire Parliamentary Association, is of military age; whether he attested under the Derby scheme; in what category is he classified; whether he has been exempted from military service; and, if so, on what grounds?
Inquiries are being made, but they would be facilitated if Mr. D'Egville's registered address could be furnished by my Eon. Friend.
Agricultural Work (Suffolk)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) whether the Agricultural Details Company in Suffolk, which body is under military control, is supplying soldiers to the farmers to act where required to defeat the men in their efforts to secure fair remuneration for harvest work; (2) whether the farmers in some districts of Suffolk are threatening to introduce soldiers to take the places of farm workers if the workmen concerned do not accept the remuneration for harvest work offered by the farmers; whether the use of such statements is creating considerable feeling; and will he give a definite denial to any such use being made of the labour of soldiers?
There is no intention of using soldiers to replace civilian farm workers. If my hon. Friend has any case in mind, I shall be happy to inquire if he will give me particulars. Soldiers are only sent to work on the land at the request of the county agricultural executive committees, when civilian labour is unobtainable.
Civil Liabilities Committee
asked the Undersecretary of State for War whether any decision has been arrived at by the Civil Liabilities Relief Committee as to awarding relief in cases where a sum is claimed to meet the rent of premises used for business purposes held on lease by a soldier at the date of his enlistment; and, if so, what course will be adopted by the Committee in such cases?
Grants have been made by the Civil Liabilities Committee in respect of the rent of business premises in a considerable number of cases. The decision in any case must depend on the particular circumstances, but I am informed that generally the Committee are prepared to grant assistance where they are satisfied that the surrender of premises would involve loss to the applicant.
C3 Men (Training)
asked the Undersecretary of State for War if he is aware that a large proportion of the men belonging to B Company, 80th Training Reserve Battalion, stationed at Gosforth, Newcastle-on-Tyne, are of the C3 class, and that they carry rifles, go on route marches, and are put through physical drills; and whether, having regard to the fact that men of this class have been understood to be fit for sedentary work only, he will say if it is in accordance with Army Council instructions that men of C3 class are being subjected to this form of training?
Recruits of this category are put through special graduated courses at the discretion of the commanding officer in consultation with the medical officer of the unit. If they are unable to perform these modified courses, duties are rearranged under the instructions of the medical officer to suit individual cases.
Is my hon. Friend not aware that many men in these categories are put to these duties simply by a sergeant-major without any reference to the commanding officer?
No; I am not aware of that.
Is my hon. Friend not aware that there are many complaints that that is being done?
My hon. Friend has not given me any complaints.
Old Age Pensions
asked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that during the War the limit of earnings permitted to old age pensioners has been relaxed, but that no (similar concession has been allowed in the case of new applicants otherwise qualified to receive the old age pension; and whether he will consider if it is possible to make some concession during the War to new applicants in respect of their earnings?
I regret that I am unable to make the concession which my hon. Friend suggests.
Does the hon. Gentleman realise the great sense of injustice that the new applicant feels with regard to this matter when he realises that his neighbour three or four years older and doing exactly the same kind of work and drawing the same amount is receiving his pension?
The original injustice was committed by the Treasury in straining the law with regard to old applicants, but we find the strain with regard to the new brings us to the breaking point.
asked the Paymaster-General, as representing the Charity Commissioners, if the governors of the late Dr. Lees' rest houses, Anlaby Road, Hull, also the governors of Lister's Rooms, Fountain Road, Hull, are reducing the sum usually paid to the recipients by 2s. 6d. per week, thus diverting the recent concession to old pensioners made by the Government to other interests than those intended by Parliament, which intention was to assist the aged poor to better bear the abnormal conditions of War; and, if so, will he say what steps are proposed to prevent such diversion of public help from those for whom it is intended?
The Charity Commissioners have no knowledge of any such reduction but are making inquiries on the subject, and the result of such inquiries will be communicated to the hon. Member. If it should prove that in the case of either charity the trustees are exceeding their powers or are treating the additional 2s. 6d. per week as properly secured income for the purpose of calculating the amount payable as stipend or pension the Commissioners will take such steps as may be in their power to protect the interests of the recipients. The policy of the Commissioners is to secure, wherever possible, that the stipends of almspeople and pensioners shall be of sufficient amount to enable the recipients to live in comfort.
asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether old age pension inquiry officers have instructions that in cases when a pensioner is ill and a relative pays the necessary doctor's bill that such a payment is to be treated as part income of the pensioner; whether he is aware that in a recent case in South London the old age pension was stopped because such a payment was made; and whether, in view of the hardship of such a decision, he will issue instructions to inquiry officers that such special payments are not to be treated as regular or fixed income of a pensioner?
Pension officers have no instructions of the nature suggested; whether or not payment for medical attendance on a pensioner could be held to be means for pension purposes would depend upon the circumstances of the case, and the determination of this would rest not with the pension officer, but with the local pension committee, subject to appeal to the Local Government Board. Without further particulars, I cannot distinguish the case referred to.
Food Supplies
Apples
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will make further inquiries as to the existence of vacant cargo spaces in ships leaving ports whence apples are exported, in order that no possible opportunity may be lost of facilitating the import of a fruit so valuable from the point of view of public health?
I am afraid that I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to ques- tions on this subject asked by the hon. Members for the Bridgeton and College Divisions of Glasgow on 6th August. This subject, however, is continuing to receive the careful attention of the Government.
Sugar Deliveries
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if his attention has been drawn to complaints from retail grocers as to the slow and infrequent delivery of sugar supplies; what is the practice of the Sugar Commission as regards deliveries of sugar to retailers; whether only one delivery a month is made; and, if so, will he, in order to supply regular deliveries to all consumers, provide in future that retailers should be supplied with the quantity they are allowed every week?
The Sugar Commission does not as a rule deal direct with retail grocers, and has no knowledge of any complaint of this kind from them. The ordinary retailer deals with a wholesale trader who makes the best arrangement he can for delivery. There is no rule as to the frequency with which deliveries are made, but whenever possible delivery is made in original packages, to avoid the necessity for breaking bulk and repacking, which is expensive and wasteful of time and labour. If, therefore, a retailer's supplies amounted to ½ cwt. per week he would get one bag of 2 cwts. per month. It is not considered practicable to insist that retailers should be supplied weekly in all cases.
Bread (Isle of Man)
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether the 9d. loaf will be on sale in the Isle of Man; and whether the Imperial Government have decided to bear the cost or whether this matter is to be left to the Legislature of the island?
The Food Controller is not directly concerned with the regulation of food supplies in the Isle of Man; but he will be glad to co-operate, so far as possible, with the authorities in that island for the purpose of effecting a reduction in the price of bread should those authorities desire to bring about this reduction.
Scottish Raspberry Crop
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether any Scottish firms of jam-makers, besides Messrs. Keiller, of Dundee, and Messrs. Robertson, of Paisley, are participating in the original allotment of the Scottish raspberry crop; and whether the others will have to depend on the proportion that may be allotted to them after the quantity required by the Government has been secured?
The two firms mentioned are the only Scottish jam-makers supplying the Navy and Army contracts, and they shared with other Government contractors the first 2,000 tons of Scottish raspberries which were reserved for such contracts. Thirty-nine other Scottish jam-makers are sharing in the surplus for the purpose of their private trade.
Do I understand that preference was given to these two particular firms over other firms in the trade?
No; that should not be understood from the numerous answers given on this subject.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that some of the Scottish jam manufacturers grow their own fruit; and whether, where that is the case with raspberries, steps will be taken to prevent their own crops being sent to other and competing manufacturers without any substituted supply being provided for them?
Yes, Sir. Instructions have been given to secure that the geographical position of the crops should be considered in arranging for its distribution.
asked whether, for the purposes of the commission payable to Mr. T. H. Hodge on the Scottish raspberry crop, the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society will be regarded as an association; and whether his commission on raspberries grown by them will be limited to 5s. per ton?
I understand from Mr. Hodge that, so far as he is aware, the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society grow no raspberries. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.
Has the hon. Gentleman made particular inquiry about that?
Yes, I have.
Food Commissioners
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what is to be the salary of the Food Commissioners who have just been appointed; why have these Commissioners all been taken from outside and not chosen from the officials in charge of the various districts who are carrying out the duties at present and have experience of the work; is the Food Controller aware that many of the present officials are men of great administrative and general experience, who are giving their services at very moderate salaries from National Service reasons, and that they resent being passed over in this way in favour of others who have no experience of the duties; and will the Food Controller bear in mind these experienced inspectors in connection with the further appointments which are in contemplation?
In selecting Commissioners the Food Controller has been guided solely by the need of securing the best administrative ability available for the performance of the wide and novel duties which he proposes to entrust to them. He has already taken into account any experience of food control work possessed by candidates for appointment, and this policy will be continued. Salaries varying from £600 to £800 per annum have provisionally been attached to these posts.
Does this extend to Ire land? Is it intended to appoint Commissioners in that country?
I am not aware that any appointment has yet been made in Ireland, but no distinction will be made between the two countries.
May I ask whether it is made a condition that men thus employed shall not have any share whatsoever in any food-producing society or company?
I will represent that. It seems a very desirable thing.
Are we to understand that the Food Controller takes the view that outside candidates are superior to those he has inside his Department?
I hope my hon. Friend will not draw that conclusion.
Will the hon. Gentlemen say whether those Commissioners will devote the whole of their time to the work?
That is intended.
Slash-Hook Handles
asked the Minister of Munitions if a permit will be granted to Messrs. David Bolger and Sons, of Ferns, county Wexford, agricultural implement manufacturers, to import 500 dozen slash-hook handles from Messrs. W. L. Strock and Company, of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, United States of America, via Liverpool-Dublin, without delay, as these handles are urgently required for agricultural purposes?
I understand that the firm have already been asked, on 23rd June, to give the Ministry the information required for the issue of the necessary permit.
Damage by Pheasants
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether the Order permitting the shooting of pheasants by tenant-farmers in the districts where they are damaging crops applies to Scotland; and, if not, will he undertake, in view of the waste and destruction caused by this class of winged game, to forthwith extend the Order to that part of the United Kingdom over which he has jurisdiction?
The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The conditions in Scotland differ considerably from those which led to the issue of the Order relating to pheasants in England; but the situation in regard to all game birds is being carefully watched with a view to any action which the circumstances may require.
Does the right hon. Gentleman think that pheasants do not injure crops in Scotland?
Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to ascertain the facts in Scotland with regard to this matter?
I have already done so.
The facts are as I have stated them.
Deer Forests (Scotland)
asked the Secretary for Scotland what steps have been taken to secure that the grazings of Scottish deer forests shall be available for sheep grazing and the production of food products; whether any security of tenure is given to a tenant stocking such grazings to the extent, it may be, with sheep valued at several thousands of pounds; and what steps are being taken to prevent such grazings as may be suitable for sheep or cultivation from reverting to deer forest at the termination of the War?
Steps have been taken, both by the issue of circulars recommending voluntary action on the part of landlords and by compulsory Orders under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, to make deer forest grazings available for sheep or cattle. With reference to the last two parts of the question, the powers of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland are necessarily conditioned by the terms of the Defence of the Realm Acts and Regulations, which are, of course, of a temporary character.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in certain cases in Scotland where deer forests have been offered for grazing purposes and where a suitable tenant has been found by the proprietor another tenant has been preferred by the Board of Agriculture and has been placed over his head?
I have no personal knowledge of the cases to which my hon. Friend refers, but if he will give me the particulars I will inquire.
I shall be glad to do so.
May I ask if voluntary action has been taken by proprietors in a great many cases to offer their deer forests for grazing?
Yes; certainly.
Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the powers of the Board of Agriculture are extended so as to give greater security of tenure to the tenant?
I think the powers which exist are ample.
Invention Departments
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the waste of time and money occasioned by the lack of co-ordination and the resultant overlapping between the various invention Departments, the War Cabinet will at an early date institute an inquiry in order to discover what improvements are practicable in the present organisation and development of inventions?
This subject is at present under investigation.
Malt Supply
asked the Prime Minister what is the present policy of the Government with regard to the malting of barley; whether any change has been made in that policy during the last three months; whether he can assure the House that no change will be made in that policy except after the House has had notice of the intention to make such change and an opportunity of discussing the matter?
asked the Prime Minister, as it is estimated that the present stock of malt will last to the end of November, whether he can state that no further malting will be permitted during the autumn Adjournment of Parliament?
Malting must be resumed early in September if any brewing is to be permitted after the end of November, by which time the existing stocks will be exhausted. The Government have decided meantime to permit malting to the extent necessary for brewing the quantity of beer which is being allowed during the present year, but the subject will be reconsidered in two or three months in the light of the supply of food then available.
Do I understand that the stock of 1,200,000 quarters of malt which we were told was in the country will be exhausted by November?
That is so.
May I ask if the output of beer is to be increased during the three months following the quarter which has already been dealt with?
No, that is not the meaning of my answer. The position remains the same until next year. Malting is permitted to the extent of the supply necessary to produce the same quantity that is being brewed.
May I ask whether the increased output that was allowed in respect of the last quarter will be allowed to continue during the quarter which will be begun before the House meets?
There is no intention of altering the arrangement made that the increased supply will continue during the three months.
The undertaking that was given has not been carried out.
I do not know to what undertaking the hon. Gentleman refers.
In February of this year.
Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer give an undertaking that there will be no alteration till the House meets again in October?
No, I am not prepared to give such an undertaking. We have at present no intention of making any change.
May I ask whether it does not depend entirely upon the supplies and their regulation by the Government?
I have already said that the whole subject will be reviewed in two or three months in the light of the food supplies.
Questions
Industrial Unrest
asked the Prime Minister whether he intends to take any and what action on the Reports of the Commissioners on Industrial Unrest?
I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Attercliffe on 6th August.
Trade Boards Act
asked the Prime Minister whether he intends to introduce legislation to amend the Trade Boards Act; and when it will be introduced?
A Bill on this subject is being prepared, but I am unable to say when it will be introduced.
Will it be introduced in the Autumn Session?
I have already said to my hon. Friend that I am unable to make any statement about it.
Dressmaking and Millinery
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the reference made by the Industrial Unrest Commissioners for the Scotland area as to the low wages and bad conditions in the dressmaking and millinery trades, and their recommendation that the Trade Boards Act should be applied to those trades; and what action he is proposing to take in the matter?
I am aware that the conditions in the trades in question leave much to be desired not only in Scotland but in other parts of the United Kingdom. The Ministry of Labour have for some time past been conducting inquiries into the conditions in these and kindred trades, with a view to bringing them under the Trade Boards Act.
May I ask if the establishment of a Wages Board in Ireland is under consideration, because it has been promised for a long time?
Yes; it is under consideration, and we hope to be able to come to some conclusion.
Mr. A. Henderson (Visit to Paris)
asked the Prime Minister whether the War Cabinet held a special meeting on the 26th July, immediately prior to the visit of the right hon. Member for Barnard Castle to Paris; whether any decision was arrived at about his visit to Paris; and whether the War Cabinet knew that he was going and what he was going for?
I cannot add anything to what I have already said on this subject in the House.
Arising out of that, is my right hon. Friend aware that he has not said anything at all about the question that I have here. What I want to know is, did the Cabinet meet on 26th July?
The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I said in this House the other day in Debate that the Cabinet did meet on July 26th.
Arising out of that, if the Cabinet met on July 26th, was it in possession of the information as to why the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnard Castle went to Paris?
If my hon. Friend will look at the answers and statements made he will see that this question has already been answered.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is because I have looked at these and do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman should not have given accurate answers before that I put this question down?
I am sorry I cannot assist my hon. Friend's understanding in the matter.
Would it not be well for the right hon. Gentleman to issue a statement which will reconcile the conflicting statements he has made?
The hon. Gentlemen is entirely mistaken. I have made no conflicting statements.
Autumn Recess (Parliament)
asked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to give this House an assurance that, in the event of a social, military, or political crisis occurring during the Recess, he will take immediate steps to reassemble Parliament?
The necessary steps would, of course, be taken by the Government in the event of any emergency arising which required the reassembling of Parliament.
Is not a political crisis imminent as the result of the message of Kerensky which appears in to-day's "Daily News," and which shows that the Prime Minister flagrantly misrepresented the views of the Russian Government?
That hardly arises out of the question; but the statement of the hon. Member is entirely inaccurate.
Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of an armistice, or anything relating to a conference with the enemy, a crisis?
I should certainly consider an armistice a crisis.
If an armistice—
Will the hon. Gentleman kindly ask question 54?
Soldiers (Political Meetings)
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the possibility of an election taking place before the Representation of the People Bill becomes law, he will consider the advisability of removing from the King's Regulations the Clause which prohibits soldiers in uniform from attending political meetings?
The answer is in the negative.
Arising out of that, are we to understand that in the event of a General Election taking place before the Representation of the People Bill becomes law, soldiers will not be able to attend political meetings or have an opportunity of expressing their views?
The hon. Member has had a very direct answer.
Would the right hon. Gentleman not consider a revision of the King's Regulations in view of the fact that soldiers for the first time are going to take political action?
That may be, but both the Government and the War Office have carefully considered the matter, and have come to the conclusion that any interference with the ordinary discipline of our armed forces is not desirable.
Will officers be permitted to take part in these matters?
I think the Regulations apply to everyone wearing the uniform of His Majesty.
Are we definitely to understand that no officer will be—
Order, order! Mr. Pringle.
On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Am I not in order, in view of the pending Adjournment to-day— which will give no opportunity for raising this matter again before the Adjournment—and in view of the fact that an election may take place during the Recess, to press this question on the Prime Minister and get a definite answer as to the position of soldiers and officers?
Having already called the Member for North-West Lanark, my reply is "No!"
Channel Tunnel
asked the Prime Minister if he can now say whether the Government is in favour of the construction of the Channel Tunnel, provided that it is a condition that no work is to be done or money raised in connection with the tunnel during the continuance of the War except with the consent and at the request of the Government, and that on these conditions the Government will support the Bill when introduced to give the necessary powers to link up the South-Eastern and Chatham Railways of England with the Chemin de Fer du Nord of France?
The Cabinet have again carefully considered the question, in consultation with their naval and military advisers, and they are still of the opinion that it is not practicable to proceed further with the matter during the continuance of the War. In these circumstances, it would not be possible for the Government to support a Bill of the nature indicated in my hon. Friend's question.
Arising out of that reply, as I am afraid this action will lose a year in the commencement of the tunnel, may I ask the Government if during the Recess they will reconsider the question and also consider the unfavourable effect which their decision will have on our Allies, France and Italy, and the satisfaction which it will give in Germany?
I am afraid the hon. Member is now making a speech.
Will it be reconsidered—
HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!
Enemy Air Raids (Warnings)
asked the Prime Minister whether he can now state whether the Government propose to insist that all towns shall immediately introduce-some system of warning of the approach of enemy aeroplanes?
My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The issue of any public warning outside the Metropolitan Police district must generally be left to the local authorities, who know the local circumstances and the wishes of the inhabitants; but the Home Office will be glad on application to give any advice or assistance which may be desired.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware in this case that it has been publicly stated that the reason why the warnings were not given at Southend was because of official representations from London, and under the circumstances will he say—
The hon. Member had better give notice. That does not arise on the question.
May I be allowed to say that no representations came from the Home Office.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman on that, whether he will state publicly that neither the Home Office or any authority in London has any objection to any place in London or any town in the country introducing any system of warnings that it may see fit to do?
I believe that for certain reasons the military authorities have given special directions in different towns, but these directions do not apply to any town but the one specified.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the probability of aeroplane raids by night in the near future, he will take steps to introduce a system of night warnings operative up till midnight?
The warnings by sound signal are intended for air raids by day-only, that is, between half an hour before sunrise and half an hour after sunset. Should an air raid occur during the hours of darkness between half an hour after sunset and midnight, when there is less real danger than by day, but much greater risk of a false alarm, the sound signals will not be fired as they would unnecessarily disturb persons already under cover, but the police will circulate through the streets carrying the "Take cover" placards so that pedestrians may seek cover.
Will the right hon. Gentleman see that all theatres and other places of amusement where people congregate in large numbers are duly warned in time?
I believe they are warned directly by the authorities.
Investments (United States)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is still the desire of the Government that holders of investments in the United States of America should realise them and bring the proceeds to this country, or whether recent events have modified the position so as to render this unnecessary?
It is still most desirable in the national interest that holders of investments in the United States of America should realise such investments and remit the proceeds to this country, and that no remittance form this country for investment should be made. I would refer my hon. Friend to the Treasury Notice of the 30th January last, which explains the procedure to be adopted in the sale abroad of foreign securities from the United Kingdom.
Brewery Companies' Dividends
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to recent cases in which brewery companies have been able markedly to increase the dividends distributed to their shareholders; and whether he will explain why there was any necessity this year to reduce the Licence Duties on intoxicating liquor by nearly £1,000,000?
I am aware that some cases of this kind have occurred. The matter referred to in the last part of the question was fully discussed during the Debates on the Finance Bill, and I do not think it is possible to. deal with it further by way of question and answer.
Will the right hon. Gentleman bear the point in mind?
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the increased dividends, when compared with the writing down of capital which has occurred, are reduced to very small dimensions, and really the returns are extremely small on the capital invested?
The hon. Member must give notice of that question.
Agriculture (Orders in Force)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give a list of the various orders of the Ministry of Food, the Home Office, the Privy Council, the Army Council, the Ministry of Munitions, the Board of Trade, and the Board of Agriculture which have reference to the conduct of agriculture and its subsidiary industries during the War; and whether he will insert the list in the Pink Paper so that Members interested may obtain complete sets?
The Board is preparing a complete list of the Orders now in force affecting agriculture. This shall be supplied, in accordance with my hon. Friend's request, in order that it may be inserted in the Pink Paper.
Soldier Certified for Asylum
asked the Home Secretary if he will inquire into the case of Private Henry Whittington, aged thirty-four, No. 22285, who enlisted in the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Regiment on 16th January, 1915, who suffered shell-concussion and was gassed in the battle of the Somme, and was invalided on 3rd August, 1916, with pain in chest, head, and back, difficulty of speech, dizziness, and insomnia, which still continue; is he aware that four days after discharge to his home he was committed, on 12th May, 1917, to the Notts County Asylum, Radcilffe-on-Trent; will he ascertain for what reason he was so certified, in view of the fact that the medical officer last in charge of him stated in a letter, on 25th May, 1917, that he had shown while in hospital no sign of insanity and that there was no suggestion of mental trouble or probability of his losing his reason; and, under the circumstances, to what reparation is this ex-soldier entitled if the stigma of lunacy has undeservedly been attached to him?
I am informed on inquiry that this man was duly certified under the Act, and that it is not the case, as stated in the question, that there was no suggestion of mental trouble. He has now been discharged recovered.
Shops (Early Closing Order)
asked when the present Order for early closing expires; if it is the intention of the Government to renew the Order; and, if so, for what period?
The present Order will expire on the 30th September. I have little doubt that it will be necessary to renew it in some form, but the question will not be decided until next month.
Louis Ferdinand Kehrhahn (Internment)
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Louis Ferdinand Kerhhahn, who is interned in Brixton Prison, is on B diet, is only allowed visitors by special application, is not allowed to see his solicitor in private, and has his exercise restricted and his correspondence interfered with; and whether, in view of his statement that Kehrhahn was detained in the interests of public safety, this treatment, which is punitive and not precautionary, is either necessary or desirable?
Kehrhahn receives the same treatment as other persons who are interned under the Defence of the Realm Regulations at Brixton, and, as I have already explained to the hon. Member, this treatment corresponds, so far as possible, to that received by persons similarly interned elsewhere. He is not on the prison diet known as B diet, but on a diet framed in accordance with the Food Controller's scale, and is allowed to, and does, purchase food from outside. He has the usual facilities for visits and exercise, and his correspondence is not interfered with, except when he writes in abusive and improper terms.
Boundary Commission (Representation of Scotland)
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that in the provisional schemes of the Boundary Commissioners England is allotted twenty-five additional members, Wales one additional member, while the representation of Scotland remains unchanged; and whether, in view of these facts, he will represent to the Boundary Commissioners that they may increase the number of members allotted to Scotland?
The Instructions issued to the Boundary Commissioners are of general application to Great Britain, and if the figures given in the question are correct it must be because the increase of population in England and Wales is relatively greater than in Scotland. There is no question of reducing the number of Scottish members, but I see no sufficient reason for asking the Commissioners to depart from their Instructions in order to increase the number.
Has the right hon. Gentleman read the terms of the Act of Union?
Yes, Sir.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the majority of the constituencies, in Scotland especially, there is a great deal of latitude in regard to population, and the Commissioners might interpret it one way or the other? Is he aware that at present they seem to have interpreted it in the narrowest way in Scotland, and would he see that they were entitled to interpret it in the broadest way, so that Scotland would have its fair proportion compared with England and Wales?
The Commissioners will deal with this matter as Scottish Commissioners, and I think they must interpret it not unfavourably to Scotland. But may I point out that I think Scotland has profited by the special Instructions on the 18th June?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the South of Scotland has not profited, but the Highlands have? The very sparsely populated districts in the South of Scotland have not benefited at all.
Had the right hon. Gentleman not better wait and see the Report?
Chinese Gambling Dens (East London)
asked the Home Secretary whether he has received a letter from the Member for Maidstone concerning a visit he paid in company with two witnesses to nine out of about forty Chinese gambling dens established in close neighbourhood to the large police station in the West India Dock Road; and whether, in association if necessary with the Board of Trade and the local authorities, he is prepared to take action in this matter and in reference to the increasing floating Chinese population in the neighbourhood?
I received the hon. and gallant Member's letter yesterday. Questions concerning the Chinese population in London are constantly engaging the attention of the Board of Trade, the police and my Department, but I will make special inquiry in the matter.
Air Services
Aeroplanes (Spare Parts)
asked the Parliamentary Representative of the Air Board whether there is still, in spite of repeated assurances, a great deficiency of spare parts for the service type of machine?
There is still a shortage of spare parts for certain types of machines, but the position has improved since I was last questioned on this subject.
Is it not the case that in spite of the fact that there is a shortage of these parts that they are still having to make spare parts for machines which will never be used?
And making machines as well.
I am aware of the facts, but that is not a fact.
If the facts are put before the hon. and gallant Member now for the first time will he see that some action is taken, and use what influence he can with the Air Board?
Questions
Young Men's Christian Association (Canteens and Huts)
asked the Paymaster-General whether the Young Men's Christian Association has been registered as a war charity under the War Charities Act; whether they publish accounts in reference to their canteens and huts in France and elsewhere; and where such accounts can be seen?
The Young Men's Christian Association has not been registered as a war charity under the War Charities Act, 1916, but its war emergency fund, which comprises all its war activities, has been so registered. The Commissioners are informed by the Young Men's Christian Association that accounts of that fund have been rendered in November, 1916, and May, 1917, to the registration authority — the London County Council—in accordance with the Act and the Regulations made thereunder. They are also informed that these accounts are printed, and copies could no doubt be obtained on application to the Young Men's Christian Association.
Are the copies free of charge?
Yes.
Naval and Military Pensions and Grants
asked the Pensions Minister when it is proposed to bring the scales of pension of old officers and soldiers into line with those of the new Warrant?
No such action as that which would appear to be contemplated in the hon. Member's question has been proposed, and I am not at the moment able to add to my answers to previous questions on the subject of a new Warrant for the dependants of soldiers killed or for soldiers disabled in former wars.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a pledge to do so has been given in this House?
Yes, and we have not had time to carry out that pledge; and we have had a meeting to-day to discuss the new Warrant.
Then what is the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman's answer in which he says no such action is proposed?
I can only say that the answer is as I have just stated.
asked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he is aware that, in the case of those who voluntarily attested earlier in the War, the allowances paid to dependants being calculated on the then rate of wages are, generally speaking, much lower than the allowances for dependants for those called up under compulsion recently, the rate of wages now being much higher; whether this is a matter of complaint amongst the men who volunteered earlier in the War and their dependants; and whether he can take any steps to see that this treatment is rectified?
It was decided, after very full consideration, that any rectification of the allowances to dependants in this connection should be dealt with by the Statutory Committee. I must, therefore, refer my hon. Friend to the Minister for Pensions.
Disabled Soldiers Schemes (Scotland)
asked the Pensions Minister the number of schemes which have now been approved in Scotland for the treatment of disabled soldiers, and the arrangements which have been completed by the local committees set up in Scotland to deal with this subject?
No general schemes for the institutional treatment of disabled soldiers have yet been submitted by local committees in Scotland on the lines set out in the recent Instructions issued by the Ministry of Pensions, but the Statutory Committee have approved of the use of 240 institutions in Scotland, and local committees are able to send cases direct to these institutions in accordance with the terms of approval. The Joint Institutional Committee for Scotland, which has lately been constituted, is making arrangements for the purposes of a neurasthenic home near Edinburgh and for a number of orthopædic annexes. The treatment of discharged sailors and soldiers suffering from rheumatism is undertaken at Moffat and Strathpeffer, and the provision of increased accommodation for paraplegics and for men suffering from epilepsy and tuberculosis is under consideration.
South Metropolitan Gas Company (Women Bricklayers)
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has received a complaint to the effect that the South Metropolitan Gas Company are employing women to do bricklayers' work; whether there are men over military age who are available to do this work and who are at present out of employment; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in the matter?
The Minister of Labour has received a complaint on this subject, and from information received he thinks that the complaint as stated may be correct. He is communicating with the company in the matter.
Farm Workers
asked the Minister of Labour whether Mr. Nobbs, acting on behalf of the Farmers' Union, recently brought into the Fakenham, Euston, and Honington district a large number of men to take the place of farm workers who were asking for the same rate of harvest pay as had already been agreed on by the Farmers' Union in Norfolk; whether the men supplied stated that they had been engaged through the Labour Exchanges; and whether he will make inquiry into this matter, with a view to ending this transaction?
I have made inquiry, and have been unable to ascertain that any of these men were engaged through the Employment Exchanges
Housing Schemes (Lanarkshire)
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is now prepared to sanction the carrying out of additional housing schemes by the local authorities in the middle Ward of Lanarkshire, having regard to the urgent need for providing immediately further housing accommodation in that district and to the views expressed by the deputation from the local authorities and Federation of District Trades Council recently received by him?
I would beg to refer my hon. and learned Friend to the statement made in the House by my hon. Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland on the 8th instant on this matter. At the moment I have nothing to add to that statement, except that I am quite alive to the importance of the housing question in Lanarkshire. I must remind my hon. and learned Friend, however, as he asks me to sanction schemes, that the matter has not yet reached a stage at which any sanction on my part is required.
Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to consider any schemes which may be laid before him by the local authorities for building during the War?
Certainly.
Court-Martial (Escape of "Goeben," 1914)
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, now that over three years have elapsed since the escape of the "Goeben," to Constantinople, he will grant the Return on the Paper asked for by the Member for Maid-stone—["Return of all documents, records, and evidence in connection with the court-martial and acquittal of Rear-Admiral E. C. Troubridge, with paraphrases of Admiralty telegrams limiting the actions and movements of the ships of the Mediterranean Squadron under the command of Admiral Sir Berkeley Milne."]
For reasons that have already been given to my hon. and gallant Friend, it is not proposed to grant the Return asked for.
Could my right hon. Friend say whether the reasons are connected with the War, or whether they will still apply when peace comes?
I should like to refer my hon. and gallent Friend to the substantial reason given in the answer of 31st July, to which I am afraid I cannot add anything.
Prisoners of War
asked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) whether Turkey has yet consented to allow a representative of the Geneva Red Cross to visit the camps in which English soldiers are imprisoned; when the request for permission to go was made, and by whom; whether the Netherlands Minister has visited any such camps, and when, and with what result?
The request for permission to visit camps was addressed by the International Red Cross Committee to the Turkish Minister at Berne. No reply has, so far as His Majesty's Government know, yet been received, nor has the Netherlands Minister at Constantinople yet succeeded in obtaining similar permission.
What was the date of the request?
I am afraid that the date was not supplied to me, but it was several weeks ago.
Then ample time has elapsed if permission were going to be given?
Yes, it has; but my hon. and learned Friend will appreciate that this matter is rather overshadowed by the question of direct negotiations.
asked a further question, which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
Order, order! I do not hear one word of this conversation. If the hon. Member has any questions to ask, will he kindly put them in a louder voice?
I am sorry. I will try to put them in a louder voice. Even if the Conference results from the present negotiations, will the Department see that the Geneva people, if possible, may be allowed to go and see the Turkish camp?
Certainly; that will not be lost sight of.
asked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) whether any and, if so, how many English officers or non-commissioned officers have been sent for internment to Switzerland or Holland under the Clause in The Hague agreement relating to those who have been prisoners in Germany for more than eighteen months; and, if not, can he state to what the delay is due?
The part of The Hague agreement which my hon. and learned Friend refers to concerns Holland only, and not Switzerland. No officers or noncommissioned officers, British or German, have yet been sent to Holland for internment. I am afraid it must be some little time before the requisite accommodation is available, and I may add that the German Government have not yet assented to the necessary shipping arrangements, including the use of the Port of Hull, as proposed by us on 11th July.
Post Office Servants (War Bonus)
asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to arrangements made to pay a war bonus of 4s. per week to postmen from 1st January, 1917, which bonus was to be extended to married men of the postal staff serving in the Navy or Army or to their dependants; and, if this bonds has not as yet been paid to such men or dependants, will he see that payment is expedited?
The payments have already been made in about 95 per cent. of the cases. Those still outstanding are cases when special inquiries have to be made, and these are being proceeded with as rapidly as the staff available will permit.
British Expeditionary Force, France
The following question stood upon the Paper in the name of Mr. CHANCELLOR:
125. To ask the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the Devonport military hospital or any portion of it is licensed for experiments on living animals; if so, what is the nature of the experiments being performed therein; who are the vivisectors engaged in performing them; what is their remuneration; and do they all hold licences or certificates?
I have just received a note asking me to postpone this question, which has already been put down three times. Is there any special reason why the hon. Member wishes the House not to know the facts which were published in the newspapers on the 23rd?
No; I do not know any special reasons, but I am having inquiries made.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he has now obtained particulars of the epidemic which is said to have broken out in the Army in France; whether a whole division had to be isolated in consequence, or, if not, how many regiments or other units; if so, what was the nature of the disease; and whether it has been successfully stamped out?
I have made careful inquiries, and my hon. Friend will be glad to learn that there is no truth in the statement to which he refers.
Jamaica (PræDial Larceny Law)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Governor of Jamaica has submitted to the Legislative Council an Amendment of the Prædial Larceny Law which would enable him to proclaim any district for the infliction of whipping after the first offence; and, having regard to the failure of this method of punishment in this country, will he withhold his sanction from this change in the law of one of our Colonies?
The law to which the hon. Member refers has not yet been received from the Governor, but its provisions will be fully considered before any advice is tendered to His Majesty in regard to it.
India
North-West Frontier
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the trouble with the Mahsuds has been settled; and whether trouble exists at present anywhere on the North-West Frontiers of India?
A settlement was effected with the Mahsuds on the 10th August. The North-West Frontier of India is now free from trouble.
War Loan
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, before the House rises, he can give it any information regarding the success of the Indian War Loan?
According to my latest information, the subscriptions amount approximately to the equivalent of £30,000,000 sterling. Certain sections of the Loan still remain open.
Indian Troops (Vegetable Supplies)
asked the Secretary of State for India what arrangements have been made for the supply of fresh vegetables, potatoes, onions, ghee, and rice to the Indian troops serving in East Africa?
Arrangements for the supply of fresh vegetables, potatoes, and onions are made locally by the General Officer Commanding, East Africa. The supply of ghee and rice is obtained from India.
Are the vegetables and potatoes procurable in East Africa, or have they all to go from India? Will he make inquiries as to the supplies of these things in East Africa?
Certainly.
asked the Secretary of State for India what arrangements are now in force for the provision to the troops at Aden and other places on the Arabian coast of an adequate supply of fresh vegetables and ice?
As regards Aden, the bulk of the vegetables are imported from Bombay, but the Government of India were arranging last summer to restart the old Commissariat Garden at Sheikh Othman. The free issue of ice was sanctioned in October last. I have no information regarding other places on the Arabian coast, but I will inquire.
Questions
Reserve Officers
asked the Undersecretary of State for War if certain officers of the Regular Army belonging to Special and General Reserve who have been commanding reserve battalions since the outbreak of war have suddenly been removed from their commands and sent to staff billets overseas at a rate of pay below that of their substantive rank; and what precedent there is for withholding the higher rate of pay?
Certain officers, have been removed from special reserve battalions on completing their tenure of command. This is a practice that is continually taking place. Several of them have accepted positions overseas at comparatively low rates of pay. The rates were fixed as being a fair remuneration for the duties, and it was entirely optional to the officers to accept the appointments, but the chance was given them of doing so.
Will the hon. Gentleman. answer the last part of the question, namely, whether there is any precedent for offering a lieutenant-colonel, for instance, the pay of a lieutenant?
These rates were fixed as being fair remuneration for the duties. It was entirely optional to the officers to accept the appointments, but the chance was given them of doing so.
If they refuse the appointments, would they not find themselves without employment at all?
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether there is much dissatisfaction among senior officers belonging to the Special and General Reserves on account of refusal of promotion and even of grant of increased honorary rank; and whether, having regard to the services rendered by this class of officers in the training of the New Armies since the outbreak of war, he will consider whether a greater measure of recognition can be given to them?
I assume that my hon. Friend refers to lieutenant-colonels of the Special Reserve. On the conversion of the Militia into the Special Reserve it was decided not to continue the system of giving the honorary rank of colonel. If lieutenant-colonels of the Special Reserve are selected to command brigades they get the temporary rank of brigadier-general which becomes honorary rank on retirement, if their services are satisfactory.
Soldiers (Parliamentary Candidates)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the same facilities will be afforded to officers or private soldiers who may wish to contest any Parliamentary seat as an independent candidate as they have already afforded to officers who are supporters of political parties?
I am afraid I do not understand the point of my hon. Friend's question. From an Army point of view it would be a matter of complete indifference as to whether or not the candidate held independent views or was the selection of a party.
Are we to understand that the same facilities will be given to any officer or private who wishes to contest a Parliamentary seat as were given to the son of the Secretary of State for War?
Yes.
Will he be given leave and every facility to contest the seat?
Yes; exactly the same.
Mesopotamia Campaign (Decorations)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to confer decorations upon soldiers who are or who have been fighting in Mesopotamia; and, if so, how soon the list may be expected?
Recommendations received through the Government of India are now under consideration, and publication of such honours and rewards as may be approved by His Majesty, may be expected at an early date.
Army Honours
asked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction on the Western Front among both officers and men because so many more honours are given to officers on the Staff in comparison to those given to officers and men in the actual fighting line; and whether this could be brought to the notice of the authorities responsible for the bestowal of honours?
I think my hon. and gallant Friend is under a misapprehension in supposing that in comparison more honours are given to the Staff than to the fighting line. I shall be happy to show him privately, if he cares, the actual figures and percentage of awards.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there really is a great deal of dissatisfaction in the Army and in this House on the question, and could he not make inquiries in other ways than officially to find out?
All I can say is that I have seen the percentage. I do not recollect it now, but I think it would reassure my hon. and gallant Friend if he saw it also.
Has the hon. Gentleman ever received any official knowledge of dissatisfaction on any point at all with regard to the Army.
Certainly.
Will the non. Gentleman inquire through the brigadier-generals directly, not through Headquarters in France, but independently from the various other commands?
I cannot very well do that. I cannot very well apply to subordinate officers for information.
Why?
Will the hon. Gentleman also look into the question of the distribution of foreign honours?
I do not know what my hon. and gallant Friend means by foreign honours. Does he mean honours bestowed by foreign Governments?
Yes.
I cannot very well interfere with that.
Surely men are recommended for them by the British Government?
Royal Army Medical Corps
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can state the names and the terms of reference of the Committee to be appointed to inquire into the administration of the Royal Army Medical Corps?
Not at the present moment. Certain people are being approached, but until their answer is received no statement can be made.
Will the hon. Gentleman see that members of this House are appointed on this Committee, and will it apply to all theatres of war?
No, I made it quite clear that the terms of reference would apply only to the largest theatre of War, namely, France. I will put my hon. Friend's first suggestion before the Secretary of State.
Will the hon. Gentleman say what circumstances have arisen to induce the War Office to appoint this Committee, seeing that they refused it to me when I asked for it two years ago?
Many things have happened during the last two years.
Have we any security that this is going to be a bonô fide Committee of Inquiry?
My hon. Friend must know that the Committee of which he himself is a member, and which was recently appointed by the War Office, is a bonô fide Committee.
It was appointed by this House.
Army Contracts (Fair-Wages Clause)
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if the Foster Manufacturing Company, at Parke-stone, Harwich, have direct or sub-contracts for Army shirts; if so, are the War Office aware of the wages which are paid by this firm to girls employed upon this work; if the War Office is aware that the girls are at present on strike; and what action the War Office has taken to ensure the observance of the Fair-Wages Clause?
So far as can be traced, the Foster Manufacturing Com- pany, Parkestone, Harwich, do not hold either direct or sub-contracts for Army shirts with the War Office, and the strike referred to in the question has not been brought to my notice. Further inquiries are being made into the matter, and I will communicate again with my hon. Friend when these are completed.
Technical Education (Ireland)
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has received a resolution passed by the Blackrock Technical Instruction Committee with reference to the insufficiency of funds for technical and agricultural education in Ireland; and whether he is in a position to state the recommendations made by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction in Ireland to the Treasury?
I am informed that a resolution was adopted on the 7th instant by the Blackrock Technical Instruction Committee, as stated in the question. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him last Thursday, to which I cannot at present add anything.
Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to make any statement with regard to the funds that are to be allotted to technical education, as those funds are entirely insufficient in Ireland?
No; I cannot at present add anything to the answer I have given.
Is there any prospect of getting a reply on this matter, which is of intense interest to those who are engaged on technical education?
The question is one of some difficulty, and I am not in a position to say anything further.
Kelp Industry (Ireland)
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board or the Department of Agriculture have taken any steps to improve the conditions under which the kelp industry is carried on; and whether, having regard to the fact that the produce of the industry is purchased by a small number of buyers, efforts will be made to prevent the creation of a ring and to find new markets?
The Congested Districts Board ascertained that it was beyond their power to improve prices for kelp-makers, as long as only about half a dozen firms bought kelp. Recently, however, kelp has been largely bought, especially in Galway and Donegal, for use in making artificial fertilisers. The prospects of the industry are now much improved, and the prices for kelp are higher.
Hathern Station Brick and Terra-Cotta Company, Limited
asked the Home Secretary whether any complaint has been made to his Department respecting the action of the Hathern Station Brick and Terra Cotta Company, Limited, compelling their workpeople of both sexes to use the same lavatory accommodation; and, if so, whether he will take proceedings against this firm for this breach of the law?
No complaint in this matter has been received at the Home Office. I have called for a report from the factory inspector, and will inform the hon. Member of the result.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether the Loughborough technical schools are being used for the training of women specially to take the places of men locked out by the Hathern Station Brick and Terra-Cotta Company, Limited, Loughborough; whether this is a controlled firm and that the Ministry of Munitions contemplate the prosecution of this firm for refusing to allow the question of an existing difference between the workpeople and this firm going to arbitration under the Munitions of War Act; and whether he will make inquiry and take such action as will end this unfairness?
I have been asked to answer this question. Inquiries are being made into the case, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend.
House of Lords (Conference)
Terms of Reference
The personnel of the Conference is not yet complete, but I am glad to announce that Lord Bryce has accepted the chairmanship of it. The terms of reference are as follows:
To inquire and report—
Is it intended that the procedure should be similar to the Electoral Reform Conference, that it should sit in private and should simply confer and not receive evidence?
The intention is that the analogy of Mr. Speaker's Conference should be followed as far as possible.
Will any opportunity be given to the House to discuss the terms of reference?
No. This is, as I explained before, a Committee appointed by the Government to advise it.
Of how many will it consist?
Fifteen Members of each House of Parliament.
Orders of the Day
Business of the House
Can the right hon. Gentleman make an announcement as to the course of business to-day—whether he proposes to ask the House to sit to morrow, and what are his proposals for business next week?
As regards to-morrow, that will depend upon the desire of the House. I hope, however, that the Motion for the Adjournment may be carried to-day. There is every reason for hoping that the Amendments to the Corn Production Bill will be available on Monday, and the House will meet at the usual hour. To-day we shall take the Representation of the People Bill, the Lords Amendments to the Ministry of Reconstruction Bill, and then the Motion for the Adjournment.
In view of the many notices the right hon. Gentleman has received of points to be raised on the Adjournment, is it proposed to continue the Motion for the Adjournment right through the night and till eight o'clock in the morning?
I have already said that the Government will be in the hands of the House in that matter, but I hope the House as a whole will consider that the discussion to-day will be sufficient.
Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to keep sufficient Members here to move the Closure?
I have not discovered any means of keeping hon. Members here unless they are willing to stay.
Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea when he expects to get the Motion for the Adjournment to day?
That, of course, must depend on Members of the House, but my right hon. Friend hopes that the discussion on the Representation of the People Bill will not take more than an hour, and the other matter I do not think should take many minutes.
Will the Prime Minister be the first speaker on the Motion for the Adjournment?
No.
Has the Government decided the length of the holidays?
That is on the Notice Paper.
Supply [15th August].—Report
Civil Services Supplementary Estimates, 1917–18
Houses of Parliament Buildings.—
Class I
Resolution reported, "That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £5, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, for Expenditure in respect of Houses of Parliament Buildings."
Resolution agreed to.
Representation of the People Bill
Considered in Committee.—[ Progress, 15th August. ]
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
CLAUSE 24.—(Scale of Election Expenses.)
(1) The provision set out in the Third Schedule to this Act shall be substituted for Part IV. and paragraph (3) of Part V. of the First Schedule to the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883 (which relate to the maximum scale of election expenses), and that Act shall have effect accordingly.
(2) Any duly nominated candidate at a Parliamentary election shall, subject to Regulations of the Postmaster-General, be entitled to send, free of any charge for postage, to each registered elector for the constituency, one postal communication not exceeding one ounce in weight.
For the purpose of this provision candidates who are under paragraph (4) of Part V. of the First Schedule to the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, deemed to be joint candidates at an election shall be treated as a single candidate.
I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to add the words,
"No other than electoral matter shall be enclosed and any infringement shall render the candidate liable to a penalty not exceeding the full amount of postage payable for the delivery of prepaid circulars to the total electorate of the constituency.
If any person shall place in any envelope, or send with any electoral matter being carried free under this Section, any communication of any kind other than the electoral matter such person shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and shall, on conviction, be liable to three months' imprisonment with or without hard labour."
This Amendment is simply intended to prevent a misuse of the privilege of posting. I think the whole Committee will readily acknowledge the necessity there is for it. It was proposed last night to extend the postal privilege to 4 ozs. It is clear to all that this postal privilege is open to great abuse. No man can possibly require 4 ozs. for an election address, and it may be that all sorts of candidates will make use of the privilege to promote special fads of their own. A temperance advocate may fill up his envelope with all sorts of temperance speeches, and an anti-vaccinationist may fill them up with all sorts of anti-vaccinationist literature. If the candidate is an advertiser he may fill them up with his own advertisements, or he may take money from an advertiser.
Is not this already provided for?
If it is already provided for, of course the question falls to the ground. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will tell us whether it is.
I am sure we all want the same thing. We want to secure that this privilege shall not be abused by the inclusion of any other matter, particularly of the advertisement type. The Home Secretary has provided for that by his Amendment of yesterday, which limited the communications to matter relating to the election, and, if that is not a sufficien safeguard, Clause 24 says that these communications shall be subject to regulations by the Postmaster-General, which will obviously be so drawn as to avoid any abuse of the privilege.
Is any penalty attached to the breaking of this rule?
That will be considered in the Regulations.
Is it not absolutely necessary to have a penalty?
There would be a penalty in the person who committed the offence being liable to have a surcharge put upon himself or upon his constituents. That is a matter which shall be considered.
On the understanding that it is considered and that there is a proper penalty put in, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to add the words,
"Every candidate or some person on his behalf shall deposit at the same time as he or some person on his behalf deposits the sum mentioned in Section nineteen of this Act, a sum equivalent to the postage to each registered elector in the constituency, and in the case of any candidate not receiving the proportion of votes mentioned in Section twenty of this Act the amount so deposited shall be forfeited to His Majesty, but in any other case shall be returned to the person or persons by whom the deposit was made."
This is a necessary precaution, and I trust the Amendment will be accepted. I hope the Home Secretary and the Committee will acknowledge that it is a necessary Amendment.
I do not think it is necessary. An undesirable person putting up for a constituency is not likely to find much support by the fact that he has to forfeit £150 unless he returns one-eighth part of the votes recorded. I think that is a sufficient penalty to deter candidates of the description we all wish to keep out of the field. I do not think it is necessary to increase the penalty of forfeiture of £150 by saying that there should also be a forfeiture of £100, which is the equivalent amount of the postage.
There is no doubt some force in what the right hon. Gentleman says, but it seems to me that this is on all fours with the forfeiture of the deposit. It may be over £100 in some cases. If he forfeits the one he should forfeit the other.
Amendment negatived.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
CLAUSE 25.—(Expenses Incurred by Unauthorised Persons.)
(1) A person shall not incur any expenses on account of holding public meetings or issuing advertisements, circulars or publications, for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of any candidate at a Parliamentary election unless he is authorised in writing to do so by that candidate and the expenses are duly returned as part of the candidate's election expenses.
(2) If any person acts in contravention of this Section, he shall be guilty of a corrupt practice other than personation within the meaning of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, and the expression "corrupt practice" shall be construed accordingly.
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words, "A person shall not," and to insert instead thereof the words, "No person, including the proprietor or proprietors of any newspaper or periodical or advertising agency shall."
In the absence of my hon. Friend (Colonel Gretton), he has asked me to move this Amendment. It is to prevent the practice of many newspapers in connection with elections and certain advertising agencies of booming particular candidates by contents bills and that sort of thing, and posting free copies of papers containing special articles, cartoons, etc. I think it is a reasonable Amendment. It would prevent what most people find very objectionable, and I think the right hon. Gentleman might see his way to accept it.
According to the Interpretations Act, 1889, the term "person" was defined to include any body of persons, whether in a corporate or incorporate capacity. That would include newspaper proprietors. I do not think it would strengthen the Clause by putting in these words.
I was not aware of that. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words, "and the expenses are duly returned as part of the candidate's election expenses."
Will the Home Secretary give us some explanation of this Amendment, because the words in the Bill are precisely the words as settled by the Speaker's Conference. It is provided that a person shall be guilty of a corrupt practice unless such expenditure is authorised by the candidate and is returned as part of the election expenses. It was felt by the Speaker's Conference that it would be no restriction upon these outside bodies unless it was provided that if any expenditure was incurred it must be returned as part of the candidate's expenses.
You cannot say that an outside person shall not incur expenses unless it is in the candidate's returns, because the expenditure incurred may be incurred weeks before the return is made. We think the right way is not to put in these words here, but to insert in the same Clause a new Sub-section, expressly directing that any expenses incurred which are authorised by the candidate shall be inserted by the candidate in his return. If they are not authorised then an offence is committed.
This is a matter of very great importance to us in Ireland, whereby under the system hitherto adopted twenty or thirty different persons may be dumped into a constituency at the expense of a central organisation. That is a practice we are most anxious to put down. I had an election petition which ultimately went to the House of Lords, and I could not recover a single penny. The gentleman made himself bankrupt. All the time endless expense was incurred on his behalf by other persons. It seems to me that individual freedom is very much interested in this question. It is unfair that one individual should be left at the mercy of a great organisation, and the man on the other side shall be able to say, "I had nothing to do with it." That system requires reform. The words which the Home Secretary is leaving out provided for it, and I regard with much alarm the omission of these words. I should like to know from the Home Secretary what is the difference between leaving out those words here and inserting words to the same effect in a different part of the Bill.
My hon. Friend may not have followed what I understand the object of the Home Secretary's proposal to be. I do not think the proposal of the Home Secretary is going to run counter to what the Speaker's Conference really intended. We have a provision that a person shall not incur any expense of a particular kind unless amongst other things the expenses are returned as part of the candidate's election expenses. So expressed, that appears to me to put the gentleman who incurs the expenses in a hopeless position. He incurs the expense, say, on the Monday, and the return of the candidate's election expenses will not be made up until later in the week or some subsequent week. He is quite unable, when he incurs the expense, to say whether the candidate will or will not make such a return. The right hon. Gentleman is not wanting to cut down the Clause, but he omits these words from the first Sub-section, in order afterwards to add a third Sub-section, providing that "any expenses incurred on account of any such purpose as aforesaid, and authorised by the candidate, shall be duly returned as part of the candidate's election expenses." The position then would be this, would it not? That as regards the outside organisation and individual that incurs expenses that organisation or individual would be liable for a corrupt practice unless they had the candidate's written authority for the expenditure at the time they made it. That is all you can do to them.
Then, as regards the candidate, the candidate who has authorised the expenditure will be breaking the law that requires him to make a true return of election expenses unless after the election he includes that in his election expenses. That seems to me to be quite right so far as it goes. My difficulty is of a different kind. I am very much afraid that this Clause, in spite of the improvement which the Home Secretary is making in it, will not be found to be watertight. I very much question whether any Clause could be made watertight, but it is extremely difficult to see how it is going to be watertight. Consider what would happen. You get an outside organisation, such as has been referred to, coming down and opening offices and placarding arguments for whatever it may be. and, up to the present, these organisations have escaped being treated as incurring expenses on behalf of the candidate, because it has been said that they are really not acting for the purpose of promoting the interests of the candidate, but are acting on behalf of a particular crusade. It has thus been held that the Licensed Victuallers' Association can incur such expenses without any candidate being concerned, and the Irish Unionist Alliance, the Free Trade Union, and the old Anti-Corn Law League, have been in the same position. I am afraid much the same will happen after this Clause has been passed as has happened hitherto, and I ask the Home Secretary to hold out some hope that the Clause really does secure the substantial protection such as we all desire against the deluging of constituencies with all sorts of advices and invitations at the expense of one of these outside organisations.
Does not that really arise on the Clause and not on this Amendment?
If you please.
I should like to ask the Home Secretary what is the difference between the words being omitted here and being inserted later on—what is the effect of that?
What the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Simon) has just explained. If you put the words in here you put a person who legitimately incurs expense by the authority of the candidate in a position which the right hon. Gentleman rightly described as impossible. He has the authority of the candidate to spend this money, but he has committed an offence, as the Bill is drafted, if, after he has incurred the expense on that authority, the candidate, for some reason or other, refuses to include the expense in his return. You put the penalty on the wrong person.
I am much obliged.
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move, after Subsection (1), to insert, as a new Sub-section,
"(2) No person who is a candidate, prospective candidate, or Member of Parliament for any constituency shall incur any expense for the support of any public or private charitable or philanthropic object within the boundaries of the constituency for which he is a candidate, prospective candidate, or Member of Parliament."
This raises a really substantial question with which I certainly understood it was desired to deal.
I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. If this is in order at all, it clearly should come as a new Clause. It is nothing to do with the expenses incurred by unauthorised persons. It is a question whether, I suppose, a member or candidate can subscribe to cricket clubs?
As it says, whether he can incur any expense whatever for the support of any public or private, charitable or philanthropic object within the boundaries of his own constituency.
It clearly does not come in here. Perhaps the hon. Member will put it down, and I will consider it in the form of a new Clause.
I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert,
"(3) Any expenses incurred on account of any such purpose as aforesaid and authorised by the candidate shall be duly returned as part of the candidate's election expenses."
The Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger), I think, should be considered before the Home Secretary's Amendment.
On behalf of my hon. Friend, I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to add the words, "provided that the Court before whom a person is convicted under this Section may, if they think it just in the special circumstances of the case, mitigate or entirely remit any incapacity imposed by Sections 6 or 22 of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883."
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman move it without Section 22, because that imposes no penalty?
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept the Amendment.
I am prepared to move the Amendment in that form, namely, "Provided that the Court before whom a person is convicted under this Section may, if they think it just in the special circumstances of the case, mitigate or entirely remit any incapacity imposed by Section 6 of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883."
I hope the Home Secretary will not mitigate the stringency of this Clause. This is a most wholesome Clause, and it is really a Clause directed to restoring to candidates some of that freedom which they enjoyed before this system of collective electioneering by organisations. The persons in whose favour this Clause is being moved must be organisations which illegitimately intrude themselves upon the constituency. Why, then, should persons at a distance of hundreds of miles of the particular site of an election be given any consideration or any mitigation of the penalties for their misconduct? I think it is a perfectly monstrous thing. Suppose that here in London there is an organisation. An election is taking place in the Orkneys, and this organisation, for the promotion of their general political interests as a party with nothing to do with the constituency or the member, go and intrude themselves upon that constituency because they are in possession of money, not necessarily in possession of intelligence or anything else, but because they are in possession of money. They send down their hired speakers or bill posters, or whatever they may be, and incur the penalties of the law, and then, forsooth, afterwards, on the assumption that they have brought about corruption—because that must be considered as part of the hypothesis—Have done mischief, and the candidate has had to invoke the law against them and has been put to enormous expense in that invocation of the law, the judges are to show to this organisation consideration, and are to employ counsel and cadge oft from the penalties that should be imposed. I do say that these are the people who should never get any concession or indulgence of any kind. Even if we decide to give people who, in the heat of an election may overstep the line, indulgence in a particular case, it is not right that indulgence should be granted to outsiders who illegitimately intrude themselves on an election. I do, therefore, hope that the Government will see that there is an enormous distinction between men who are engaged in a local conflict, and giving indulgence to strangers coming from outside who, by the force of their money-bags, try to turn the election one way or the other.
The Clause is not confined to outsiders. It applies to everyone who incurs expenses in this way. I think it is quite possible that a man may commit an offence against this Section without making himself morally liable to be charged with it. The penalties imposed by this Section are very severe indeed, and I think it is not unreasonable that if the Court which hears the facts finds there arts mitigating circumstances, such as inadvertence, it should have the same power of mitigating penalties which the Court has in all cases of corrupt practices under Section 22 of the Act of 1883.
I speak subject to correction, and no doubt the Home Secretary will correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding at the present moment is that Section 22 is a Section which will in certain cases exonerate a candidate. We have got nothing to do in this Amendment with convicting a candidate. It is convicting a third person, an outsider, not a candidate, of an offence under the Section. It is a punishment on the lines of Section 6 of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act of 1883. I would ask the Home Secretary is he right in saying there is, under the Act of 1883, no power to mitigate when you convict a person of a corrupt practice? I rather thought there was.
I may have been wrong in my reference, but I was under the impression that that was so. At all events, I am rather disposed to think that in this case, where you are creating a new offence for matters which hitherto have not been made liable to penalty, you ought to give power to the Court to mitigate penalties. My personal view is that the Amendment is not an unreasonable one.
When the Corrupt Practices Act was introduced in 1882 I considered it so severe that I helped to defeat the Bill in the first session of its introduction. That was my state of mind twenty-five or thirty years ago. In the following year we opposed it a good deal, and thought it should not apply to Ireland, but the experience I have since had has convinced me that the Act is not severe enough. I think none of these exemptions ought to be granted, but if the right hon. Gentleman is disposed to grant any they ought only to be granted to people resident in the locality. They ought not to be granted to people who come from outside, and by the mere possession of money come down and flood a constituency with corruption—as I have seen them do and as was done in my case —and by the use of their money-hags buy up voters wholesale. Why should indulgence be granted to them? I therefore respectfully say that if the right hon. Gentleman is disposed to accept any mitigation of penalties in these cases, there ought to be no indulgence for outsiders. If he is disposed to grant indulgence to insiders there is something to be said for it, but I cannot see why my right hon. Friend, who himself has a judicial spirit, should seek to provide indulgence for these outlying organisations which are the pests of the community, which interfere with local electors, which have no business there, and which are carrying on simply some big party fight which may be connected with the liquor trade, free trade, or reform of tariffs. It is a case of the individual against the organisation, and in this matter I stand on the side of the individual.
I do not know whether the Home Secretary has expressed finally his decision to accept the Amendment. If he has not, I should like to press this consideration upon him. He seems to have a doubt in the matter because, as I understand, he says the law is too severe, and the Court ought to have the power of mitigating penalties. There seems to me to be one test by which you can arrive at a conclusion on the fact of whether the law is too severe or not. The fault committed is, I understand from my legal friends, a misdemeanour which goes before a judge and jury. In the case of laws which are unduly severe on accidental misdemeanours, juries refuse to convict even when the evidence is very clear. Has the Home Secretary got any record which shows that there have been a certain number of cases brought to trial under this Section in which, on account of the judge being compelled to inflict a penalty out of all proportion to the crime committed, the jury have refused to convict, because they did not wish to inflict unnecessary hardship by compelling the judge to impose heavy penalties for an accidental misdemeanour? Before the Home Secretary finally accepts this proposal, will he take that into consideration and see what the record is? I have no doubt the Home Office can supply him with details, and if they report that there are no such records I would ask him to leave the law where it is. Undoubtedly the case presented by the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. Healy) is one which ought to have weight, and we in this House ought to do everything we can to discourage rich and powerful organisations interfering in elections where there is really no necessity for their interference at all.
I join with my right hon. Friend (Sir C. Hobhouse) in hoping that the Home Secretary has not committed himself to accept this Amendment. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. Healy) that the Corrupt Practices Act is not nearly drastic enough, and for the Government to think of reducing the powers of that Act seems to me very extraordinary. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary should seriously consider it before he accepts the Amendment. Most of the hon. Members who have taken a part in this discussion have spoken of the fact that it is a power to mitigate a penalty, but I would point out that the Amendment goes further than that. It is, "mitigate or entirely remit." The Home Secretary dealt only with mitigation. He had not the courage to go on to the point of entirely remitting the penalties. There can be no doubt that the hon. and learned Member for Cork was absolutely right when he said that these institutions which come down nowadays into elections are the pests of elections, and that instead of the judges and the courts having the power to mitigate or entirely remit penalties they should have power to inflict more drastic penalties than now.
I think the Home Secretary should also bear in mind that in the case alluded to by the hon. and learned Member for Cork you may have a very wealthy candidate living in the district. I think it is very important that in the case of poor candidates there should be some power to mitigate penalties in respect of organisations taking part at the election in his favour. It is all very well to talk of corruption coming from headquarters, but at the other extreme, if you accept this Amendment, you are going to give an enormous advantage to the wealthy candidate who lives in the district. He may say, "No one shall come in. I am a wealthy man and I am going to win this election, and I refuse to allow any organisations from outside to come in." I hope the Home Secretary will bear in mind, when the hon. and learned Member for Cork talks about his constituency, that there are other cases to consider.
I must admit there is a great deal in what the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Boland) says, for this reason, that the Sinn Feiners now are interfering in a great many constituencies, and I am greatly afraid they will pay some attention to the hon. Member.
2.0 P.M.
May I call attention to the provision of Section 6 of the Corrupt Practices Act. It provides that any person found coming down and incurring expense without the authority of the candidate can be imprisoned for two years with hard labour and can be fined. Is not that sufficient to satisfy even the very righteous wrath of the hon. Member? Suppose the Court comes to the conclusion that the offence has been committed inadvertently and is satisfied either by imprisonment or fine of a less strenuous nature it can inflict that. But after the conviction, unless this Amendment is carried, the following consequences ensue. The person convicted, in addition to incurring the punishment above provided, is for a period of seven years from the date of conviction incapable of being registered as an elector of voting at elections or of holding any public office within the meaning of the Act and such office as he may have held must be vacated. Some such discretion as is proposed should be left to the Court to deal with offences with which I have no more sympathy than the hon. Member, because these incapacities do work very harshly indeed against a person who is connected with politics or who has a vote as compared with a person who has not got a vote to start with and therefore may be in a position of greater freedom and less responsibility. At all events the punishment inflicted should, I think, be sufficient without these incapacities. This House has already passed a provision in this Bill in a similar case. It is provided that people who vote in more than one constituency shall be guilty of corrupt practices, but that the Court may, if they think there are any special circumstances in the case, mitigate or remit entirely any incapacity provided by Section 6 of the Corrupt Practices Act. What the House has already done in these other cases should now be done in this.
I have listened to the Debate, and it has confirmed my view that this is a reasonable and proper Amendment to accept. It only empowers the Court to mitigate or remit the incapacity of the convicted person being registered as a voter or being a candidate or holding public office. There are no words in the Clause about "wilful" or "corrupt." Anybody may commit this offence and it is only fair that the Court should have power to remit any incapacity of this kind, especially when it is remembered that we are creating a new offence.
After what the right hon. Gentleman has said I will not oppose the Amendment further, especially as, on full consideration, I see that the organisation which hitherto has behaved so vilely in Ireland has now been deprived of its power, and this Amendment will in future work altogether in favour of the Sinn Feiners.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: At the end of the Clause insert the following new Sub-section:
"(3) Any expenses incurred on account of any such purpose as aforesaid and authorised by the candidate shall be duly returned as part of the candidate's election expenses."—[ Sir G. Cave. ]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman how far he thinks this Clause, which I hope will be a useful Clause, is going to secure the purpose in view. It is very desirable that these organisations up and down the country should have a statement from the Government as to the effect which in their view the Clause is likely to have. There are some conceivable applications of it against which I think the Government will have to guard at a later stage. For instance, if there is an old-established local Conservative paper in a constituency, is the proprietor of that newspaper to run any risk under this Clause because, when an election takes place, he in the ordinary course of business publishes a leading article urging the electors to vote for the Conservative candidate? If we are to be told that a person is not to incur any expense in issuing publications for the purpose of promoting the election of any candidate, the Government will have to consider whether the words are such as will save this case, which must be saved. I do not see how an established newspaper can be expected to desist from expressing political opinions because there is an election on. On the other end of the scale my fear is that the Clause will not turn out as drastic in practice as I should like, because I am afraid that the expressions in the Clause will be got over by urging that the outside organisation is not really spending money for the purpose of promoting the election of a given candidate, but for the general purpose of advocating a point of view. That has been the argument that has hitherto prevailed in connection with organisations, and I would like to know from the Home Secretary how far he thinks those difficulties will by practice be got over by the Clause as at present drafted. Though we are all aiming at a most useful reform it is a very difficult matter to find in practice such words as will secure the reform which we want to secure.
This Clause embodies practically the representation which was made by the Speaker's Conference. I do not say for a moment that the Clause is perfect and that no one can break through it, but I think that it will have a very good effect. Take the case which the right hon. Gentleman has referred to of some body which issues literature in favour of a particular view concerning Free Trade, Tariff Reform, or anything else, without naming a particular candidate at an election. The question which the right hon. Gentleman raises is a very pertinent one, as to whether that is an expense coming under this Clause. That seems to be a question of fact which the tribunal will have to determine in every case. If the appeals were only for the purpose of promoting opinions there might be no offence committed, but I think that if at election time, when there is a contest between one view and another, an organi- sations were to issue literature supporting the views advocated by one candidate and not by the other, the Court would be thoroughly justified in considering that that expenditure was for the purpose of promoting the election of a candidate. It is impossible to say that the mere omission of the name of a candidate is sufficient to protect the organisation from prosecution under this Section. The tribunal would have to consider whether in fact the expenditure was for this purpose, and if it was there would have to be a conviction. In reference to the newspaper question, I agree entirely that it would be absurd, and no one desires, that the proprietor of a newspaper should be prevented from supporting a candidate at an election even by name. That is not at all the object of the Clause, but I should think that in such a case, if there was not a special issue of the newspaper for the purpose of promoting the election of the candidate, but if the newspaper were published in the ordinary way as a daily or weekly issue, no prosecution could be instituted. If there is any doubt upon that words could be put into the Bill to make it clear that cases of that kind do not come within this Clause. But if a newspaper does, as is sometimes done, issue a special number in the interests of a candidate that might very well be a case of expenditure for the purpose of promoting his return, and in that case an offence would be committed. If the newspaper is published in the ordinary course I have no desire to interfere with it, and if an Amendment is suggested to protect any such case I shall be very glad to consider it.
I would like the Committee to consider the question of newspapers which issue posters. I do not know whether the Clause covers that case. The words are advertisements, circulars or publications. One of the great grievances for which we have suffered in a certain number of by-elections has been the issue of newspaper posters more or less in the interests of certain candidates. I remember one by-election in which I took an interest where there was no name of any candidate mentioned on the poster. It was at a time when there was a great deal of agitation about Dreadnoughts for the Navy and the newspaper placarded the whole of a large county division with posters with the words "We want eight and we won't wait." It was quite evident to the people in the locality that these posters were meant for one particular candidate. I remember another by-election at which the agents for both candidates agreed that no posters should be issued. The result was that a newspaper placarded the whole of that division with a poster with the name of the paper on top of the poster asking the electors to vote for one of the candidates. That kind of thing is exceedingly dangerous, and can only be done by newspapers, who probably get advertisements from it, and a very large circulation. It is one of the things I think we should stop—these newspapers issuing their posters for a particular purpose. If the Home Secretary will kindly give his consideration to the point between now and the Report stage he might be able to devise a form of words to insert in the Clause in order to prevent this kind of thing at future elections.
There is one point which I wish the Home Secretary would consider before the Report stage, and that is the coming of any organisations into a constituency where you have a three-cornered fight. You might very well have two Free Trade or two Tariff Reform candidates, and if the Free Trade organisation took an active part in the contest and spent a great deal of money, it would be very difficult to say that they were interfering within the words of this Clause, "promoting or procuring the election of any candidate," because they might say that they were generally advocating Free Trade. I do not think it is desirable to give such organisations a free hand in the spending of money, and I hope the Home Secretary will consider between now and the Report stage whether any words could be adopted so as to prevent the coming in of an organisation in the way I have suggested.
I should like to bring to the notice of the Home Secretary another case which may happen, and which ought to be mentioned. Suppose my hon. Friend (Mr. Aneurin Williams) sent me a telegram to assist him in his election in Durham. I should take a ticket to Durham, or wherever was the place of meeting. I do not get the fare, but I generously offer to pay it myself, and I buy the railway ticket, though I have no authorisation in writing to do so, and by not having entered my railway ticket in his election expenses, I am guilty of an illegal practice, according to the strict and literal meaning of the words of the Clause, as I read them; and the gentleman who has sent me the telegram asking me to assist him, is also an accessory before and after the fact, and his election may be vitiated. That is a story which is not only comic, but quite possible, and really seems to me to come within the meaning of the Clause. I approve entirely of the object of this provision but I really think it is an extraordinarily difficult thing to draft a Clause without at the same time interfering with practices obviously common and necessary.
I sincerely hope that the Government will leave the Clause as it is, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, before the Report stage, to consider the words "or issuing advertisements, circulars, or publications," and whether a candidate, in giving consent in writing, can give it generally or specifically. Can he say, "I authorise A. and B. on my behalf to issue advertisements, circulars, and publications," and thereby authorise the issue of a particular circular headed so and so? That might afterwards become a very difficult question. Supposing some person, on his own behalf, issued a circular such as the hon. Gentleman referred to, as a general circular, the candidate might say, "I did not authorise that in writing, therefore I will not include it in my election expenses." Though it might be the fact that it was done without his knowledge, yet it perhaps was the very thing that turned the election in his favour. If it is not included in the expenses, it becomes not only a question for the judge and jury, but it may become a question for an election petition. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will between now and the Report stage consider whether a candidate can absolve himself from including in his election expenses such a case as that. Undoubtedly the Clause as a whole is well intended, but it is a question in my mind whether it is not a little bit too loosely drafted.
I think it is necessary to link the expenditure in some unmistakable way with the candidate. A man who was really an enemy might go down to a constituency and incur expense on behalf of the candidate, and if it could then be said that, though he had not the authorisation of the candidate, those expenses ought to have been included in the can- didate's return, the consequences might be most unfair. In regard to the machinery, and whether it is possible to prevent the miscarrying of the Clause, I would suggest that the consent of the candidate should be given in the form prescribed in the Act, and that form could be so drawn as to leave no doubt whatever about it that the person had been authorised for the purpose of promoting or procuring the return of a candidate at an election, and so incurred this expenditure. If that were done, the Government would have at their disposal a very strong means of seeing that the provisions of the Clause are complied with. There could be no mistake, if the consent of the candidate authorising certain action was sent in writing in the form prescribed.
Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
CLAUSE 26.—(Certain Acts to have permanent Effect
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
May I ask on this Clause whether the Home Secretary has in contemplation, at some time or other, before very long, the consolidation of the Amendments of all these various Acts? It ought to be done, and I think that at one time it was stated that the matter would be considered, and I would like to know that it will be considered.
The matter will be considered. I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
Question put, and agreed to.
Committee report Progress. [ To sit again after the Autumn Recess. ]
New Ministries Bill
Lords Amendments considered.
CLAUSE 2.—(Powers and Duties of Minister of Reconstruction.)
(1) It shall be the duty of the Minister of Reconstruction to consider and advise upon the problems which may arise after the termination of the present War, and for the purposes aforesaid to institute and conduct such inquiries, prepare such schemes, and make such recommendations as he thinks fit; and the Minister of Reconstruction shall, for the purposes aforesaid, have such powers and duties of any Government Department or authority, which have been conferred by or under any Statute, as His Majesty may by Order in Council authorise the Minister to exercise or perform concurrently with, or in consultation with, the Government Department or authority concerned.
(2) The Minister of Reconstruction shall in each year present to Parliament a Report of such of the schemes prepared and recommendations made by him as he shall deem suitable for publication.
(3) Any Order in Council made for the purpose of this Act may be added to, varied, or revoked by a subsequent Order in Council.
Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "after the termination of the present War" ["which may arise after the"], and insert instead thereof the words "out of the present, and may have to be dealt with upon its termination."
I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Can we not have a few words of explanation from the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the Amendments made in another place? Were any of them accepted by the Government?
The other House has made two Amendments in the Bill, and the object of the first, which is under consideration, is, instead of the words "after the termination of the War," to insert the words, "out of the present War and may have to be dealt with upon its termination." The words proposed are more exact than those which are in the Bill, and for my part I do not think that the change will hamper the proceedings of the Minister. I trust that the House will not object to these words.
I may mention that I proposed a similar Amendment in this House, though not exactly in the same words, but it was not accepted here.
I do not agree with the suggestion made by the Lords, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will resist this suggestion, that the duties of the Minister should be confined to what arises out of the present War and may have to be dealt with on its termination. The words suggested by the Lords are themselves contradictory. They say questions arising from the present War and which may have to be dealt with upon its termination. That obviously leaves the right to choose between the great problems that will arise after the War just as the Minister of Reconstruction wishes. Nobody can say now whether a problem that will arise after the War is a post hoc or propter hoc problem. If the House of Commons has gone the length, much against my will, of setting up a Ministry to deal with the problems which will arise subsequent to the War, it is rather stupid to say that there are certain problems to which that Minister with all the Departments at his disposal cannot address his mind. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman thought there would be no difference unless it was that we will shortly be on the Adjournment Debate, and that he does not want to create trouble and wishes the Bill to go through easily. I should like to hear some arguments from him as to how he is content to draw the distinction between pout hoc and propter hoc. No one can say now what those problems will be or how they will arise. The conduct by the Government of the War is evidence of that in the Committees they have had to create to deal with problems which, in the first instance, did not seem to relate themselves to any problem arising out of the present conduct of the War.
I should regret very much if, after the House of Commons agreed to this Bill, and I struggled to prevent it, you were to limit the power of the new Minister of Reconstruction. This Bill was brought in in order that one Member might get a post in the new Government. The Bill was brought in because so great a genius and so great a superman was that member in the Cabinet that the Cabinet could not do without him, and could not address themselves to problems arising out of the War unless they got him inside the Cabinet. Having got him out of the Ministry of Munitions in order to make way for another Minister, who had failed in everything else he had tried to do, they put him into this new post, and by this Amendment you are preventing him having a chance of making good. I think if you put a Minister in that position you ought to give him the opportunity of making good. Here is the late Minister for Munitions prepared to address himself to this great problem of reconstructing the British Empire after the War, and he is to be hindered in that great work by a few people in another House who never had to address themselves to any problem at all, and who have been throughout their lives interfering with this House in what it does. I feel so strongly about this matter that I am going to a Division unless the right hon. Gentleman gives us more substantial reasons why this Amendment should be inserted.
I hope that the Home Secretary will consider whether these words do not unduly limit the duties to be given to the Minister of Reconstruction. It seems to me, if you are going to deal with problems which may arise out of the present War, and which may have to be dealt with upon its termination, you prevent him dealing with problems arising out of the present War which may require to be dealt with before the termination of the War. It may be found, for instance, that housing matters will have to be attended to before the War is over in order to prevent very serious consequences when the men come back. I very much doubt whether these words would allow that. I think the words should be, "problems which may arise out of the present War, or may have to be dealt with upon its termination," and not "and." I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider that, or else the Minister may be very seriously hampered in the problems which he has to consider.
I take a somewhat different view from either of my hon. Friends. This Amendment limits the duties of the New Ministry to problems which may arise out of the present War, and may have to be dealt with on its termination. Instead of leaving the wide words which were in the Bill when it left this House, including all problems after the termination of the War, I think it is very important, so far as it is possible, to limit the powers of this Minister, and that we should clearly define what is to come within the purview of the new office. I must make some apology for appearing here this afternoon as a champion of an Amendment inserted by the Lords. I admit that is somewhat unusual, but when I find a really sound Amendment proposed by the other House, I think, apart from all our prejudices, we should accept it on its merits. My view extends equally to the Amendment which succeeds it, and upon which I understand a Noble Lord was lucky enough to defeat the Government. If this Ministry is to deal with all problems which may arise after the termination of the War, irrespective of whether they are connected in any way with war conditions or arise out of those conditions, then I think that the Ministry would have a roving commission far beyond the powers of the Minister to undertake. If we are to have a Ministry performing useful work, it is well that that work should be clearly defined. We know many of the problems which have arisen and which may have to be dealt with upon the termination of the War, and many of them have already been under the consideration of what are called Reconstruction Committees. I think, on the whole, we know fairly well what is intended by those problems. If, therefore, the words remain as they were in the original Bill, we do not know to what extent a Minister under his ambitions might extend the functions of his Department. We know that not only is he to conduct investigations, but to undertake experiments. If he has those wide and varied duties entrusted to him it is as well that we should, as clearly and as narrowly as possible, define the ground on which he is to conduct his investigations and to undertake experiments. It is for those reasons I find myself with very deep regret in disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), and if he takes this matter to a Division I shall, unfortunately, be compelled to support the Lords wise Amendment.
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendment: At the end of the Clause insert the following new Subsection:
"(4) An Order in Council under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith, and if an Address is presented by either House within the next subsequent forty days on which that House shall have sat praying His Majesty that the Order may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the Order, and it shall thenceforth be void but without prejudice to the validity of anything already done thereunder."
Lords Amendment read a second time.
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, to leave out the words "but without prejudice to the validity of anything already done thereunder."
I desire to ask whether the words quite convey the sense of what is intended by the Government. The obvious meaning of the Amendment is that if either House carry an Address annulling an Order in Council, the whole Order should be void, and matters should be restored to the position in which they were before the Order was made. It seems possible, however, that a transfer of power might be made under an Order in Council in terms. If that were so, it would be irreversible even if the House of Commons or the House of Lords carried an Address annulling the Order in Council. That is not what is intended, and I would ask to have an assurance that nothing of the kind is contemplated or will be done, and that if either House annulled the Order that the intention of that House would be carried out. The Bill is not becoming part of our permanent legislation, and therefore this is not a matter about which we need be very scrupulous. But something might be done during the period an Order was lying on the Table which could not and would not be undone when the Order was annulled, that something being in the nature of a transfer of powers from one Department to another.
I beg to second the Amendment.
I think that is a very valuable suggestion. At present Orders have to lie on the Table for so many days before they can become valid. The only way in which they can be removed is by petition to the King, and you cannot get a discussion on Orders in Council unless the Leader of the House is prepared to give you time after eleven o'clock at night to discuss them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not quite!"] I am glad to see that so many people know what the Orders of the House are better than some others of us, but I understood that you could not certainly get such a discussion except within certain limits. There is always difficulty of counting the time of the House and of giving the opportunity for discussing these questions. The point the Noble Lord makes is a good, sound, and perfect point. There can be no problem that will arise after the War which is so absolutely urgent that it requires to be put into operation in such a time that the House of Commons is necessitated to give its assent to it immediately. There is so much done now without the assent of the House of Commons, so much to which we are committed before we know where we are, so much that is kept from our discussion, so much that is done without our authority and consent, and to which we are asked to agree after it has been done, that I think the Noble Lord is wise in submitting this Amendment to the House. I think he ought to persist in desiring that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary should excise these words. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or give an assurance, of course!"] Yes, the Noble Lord asks for an assurance; but we are so constantly asking for assurances from the Government, and pledges of one kind and another, that we do not really know where we are. There might, for instance, be some secret instruction after the assurance had been given that took away the value of the assurance. The Leader of the House might give a reply, as has been done before, on very important questions, quite in good faith so far as he is concerned, which the House afterwards discovered was given without full knowledge and that is quite inaccurate. The House of Commons ought not to lose grasp of its own work, and ought not to give its authority to any of these things without effective control. I am very glad that the Noble Lord has made such a democratic suggestion to the House.
This is not, as the House knows, the Amendment carried in another place against the protest of the Government. That was struck out at a later stage. In regard to the point raised by my Noble Friend, I have no hesitation in giving him the assurance for which he asks. There can be no transfer of powers except by an Order in Council under this Bill. The only effect of leaving out the words which the Noble Lord proposes to leave out would be that acts done in the meantime under the Order would be void.
Amendment to Lords Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
Adjournment of the House (Autumn)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, on the day on which the Corn Production Bill receives the Royal Assent, Mr. Speaker, as soon as he has reported the Royal Assent to the Acts agreed upon by both Houses, shall adjourn the House without Question put until Tuesday, the 16th day of October."—[ Sir George Cave. ]
Food Production
I am anxious on this occasion to draw attention, to recent Orders of the Food Controller, and their relation to agriculture in Ireland, and to the provisions of the Corn Production Bill. The agricultural community is very much exercised in mind by recent things which have taken place in connection with the Orders and Regulations concerning Irish agriculture. As we understand this question is still open and still unsettled, there is no harm in speaking on behalf of tillage farmers in Ireland and to give their views generally upon the question. It is not so long ago that farmers were appealed to to assist the community in the matter of the food supply. The farmers, I think, were very willing and very ready to assist to the best of their ability. Agricultural statistics which have been laid before the House will bear me out when I say that farmers generally have responded splendidly to the appeal made. Farmers, like everybody else, have to live and to pay their way. They have to support their family, pay their labourers, and pay their taxes, and with the increased cost to agriculture which has come in recent years the farmer's position is not an easy one, and I did not think that the farmer's position has been fully taken into consideration in the recent legislation of this House, and certainly not in recent Orders of the Food Controller. The first thing we have to remember is this, that farmers as a class are not capitalists. Farming for production means in some cases a considerable outlay of money without any very speedy or immediate return for it. Farmers not being capitalists, have to depend upon their credit. The farmer's credit depends upon the security that he can show for a reasonable return for the outlay of his money. Without credit the farmer is not able to carry on his business. This House has recently passed a Bill which professes, amongst other things, to give to the farmers a certain security in the matter of grain prices, and of wheat and oats, for a certain number of years. In giving the farmer this security the Corn Bill lays very onerous obligations upon the farmer and enforces those obligations with very severe penalties.
3.0 P.M.
It is of the first importance, if the farmer has to carry on his business to his own satisfaction, and with good results for the community, that the farmer should know where he stands, and know within reasonable limits how he is to carry on his business. He ought to know what return he is likely to get in the near future for the money he lays out. In addition in the Corn Bill, with its promises and penalties, we have a new departure in Irish agriculture and in agriculture generally in these Islands in the shape of agricultural Orders, which come to us from all sorts of Government authorities. It may be that these Orders are necessary in these times. I do not know whether they are or not. I am quite certain they are not helpful to the farmers, because they may have the exactly opposite effect to that desired or what, at all events, the Corn Bill promised to obviate. They have the effect of creating uncertainty, anxiety, and disturbance in the minds of the farming classes generally. I should like to take this, the first opportunity I have had, of protesting against agriculture in Ireland or anywhere else being conducted by Order of any Government Department. It is perfectly impossible for any farmer to carry on his business on those terms. I should like to know who springs these Orders upon us? Who designs these Orders? We are not consulted about them. We know nothing about them. They appear like Russian decrees. They appear in the newspapers without notice. We do not previously see them. We are not consulted about them. I can assure the House, and all whom it may concern, that we are not disposed to obey these Orders unless our rulers show some common sense in drawing them up and unless we are consulted more or less before these Orders are issued. I should like to quote an Order. I have not seen it. I suppose, probably very few farmers have seen it. It was sent to me by a friend the other day. It relates to the 1917 Crop Restriction Order, dated 13th July. It is an Order made by the Food Controller under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and its title seems very appropriate. It says: lutely inconceivable, and even a lawyer would be hardly able to fill up some of these forms. Has a farmer who wants to go to market or pay his wages bill to fill up one of these ridiculous forms and apply to the Food Controller for a permit, and has he to wait an interminable period until the officials make up their minds whether they ought to issue the permit or not? Supposing this is so, what about the Corn Bill, its penalties and its guarantees? How is a farmer to farm his land if he has the Corn Bill on one hand and Government Orders coming out every day and the Corn Bill telling him one thing and these Orders telling him he has got to do another thing? As I say, you need not imagine that the farmers are gong to obey those Orders, bearing in mind the obligations under the Corn Bill, and taking all the difficulties of farming operations into account.
Take the season in which we are. There are thousands of acres of corn and oats laid all over the country, and the expense of saving our harvest this year will be very much greater than usual. How, then, are we to obey the Corn Bill, make ends meet, pay our local taxes, which are heavy just now, pay our Imperial taxes, which are still heavier, and carry on our business generally if we are faced day by day with Orders conceived by people who have not the smallest conception of the realities of agriculture? Let us take for one moment this Corn Bill and the guarantees. I think we shall find that the guarantees in this Corn Bill are very largely fairy stories. I think most farmers will find these guarantees utterly illusory. Take one guarantee which affects my country very greatly, and that is the guarantee for oats. In Ireland oats is the principal grain, and we grow very good oats; at all events, our yield per acres is 24½ per cent. greater than the yield in England. The Corn Bill guarantees us a certain price for oats. Well, the practical farmers in my district who grow oats very largely have worked out the Corn Bill figures, and they assure me those figures for the last three years are absolutely below the margin of profitable cultivation, taking into account the increased cost of agricultural machinery, increased wages, the increased cost of manures, and so forth. They take a serious view of this question. I am assured that, taking the Corn Bill all round, the guaranteed prices will mean a loss to Ireland on the whole of something like £2,000,000. The Corn Bill was amended in some respects and power was given to the Irish Department of Agriculture to regulate the price of oats to some extent, and we are supposed to be satisfied. But I am sorry to say our estimate of the capacity of the Irish Department of Agriculture does not stand as high as it did. We have had some experience of their regulation of agricultural prices and of their dealing with agricultural matters. We remember the way they dealt with Irish wool. Under their Regulations Irish wool was commandeered by the War Office at a low price and was sold again at a very handsome profit. We did not make the profit. What I want to know is, Is the same thing going to happen with out oats? If the present figures in the Corn Bill, which we think will work out at a loss in the case of oats, are to be regulated in every way, what guarantees have we that the Irish Department of Agriculture will take a reasonable view and will provide a price for our oats which will pay the farmers to till their land?
We have made inquiries as to what is to be the maximum price for oats. No one can tell us that. Then we ask, What is to be the minimum price of oats? and no one knows what that is going to be either. The Food Controller made a speech the other day in which he said the maximum price for oats would only be given for the best quality, and the Irish farmers are becoming rather alarmed about the situation. We are informed by persons representing the Department of Agriculture that the oats which are to be given the maximum price, such as it is, in the Corn Bill are oats which have been screened three times. We only screen them twice. But, again, on this point practical oat growers in my district have worked out the calculation, and they come to the conclusion that if that is to be the best quality oats it will mean a loss to them of 30s. an acre. I do not know how far the Food Controller will succeed in increasing the food supply if he goes on making Regulations like this. Then the Food Controller in another place the other day made a speech in which he endeavoured to explain one of his Orders. He said: anyone else, but the farmer has nothing to say as to what various hands his produce passes through before it reaches the consumer, and because there happens to be various intermediaries I do not think it is fair to the farmer to make him pay. If the farmer is expected to till the land and place his ability and energy at the service of the nation to increase the food supply, he ought to get a fair return for a fair day's work.
That statement of the Food Controller, like most of these Government statements, is not easy to understand. But if the Food Controller really means there is to be no unnecessary interference with the farmers in their conduct of buying and selling according to their custom in the market, and they are to be allowed full liberty of selling their produce as seems best, then I say he will carry the farmers with him, and there will be no objection to the Order, whatever it may mean. But if any tricks are to be played with the farmer when they have saved their corn under the difficulties of the present situation, if they are not allowed to bring their corn to market, and it is commandeered at minimum prices, about which we know nothing, I say there will be considerable trouble in agricultural areas with us. They will not submit to be treated in this fashion, and if the Food Controller really wants to increase the food supply of the country, both he and all the other Government Departments concerned will have to treat the farmers with common sense. We do not know where we are in the matter of oats, and, as it is our staple crop, it is time a step should be taken to reassure the farmer that he is not going to have his oats taken away at whatever minimum price the Government may fix
The Order also refers to potatoes. In Ireland we sowed 588,000 acres of potatoes in the spring, while England sowed 399,000 acres. We did this because, long before there was any question of a Corn Bill, we were urged by the Irish Department of Agriculture to grow potatoes. They deluged us with circulars, and we responded to the best of our ability and grew potatoes. Then in comes the Corn Bill, but there is nothing whatever about potatoes in the Bill. We think that, having responded to these many leaflets we received, and having done what we could to increase food production, some consideration should be shown us. We should, at all events, be thanked for the trouble and expense. Now we understand that our potatoes are going to be commandeered. The mysterious way in which we are governed is really something amazing. Nobody knows what is going to happen. Orders appear in newspapers which nobody reads, and the result is that the farming situation is to be revolutionised. Now we are told—I do not know whether it is true or not—in the same mysterious way in which we learn everything in my country, that our potatoes are to be commandeered. If that is so, what we want to know is, What is going to be the maximum and the minimum prices? I think it is right we should know that; having gone to the trouble of ploughing up the land and growing potatoes to the extent of nearly 600,000 acres. If they are going to be commandeered, who is going to buy them, and what steps are going to be taken to ensure some sort of return for our outlay? It is very easy to draw up an Order telling the farmer what he has got to do with his potatoes, but it will not be so easy to draw up an Order to get potatoes out of the ground; and as very shortly we shall be trying to take up the extra crop, in spite of the bad weather, I think it is right that we should be told who is going to buy them, and what price we are going to get, because you will not find it easy to dig potatoes in my country by the Food Controller's Order. Digging potatoes means a considerable outlay of energy, and if we are to devote that energy, I think at least we ought to know what is going to happen, who is going to buy them, and what price is going to be given for them. Will it be plainly stated that we shall be allowed to sell our produce in the open market? If we are going to be allowed to do this what on earth is the use of all these ridiculous Orders?
I now come to the question of the price of cattle. The recent Order dealing with fat cattle was received by us with positive amazement. We were told that these prices were fixed in consultation with the Irish Department of Agriculture, and then our amazement grew still greater. How anybody who knows anything of tillage farming, and the large part store cattle feeding and the winter feeding of cattle play in Irish farming can recommend such a sale as that which is adopted in the last Order, absolutely passes my comprehension. Fanners have been accused of profiteering, but the farmer is just as honest and patriotic as anybody else. He does not want to take advantage of anybody, but he does want fair play. As far as this Order is concerned, if it was intended to promote an increase in the food supply and to bring cheaper beef within the reach of the population in the towns, then those who issued this Order went to work exactly the wrong way about. What they should have done was to have put the lowest price first and then have gone on in an ascending scale, instead of a descending scale. That is what has so astounded anybody who knows anything about this class of farming in my part of the world.
This Order will absolutely stop winter feeding. In my county it is the habit to buy cattle by stores in May, June and July. Then those stores of cattle are turned out and sold in the market in December, January, and so forth. How can you expect a farmer who has to live and obey the Corn Production Bill and support his family and pay his labour to possibly sell his fat cattle in December or January at a lower price than he actually pays for them as stores in May or June? That is impossible. This Order is one of the worst blows at tillage that anybody ever heard of. The basis of tillage is winter feeding. One of its main attractions is that farmers can make money to buy seeds and manures for the spring. This Order will stop winter feeding, and the result will be not that you will get cheap beef, but you will get no beef at all What farmer is going to feed and fatten cattle if, after going to that expense, he has to sell them at a lower price than he paid for them? This is the most fantastic Order that any Government office ever concocted. I have heard the farmers constantly abused, but in the interests of the food supply of the nation and of cheap meat for the masses in your cities this is the most ridiculous Order ever invented, and instead of cheap beef you will have no beef.
There is another point which may not appeal so much to this House, but, at any rate, it ought to appeal to every farmer. If you have no winter feeding you will have no farmyard manure, which is the basis of successful tillage and of good yielding crops. If you have no winter feeding you will have no farmyard manure, no successful tillage, a diminution in the yield of crops, and all your efforts to increase tillage will be a most hopeless failure unless some steps are taken to rescind the preposterous policy laid down in this Order. We are told that we may till with artificial manure, but that has been tried before and has been found wanting. In connection with artificial manure I am told almost every day that we shall get all we want in this respect. We are told that all sorts of preparations are being made to supply us with artificial manure and machinery, and the Lord knows what besides.
Last year, when increased tillage was ordered, everybody tilled, and farmers paid ridiculous prices for artificial fertilisers, and even then there was not enough to go round. I am perfectly certain, in spite of all that has been said, that now our acreage has been increased we shall find there is the worst shortage of artificial fertilisers than ever next spring, I am an old-fashioned farmer living amongst old-fashioned farmers, and we believe that continuous cropping with artificial manure is bad for the land. We hold the old doctrine that the only safe foundation for agriculture is the fertiliser you get in the farmyard. Of course, we use artificial fertilisers as a help, but for permanent and successful farming artificial fertilisers are a mistake. We have experience to guide us. During the Crimean War there was a great increase of tillage. The land was cropped and redropped with artificial manures, and we know to our cost that it has never recovered from that species of farming ever since. I commend that fact to the critics of farmers and to those who think that legislation by Order will bring about successful farming or any permanent improvement in tillage. I will now give the views of somebody else on this subject who knows what he is talking about. Mr. Patrick O'Connor, auctioneer and salesman, of Dublin, has been asked his opinion about this recent food Order. This gentleman has been concerned in buying and selling cattle all his life, and he has had a larger financial experience in this matter than most of us. He says: come to the conclusion that if this Order is persisted in there will be no fresh beef in the market after Christmas. I have made one or two points which I commend to the attention of the Food Controller. The farmers are a patient race, and have put up with a good deal of neglect, but there is a limit to our patience, and if we are to be faced with preposterous Orders of this kind, if we have to face the penalties of the Corn Production Bill and the various types of punishment which it is going to inflict upon the farmer, then the farmers will probably strike, and if it does come to such a fight it will be the farmers who will win and not the Government.
I want to say a word or two from the point of view of food production in England. There is a very comfortable assurance amongst everybody I have talked to in the last few days that the food supplies of the country are perfectly safe, and that we need not trouble. They say that we had a shortage a couple of months ago, but now everything is all right. I ask the Government to look forward a little into next year, for unless very great care is exercised there will be a positive scarcity of food in the months of April, May and June next year. Nobody can hope that the War will end this year, and therefore I ask the Government to prepare for increased cultivation far more intelligently than has been done up to now. The farmers in England have done wonders with the amount of labour that is available, and with the aid of women labour and the soldiers they are doing a very great work indeed. Nevertheless it is no use disguising the fact that the wheat acreage this year is less than it was last year, and last year it was less than it was the year before.
Now the Government are sending round, with the most excellent intentions, motor tractors to plough the land. I have had an opportunity of seeing some of these tractors at work. I went down to my home in Devonshire, and I was immediately asked to come and see the unit where the motor tractors were engaged. When I got there last Tuesday I must say that I never saw anything more wasteful in my life. The method of using these motor tractors was beyond all conception wasteful, I will not say wanton, and this simply and solely because there was no organisation behind it. I went to a place called Holsworthy where the unit is established for our part of the world, and I found five tractors and five ploughs. Only two of these tractors and two ploughs were ploughing. One tractor was fooling about with a roller. There were two tractors and three ploughs idle. There was one thing of which we had a plethora, and that was officials. We had any number of officials for these five tractors and five ploughs. There were one supervisor at five guineas per week and expenses, a machinery officer at five guineas per week and expenses, a mechanic at four guineas per week and expenses, a clerk at two guineas per week and expenses, and nine men at 2 per week with separation allowances. This is the state of affairs that exists in that part of the world which I know best and where I made careful inquiry as to what was going on. It is impossible that all these men can be employed there, and the suggestion I would make to the Government, if they propose to keep them, is that when they go out to work they should have a brass band to accompany them. That is one unit in the county of Devon. There are other units which I understand are not quite so busy as this one. I made careful inquiry, and I found that these five tractors in the last fortnight had ploughed something like 25 acres per week or less than I acre per day per tractor. They are ploughing up land that no experienced agriculturist would ever touch. There is a place at Halwill in Devonshire where they have ploughed 60 acres, but no experienced agriculturist can say why. I went over it with a very experienced man in Devonshire, and I said to him, "What can you expect to grow on this land this year?" He said, "It is impossible to grow anything."
It is impossible for the Government or any farmer to grow any crop on these 60 acres which have been ploughed up at a cost of over 5 per acre. I saw these tractors at work. They were engaged ploughing up moor land that has not been cultivated in the memory of man. There must be a grave risk in ploughing up this land. You cannot expect to get a crop next year. Every experienced agriculturist knows pretty well that it is quite on the cards that the first year it will not grow any crop at all. More than that, they are ploughing it up but there is no agreement with the farmer that he will till it. I do not understand who is directing the food production operations of the Government. There are no methodical ploughing arrangements. There is a machinery inspector who goes round in a motor car, of course paid by the Government—there is a great shortage of petrol amongst the business community—and who tries to get a field here and there to plough. The country is not mapped out intelligently or the best land taken for the growing of corn. I suggest that the Government should bring in some practical man to advise them and that they should only plough up land which will grow a crop next year. There is plenty of land which has fallen down to pasture or which has been put down to pasture which could be ploughed up quite easily for the growing of a crop next year, but on the land being ploughed in Devonshire at the present time no crop can be grown. I have had complaints that private men cannot buy a motor tractor for private ploughing because they are all taken up by the Government and are kept in the position that these tractors are kept down at Holsworthy in Devonshire. I have really come up on purpose about this matter, because it is most important that wherever ploughing is done it should be done now for the wheat crop next year. It is no use leaving it. I would suggest that they must get suitable land upon which to use their motor tractors.
I want to ask a question or two of the Food Controller with regard to the reduction in the price of bread. We are all glad, of course, that there should be a reduction in the price of the loaf, but will that reduction increase the consumption of bread, more especially next spring, because owing to the Order there will certainly be a shortage of meat? Have you got tonnage to bring a sufficient amount of breadstuffs into the country for the population? I have not taken a very active part in protesting against the control of food prices. Food prices have soared to such an extent that really it has inflicted very grave hardship upon a very large portion of our population. My aim and that of those who have worked with me has been to increase production. If you have got production in the country, you can control prices. Do the Government realise what will be the effect of their fixing the price of 60s. per cwt. for beef in January next? It is really a practical question. I have asked the Food Controller over and over again in the last twelve months whether he will reduce the price of feeding stuffs, but I have never had a satisfactory answer, and I do not believe that the Food Controller or the Department of Agriculture or any Department of the Government have lowered the price of feeding stuffs by 1d., or 1 per ton, during the whole time that they have been dealing with this matter. I do not want to embarrass the Government—far from it— but I want to put before them this consideration: If you fix the price of meat at 60s. per cwt., then, if you are to get the beef, you must make it profitable for the farmer to produce it at that price, and you must therefore decrease the price of feeding stuffs. Many oil and cake makers have made enormous profits during the last year or two. I believe one great firm which controls a large amount of the oil cake production of the country have increased their profits from 200,000 pre-war level to something like 600,000 in war-time. I want the Government, therefore, to reduce the price of feeding stuffs to the farmer, in order that he may be able to produce beef at 60s. per cwt. Of course, at the present time it is absolutely impossible. It is not only a question of beef; it is also a question of milk. The question of milk will be a very serious one in this country in the winter months. The weather just now is all in favour of growing grass, and grass is plentiful, but after the first flush of milk is over, depend upon it there will be a scarcity of milk in our large towns, more especially if the price of feeding stuffs is not reduced. It is not the crux of the question, but it has a most important bearing upon it, and I do urge upon the Government to enable the farmer to produce milk and beef at a profit. That can only be done by reducing the farmer's cost of production. I do not wish to say any more about these subjects, except that unless the Government do take this matter very seriously in hand at once they will find that there will be a very serious shortage of food in this country within the next few months or in the early months of 1918.
Nobody would come down here to talk except under a great sense of responsibility, because of course we are all anxious to get away, but I cannot help expressing deep alarm at this Order of the Food Controller. No doubt his object and intentions are good, and one does not want to criticise needlessly; but ours is a country of small farms, and on these small farms there are no big sheds or granaries such as you have in England. The farmer when he has cut his crop must sell it. He has no means of preserving it such as you have in England. No doubt it is a bad system, and no doubt he would do better if he had a barn in which to put his grain and if he could wait for the market. But he has not got it. I quite agree with the construction placed upon the Order by my hon. Friend (Sir T. Esmonde). The Order seems to me to be designed to paralyse what I may call all market industry. If our construction is incorrect, why was such an Order issued? Why was it not made plain that the ordinary market operations connected with these little rural towns were to be allowed to continue? If it is an Order saying that there is to be no sale of potatoes, no sale of wheat, and so on in these rural towns without the permit of the Food Controller, the thing is absurd. The farmer must be allowed to go to his country town and dispose of his produce in the usual way. He is not acting as a profiteer. He is making no special profit. The man whose pocket and whose action you want to check is the middleman, and not the original producer of the food. The unfortunate farmer has got to pay for his labour and his rent or his instalments. The fairs of the country have come down to us from time immemorial. They are arranged to suit the seasons, so that men shall have money at particular times to pay their bills, and you cannot, as Mr. Morley once said, thrust a ramrod into this delicate machinery without upsetting the whole rural life of the country. I therefore beg the Food Controller to take these points into account and to allow the farmer to dispose of his produce in the usual way and then to deal with the man who has bought the farmer's produce. He has got granaries and stores and the means of piling up accumulations of food, and it is against him that the arm of the law should be directed. The original producer from the land should be allowed to sell his produce freely. Really it is practically smothering the whole of our country life to say anything to the contrary. It seems a very easy thing to say that beef shall be sold at 60s. in January. It is so beautiful and deliriously simple; it is so gorgeous that I wonder what Lord Rhondda would say if I were Food Controller and were to say that coal should be sold at £1 per ton next January! Would he not think of all the operations in the pit and all the wages that he had to pay to get his product and his freight charges?
The price of coal is fixed.
It is not fixed at a ruinous price to the coal owner. I wonder why we are paying £3 per ton in some parts of our country? It may be fixed for England, but I do not know whether it is fixed for Ireland. Be that as it may, it is not the simple question that the Government suppose. You are interfering with the tillage industry and with a great many other matters. These arguments are so powerful that I shall not repeat them.
I want to bring before the attention of the hon. Gentleman an extraordinary reply he gave to me the other day. Pig food is very badly needed, especially in southern Ireland. Wheat is freely imported by us from Liverpool, but there is extreme difficulty in obtaining maize, with the result that the grinding mills in many cases in county Cork have been stopped. I put a question and I received from the hon. Gentleman the most extraordinary reply that has probably ever been given to a question in this House, in which every allegation that I made was flatly denied. Everybody knows we do not put these questions out of our own heads. The millers write to us and tell us that they cannot get maize although they can get wheat. The reply said that the Cork importers had informed the Royal Commission that they had no grievance whatever against the Food Controller, whereupon the three principal Cork importers— R. and H. Hall, Ltd., J. W. Green and Co., and E. McDonnel and Co.—write: Cork importers write to say that they have not had 1,000 tons more, but nearly 7,000 tons less, and have not expressed any satisfaction with the action of the Government. I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has received the distinction which enables him to speak from the Treasury Box in regard to Irish figures, but he ought not to have given that flat, blunt contradiction, unless he had some better information than he appears to have had. One is disposed to think that in this very difficult matter a gentleman in his position and in the position of the Food Controller, who have not been keenly interested in agriculture, would consider local opinion. One would desire that more attention should be paid to local opinion than these gentlemen can pay owing to their very heavy work. We have no other course left open to us than to get up in the House and make our protest.
Another matter which I wish to raise concerns the Chief Secretary more than the Food Controller. Within the last few weeks the right hon. Gentleman seized a newspaper in Ireland, called the "Kilkenny People." a paper of which I have never seen a copy. I am not now going to challenge the right hon. Gentleman's action in seizing the paper, because I do not know the grounds on which his action was based, but I am going to challenge the action of the Government in seizing the plant which the proprietor— whom I do not know, with whom I have no relation, and who has never written to me on the subject—used for his jobbing business. He was engaged in printing Poor Law lists, Parliamentary voters' lists and other local matters of that kind, and because he printed articles alleged to be seditious in his newspaper the Government came in, and at ten minutes' notice seized the whole of his private plant and carted it off to the station, giving him ten minutes in which to unscrew all his machinery. The result was that twenty-five printers were thrown out of employment. The day selected for this operation was the day of the opening of the Assizes in Kilkenny, when people expect law and order, and it was the opening day of the election campaign for the city of Kilkenny. Yet you wonder that the Sinn Feiner won Personally, I am very glad that he won. I hope they will sweep the country, because they are the best and most honest politicians that have yet appeared in it. That is by the way. What I want to know from the Government is this: Yesterday I read in the papers that the Government had made reparation to the man to the extent of giving him back some of his scrap iron or machinery—in other words, they acknowledge that they had made this blunder. Will the printers who have been thrown out of work, who have nothing to do with politics or with the leading articles that appeared in the paper, be compensated for their loss of time, and will this gentleman be compensated for the loss he undoubtedly sustained and for the blunder which the Government have allowed to be committed?
I desire to ask a question of the Government in regard to the rebuilding of Dublin. It is now something like eighteen months since the rebellion, when the Government so needlessly burnt down Sackville Street as an alleged military operation. From that time to the present the shopkeepers of Dublin have not been able to rebuild, and the city is almost, with some few exceptions, in exactly the same condition it was in the day after the rebellion was suppressed. There has been what is called the Rebellion Losses Committee. I understand that in England if the Losses Commission, over which the Chief Secretary so ably presided, made a grant, it was given immediately to the man concerned and he was able to deal with the capital provided for him by the Government. In Ireland they have made this rule, which seems fair until you examine it, that they will only give the money as and when they get the architect's certificate as to the amount of building carried out. I am not altogether opposed to that system, because it does provide a check upon the building owner, but I think it should be subject to the consideration that these men have very heavy expenses for the payment of mortgages on their old property, for head rents and for charges of various kinds. They have recently met and have protested that as from the day of their loss that capital sum should be deemed to be attributed to them, and that if any interest should be payable upon it, that that interest should go to their credit as against their other losses. The House should consider what these men have suffered in the shape of business losses, for none of which have they been compensated. I understand that none of the business losses of the citizens of Dublin entered into the awards which were made by the Crown. I do not complain of those awards. On the whole I think they were fair, although I think that in one case they were extravagant, and the House will not be surprised to learn that I am not making a claim for interest in that case. One business firm showed in its balance sheet that its assets were 30,000. The House will be astonished to learn that the award of compensation to that business firm was 62,000, but the mystery will be cleared up when I mention that the name of that firm is the "Freeman's Journal," Limited, which is the organ of the so-called Irish party. Therefore, it will be understood that I am not making the claim for interest on behalf of that eminent institution, but only on behalf of the shopkeepers, who have been at a heavy loss in the respect I have mentioned.
I wish to contrast the action of the Government in giving that extravagant compensation in one case with the way in which they treated the families of the three men who suffered death at the hands of the military. The House will remember the Sheehy-Skeffington case, in which Mrs. Skeffington was refused any compensation whatever for the loss of her husband. There were three men killed by Captain Colthurst—Dixon, Macintyre, and Cole. These losses were inquired into by the same Rebellion Losses Committee. I do not know what the award was—I have asked a question about it in this House and was refused an answer—but I do know that a wholly inadequate offer to the families of these men was made by the Government. It was a contemptible offer. It was an offer limited to the life of the parents. I think the highest was an offer of 40 a year to an old man of something like seventy years of age, and in the other cases it was a life offer to very old people. I do not care to mention what the offer was, because it seems almost incredible. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whose notice I have brought this matter previously, will take into account that the extravagance on the one hand so far as the "Freeman's Journal" is concerned and the meanness of the offer on the other hand is a matter which has entered very deeply into the minds of the people of Ireland.
Further, I do not know on what ground doubt has been thrown by the Government as to the intention to extend the Franchise Bill to Ireland, but the doubt has been thrown, and nothing is contributing more to the unrest of the country than that some negotiations are supposed to exist between a section of this House and the Government with regard to that Bill. I merely draw attention to it, and I hope the Government will be able to assure the country that the same consideration as regards the franchise will be given to Ireland as to England and Scotland. I have only one other matter to mention. Within the last few months the perfectly peaceful town of Mallow, which is the capital of my Constituency, was thrown into some turmoil by an attack by the police upon the people, action which was condemned by the local stipendiary magistrates. Those magistrates are two gentlemen from the North of Ireland, and they were hardly likely to condemn the police unless they had acted with over-zeal, to call it by a mild term. There is intense feeling in the town on the subject. I have twice or three times put questions to the Chief Secretary on the matter. My sole request is that, in the interests of the peace of the town, the police shall depart. Their conduct and action have been condemned from the bench by the stipendiary magistrates, and I ask that they should no longer be allowed to take service in the town, but should be transferred somewhere else, where their previous activities will not be known. The Government has admitted that the town has, throughout the whole time of disturbance of the last two years, remained absolutely peaceful. I hope that the Government will take that fact into account and remove what undoubtedly is a source of serious trouble in the district.
4.0 P.M.
With the indulgence of the House, always, I believe, accorded to a Member addressing it for the first time, I desire to take advantage of the opportunity which presents itself, especially in view of the fact that the Prime Minister is going to make a statement as to the prospects of the War, to impress upon the Government the urgent need for a full, frank, comprehensive and informing view of all the phases of our war activities. I want the people to be informed not only so that they may be able to visualise and to measure the magnitude of the task with which we are confronted, but so that they might also be nerved and strengthened, as I believe full knowledge would nerve and strengthen them, in the contest of endurance with which we are face to face. I take it that the war aim of the Allies is per- fectly well known. It has been admirably summarised by a distinguished writer who said the other day that we were out to beat the German to his knees and then to skin him alive. Probably because the friends of Germany, such friends as exist in the world, see that we may be approaching the period when we shall be able to inflict such a defeat upon the Germans there has begun a peace offensive, which finds strange expression in strange places, and you see the suggestion made that the Allies are war weary and tired and oppressed, and you see, on the other hand, the suggestion that we ought to deal tenderly with the German, and ought to regard him as a friend and a brother when we come to talk peace, and you see in other places the suggestion that if we only take things easily the enemy may not be able, in fact will not be able, to hold his armies and his people together through another winter. I think the time has come when an end ought to be put, by a decided and clear statement by the Government, to these mischievous suggestions. If they are allowed to grow they will create a sense of unrest and bewilderment, a sense of doubt and hesitation, all of which may tend to sap the vigour if it does not threaten to weaken the determination of the people, so I should like to ask the Prime Minister to make it clear that not only are we going on to the bitter end, however long it may take us to reach it, but that every preparation necessary to that end in all the Services, particularly the Naval and the Air Services, has been foreseen and is being studied and allowed for, and that every kind of reorganisation necessary to enable us to achieve our purpose, that of smashing the German, is being carried on. Particularly in my view is it necessary that our people should be informed with full knowledge as to all the manifold phases of our war activities. I think there has been too much reticence displayed in the course of this War, so far as the people are concerned. The man is best nerved for a struggle who knows most fully what he may have to face, and I believe if the people of this country were possessed of information which would allow them to understand and to be prepared for all that may be demanded of them, it would not dishearten them, but would strengthen the nerve and determination of the nation at this juncture as nothing else would.
This War is going to be won by nerve and endurance. Reduced to a nutshell, it amounts to this, that we are killing Germans as fast as we can, and they are destroying our mercantile shipping. All this talk about Germany giving up and not being able to hold their people together ought to be dismissed. Germany with her iron discipline—and remember she is dealing with a nation of soldiers—will be able to hold her people together to the last man. There has been grave internal trouble in Germany. Riots have taken place in many of the largest towns. People have been shot down in the street. I have seen a statement, and I believe it to be quite true, that the condition of things is so bad in some of the large towns that prisoners of war have been forced into German uniforms to work machine guns against the unfortunate Germans who have rebelled against the miseries and hardships they are undergoing. It is also true that whereas the French and the British people are able to send parcels of food to the soldiers in the trenches, the German soldiers are sending parcels of food from the trenches to their people at home. Beyond all question, the Central Powers have passed, and are passing, through a period of such stress and privation as would, I believe, in any other country have brought about a termination of the War, and I have no doubt it would bring it about in the Central Powers if you had that condition of privation going on continuously in an ascending scale. But that is hardly likely to be the case. There is every likelihood that at the end of this summer Germany may, by reason of the Serbian and Roumanian harvests, find herself in a better economic position than she was in at the beginning of the year. It is the only safe course for us to assume that the lack not only of foodstuffs but of many of the necessary war materials may be supplied from the products of the new territory which they have acquired in Galicia and in Roumania, and the territory which they are likely to acquire in Bulgaria. Therefore, if that is the position we may be faced with the prospect of another one or two years of war until America is able to put her full strength into the battlefield on the West; and if that is likely to be so—and I think it extremely likely—I would urge upon the Government that they should take pains to present a picture of war activities and possibilities which will at once not only acquaint the people with the realities of the situation, but inform them so that they will understand the part which they must necessarily play if we are to achieve the victory which, if we hold fast, cannot be doubted. Germany, if she holds her allies together, and perhaps even if she cannot, is, I have little doubt, prepared for war, and is contemplating a war such as Frederick the Great fought. In the Seven Years' War, when the offensive failed, she fell back on a defensive plan, under which he used his interior position to deliver violent attacks or to make violent offensives on each of his frontiers. He was able to hold out, despite want and hunger, against heavy odds, and in the end secured peace on the basis of the status quo ante, and materially enhanced his position in Europe. We cannot have any finish of that kind to this War. We must take every measure to prevent that.
That brings me to the main question to which I should like to have some kind of answer from the head of the Government. Assuming Germany's determination to continue, do you believe, in face of the submarine menace, that the passive pressure your Fleet now exerts is the best help it can give to achieve victory in reasonable time? Is not some change in your present scheme of naval operation desirable? My second question is this: Are you in any event taking every measure which foresight can suggest to inform your people as to what may be required of them in nerve and endurance by reason of the continued losses in merchant ships? Let me make my first question perfectly clear. At present the submarine has broken down our traditional naval strategy. The Fleet existed, as I conceive it, not merely to win battles. The ultimate purpose of the Fleet was to make blockade possible for us and impossible for the enemy. All that has gone. To-day we are in the position of a Power with overwhelming naval strength unable to obtain that command of the sea which our preponderance ought to give us. Our blockade to-day, ill-devised, ill-managed, and ill-worked as it has been, is one upon which so far no exact calculation could be made. As to my second question, if our naval strength is likely for some time yet to be powerless to prevent the heavy losses which are being inflicted on our mercantile marine, I think it wrong to refuse to publicly discuss the possible industrial effect which may be produced in this country by the prolonged destruction of shipping. At all events I am satisfied that a much larger part of our shipping losses could be made good if the Government abandoned their reticence in the matter of their returns of tonnage, which has been carried to such a pitch as to prevent either the shipping or the industrial community from appreciating the situation with which we may be faced.
If the changes in the Admiralty which have been recently made indicate a progressive effectiveness in the offensive, as concerted by the Allied naval chiefs, they are to be welcomed. But do they mean that? That is a point upon which the Prime Minister might enlighten the House. I am possibly the one man in the country who has no particular programme of naval strategy to lay on the Table as a method of winning the War, and although I believe that an increased effectiveness in our offensive is necessary, I am not expressing or pledging myself to any scheme which has been put forward. I realise that the naval defensive adopted by Germany may be the most difficult to meet and the most deeply fraught with danger for the opposing belligerents, but the directors of the Allied war plans, naval as well as military, must see that all the real winning combinations for the Allies hang on the command of the seas. Can the Prime Minister convey to us, and through this House to the country, the considered views of his naval advisers on this matter? Another point I would like to make is this, that our blockade, hitherto weak and ineffective by reason of its tenderness for neutrals, must be made, and can be made, more stringent. You must enforce it, and I would suggest that you should leave it to the Navy to enforce the blockade to its utmost possible powers. A real blockade involving rationing of neutrals necessarily means considerable hardship for neutrals and some risks, but we have no alternative. America has seen that with a clear eye and has insisted upon a rigid blockade, and has resolved, as I think is evident from the statements which have been cabled here, upon a course of ruthlessness in the War. I hope we shall be told by the Prime Minister that there is no truth in the statement that when Holland the other day protested against the American demand for a rigid blockade, the Foreign Office replied, in a spirit of apology, that we could not help it, as America had insisted. All that tenderness must be eliminated from our war purposes.
This is a fight to a finish, and I hope to hear the Prime Minister, on behalf of the Government, say that there is no other intention in the mind of the Government. Beyond the closest co-operation in war offensive between the Naval War Staff and the Military War Staff, beyond establishing the rigid blockade, which I hope will be left to the Navy to work out, and beyond the quick development of aircraft, not only as a leading factor in locating submarines, I contend that you ought to inform the people and instruct and warn them as to the possibilities which the losses inflicted by German submarines may bring upon the industrial life of this country. Let the country know the facts. Let them know them in a form in which they can be understood, so that they may be prepared and ready for all likely possibilities. We have talked a great deal about reconstruction after the War. If this War lasts another year, is there any doubt that there will have to be a great work of rearrangement and reconstruction during the War? Is there any doubt that if that is at all likely it ought to be commenced now? Is there any doubt that a public knowledge of the facts would give real strength to the movement for industrial reorganisation now, and to increased production of new tonnage not only here but in other Allied countries and in America, where they have the men and the materials? Germany in the beginning of this year undoubtedly felt—I do not think there is any question about it— that her submarine campaign would so interfere with our food supplies that she would be able to force peace upon us before the end of this year. She failed, and I want to take this opportunity of saying that I think a great deal of the credit for that failure belongs to Lord Devonport who, from the beginning of March until he resigned office, concentrated himself upon wheat supplies, and not only concentrated himself upon wheat supplies, but obtained them from quarters where the Germans did not expect we should get them. Although Germany has failed to cripple our food supplies, I think she is hoping now to cripple our supplies of raw material, hoping, and I think it a vague hope, that industrial uneasiness, exploited perhaps by interested persons, might in time weaken and undermine the determination of our people. I do not believe it will.
I believe our people are firmer than ever in their determination to endure and to achieve victory, but I do ask the Government to take them into their confidence as to all the aspects of our war activity. Let them know that the attack upon our mercantile shipping in bulk has been abandoned for a specialised attack upon selected vessels. Let them know how that campaign progresses. Let them know, in figures they can understand, the effort that is necessary in the matter of new tonnage. Let America know the effort that is necessary if the Allies are to be able to endure to the end. I firmly believe that all the resources of the Allies and the output of merchant ships can only be stimulated to the highest point by disclosing to the people of the various countries the facts that are in the possession of the members of the different Cabinets. I do not believe the facts would dishearten our people. I believe they would strengthen and steel the nerve, the courage and the determination which alone is going to lead our people to victory. It is in that spirit that I ask the Prime Minister this afternoon to make his statement as full, as complete and as informing as possible as to all the phases of the activities of the War.
Prime Minister's Statement
My hon. Friend (Mr. Kennedy Jones) has made a very interesting speech. I congratulate him upon it. To use a well-known war phrase, he has already "done his bit." He has rendered very great and conspicuous service in two Departments of the State. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be the first to admit the great assistance that was given to him by my hon. Friend in connection with the War Loan, and I know how very serviceable his abilities were in another equally important branch, that of food economy in this country, so that anything that falls from my hon. Friend, whether it is in the way of suggestion or even of criticism, is entitled to every weight and respect from the Government, because he has shown that he does not confine himself merely to criticism. I agree with him—later on I shall revert to that—that the people of this country are all the better for being told even unpalatable truths. They must not be told merely the unpalatable. They must be told the truth even if it is palatable. There are some critics who are rather inclined to forget that side of the duties of criticism. It is essential that the country should know the facts whether they are cheering or whether they are discouraging. Unless they get both, they cannot possibly exercise reasonable judgment and discretion or come to any useful decision in regard to the facts of the case. My hon. Friend has not fallen into that error, because he put both sides of the case. He dwelt upon two aspects which, as it happens, I propose to consider this afternoon. One is the food position in this country and the other is the submarine position. I do so to-day more particularly because special efforts are being made by the enemy to create an impression in neutral countries, and to create an impression in other countries, even in countries which are allied to Germany, which is not in the least justified by the facts of the case. They are doing it for a set purpose. Not merely for the informing of the people of this country—it is right that they should know —but also for the information of neutrals and all others who may be concerned, I think it necessary that the facts of the case in regard to food and submarines should be placed before the country at the earliest possible opportunity.
Earlier in the course of this year it was my duty to call the attention of the House to the very anxious position in regard to our food supplies. I then pointed out that our stocks of cereals were the lowest on record. I thought it necessary to do so in order to stimulate the activity of the country in the matter of cultivation. Since then, largely owing, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, to the energy and foresight of Lord Devonport, whose services have not been adequately recognised in some quarters, and also to the organisation of Sir Joseph Macrea, the situation has very considerably improved. This time last year the stocks of wheat in this country were 6,480,000 quarters. At the present moment there are 8,500,000 quarters of wheat. The stocks of wheat are 2,000,000 above those of the corresponding period of last year. The stocks of oats and barley are also higher than they were this time last year. Another fact that is worth mentioning in this connection is the effort made by Lord Devon-port to increase the food value of wheat by closer milling, and also the great saving that has been effected in the bread supplies of this country by the very well directed campaign conducted by my hon. Friend (Mr. Kennedy Jones). There is no doubt that very considerable saving has been effected in bread consumption as a result of that campaign. The figures for July are so remarkable that I hardly care to quote them, because they may indicate what has happened in a single month, and it would be better to wait for a few months, in order to see whether they represent a general tendency; but there is no doubt that there has been a considerable saving in the bread consumption. I may say, speaking generally, that, owing to closer milling and owing also to the food economy campaign, there has been something which is equivalent to an addition of 70,000 quarters of wheat to the food supply of this country. That represents something like one-seventh of the total consumption of wheat. That is the position as far as stocks are concerned. I should like to say one word with regard to the result of the efforts made by the various Agricultural Departments to increase the cultivation in this country. In December the acreage of cultivation was down by something between 200,000 and 300,000 acres as compared with the corresponding period of 1915. Now not merely has that deficiency been recovered but the area of cultivation is something like 1,000,000 acres above the acreage under cultivation last year. That represents oats and barley and potatoes and wheat—something like an addition of between 3,000,000 and 4,000,000 tons to the food supplies of this country. But I think my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who has got the larger share of the credit for this—I think that the country owes them a debt of gratitude for the efforts they have made to increase the area of cultivation. Of course it is too early yet to give any sort of prediction as to what the harvest of this year will be. Everything depends on the next three or four weeks, but if the harvest be as good as it promises to be now, and if the harvesting weather be not particularly unpropitious, then the condition of this country in regard to food supplies is one which, taking everything into account, is very satisfactory. In fact, it is better than it has been for a good many years.
I want here again to utter a word of warning. The harvests of the world compared with previous years are not good. On the whole, it looks as if the aggregate supply of food for human consumption will be considerably below the average. All that has to be taken into account when you are surveying the prospects of the provision of cereals between now and the harvest of 1918. I am saying that in order to urge the need of strict economy, the continued need and even the greater need of strict economy, because we have got to think not merely of the condition of things in this country, we have also got to think of our Allies, France and Italy—France, whose agricultural population has been so largely called upon for the defence of the frontiers of their native land and who have been unable to cultivate the fertile soil of France to the extent that they were able to do before the War. Therefore the harvests of that country are considerably below the average, and France must be a greater buyer than she has ever been in the markets of the world. That is equally true of Italy, and therefore neither here nor in any other respect must we think only of ourselves. Let us also think of those gallant Frenchmen and of the brave Italians who have been obliged to abandon the plough in order to fight for the liberty of their own country at the frontier. Therefore, the more we economise in this country the less will be the drain upon the reservoir of food which France as well as Italy and ourselves have got to draw upon in Canada, in the Argentine and in America. I still urge that the gratifying response which the householders of this country made to the appeals of the Food Controller through my hon. friend should be continued until the harvest of 1918, in order not merely to save tonnage for this country, but to save food supplies for this country as well as for our Allies. The sugar stocks were at the beginning of this year very low; they continued to be very low throughout the spring. Sugar ships had singularly bad luck. I should say at the beginning of this year there was a higher percentage of loss among the sugar carrying ships than probably amongst the ships carrying any other commodity to these Islands. Since then there has been a very material improvement, and there is an increase in our reserves, so that for the moment we do not feel the anxiety which all felt in the early spring with regard to the sugar supplies. With regard to 1918—and we must look ahead—steps have been taken to increase the area of cultivation for that year.
I hear that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton has been criticising certain steps which have been taken by the Agricultural Department. I am not going to enter into an agricultural controversy with him, and I have no doubt that in the particular instance to which he referred there is a good deal that may be improved upon, but that is inevitable when you have suddenly, within a single year, to do what ought to have taken years. Here you have got between and 1918 to increase enormously the food supplies of the country. That is the process that ought to have taken ten, fifteen, or twenty years—as a matter of fact, I am not at all sure that we ought ever to have got into the state in which we have. After all, it is not so long ago that the cultivated area in this country was at least 4,000,000 acres above the present statistical position. That shows that you have something like 4,000,000 acres of land which at one time were under cultivation and which, presumably is quite capable of being used for the same purposes at the present moment. But the difficulty is you have got to set up an organisation which crowds into a single year the work of twenty years, and, under the circumstances, there are bound to be very many mistakes. But do not let us make the greatest mistake of all, of taking particular instances and saying, "Now, look at that; that is the sort of thing that is going on!" It is not the sort of thing which is going on—not in the least. There may be a percentage of mistakes, but, in the main, I have no doubt at all that in you will have millions more acres of land under cultivation, and that means millions more tons of food raised in this country that should be free from any submarine menace which the enemy can possibly develop against us. My right hon. Friend was very apprehensive lest you should tear up the land and start operations and not be able to secure the necessary labour for the purpose of carrying on your later operations up to the harvesting. Well, I think we shall be able to make arrangements for that. The War Office are assisting us to the best of their power, and the distinguished officer in command of the Home Forces is lending us every aid in his power, and I think we can confidently expect to be able to supply the necessary labour for the purpose of carrying through the operations which have been undertaken with regard to the cultivation of the land in this country. In regard to tractors, to which I also understand my right hon. Friend referred, apart altogether from those in private possession, we have been able to gather together something like 1,000; by October there will be 2,500, and by the spring there will be 8,000 tractors. So I want to cheer up my right hon. Friend.
Will they be profitably employed?
My right hon. Friend is under-estimating the intelligence of the Department which is dealing with this matter. I have no doubt that there have been many cases where they might have been more profitably employed, but that is true in every business—even in politics. At the same time I have no doubt that in the main they will be profitably employed. That seems to be the result of the operations which have taken place up to the present, and we can look forward confidently, I think, to a very considerable increase in the area of cultivation and in the quantity of food produced in this country. Therefore, the Government have come to the conclusion—and they state this not merely for the information of the people of this country but for those whom it may concern outside—that with reasonable economy there is no chance of starving out the population of these Islands.
I come to the second point raised by my hon. Friend, which, as it just happens, is what I wanted to talk about myself, and that is the shipping situation. Here the Germans have been very busy for their own purpose, for the very obvious purpose, in circulating statements and figures with regard to the destruction effected by their submarine campaign. They have circulated them in their own country, they have circulated them in Austria, they are circulating them in neutral countries, and they are circulating them even in countries which are allied to our own—they are doing it for a very obvious reason. They are doing it in their country to cheer up their own people. There is no doubt at all that they have given a very definite promise that by the month of August the submarine campaign would have effected such ravages on our mercantile marine that England, as they put it would be out of the War. There was a definite promise to that effect given in the German Reichstag. Now they find that that is not true and there is a corresponding sense of discouragement in their own country and that has spread to other countries. The Germans are now preparing a set of figures which they call official on the authority of their Admiralty; they are circulating these figures throughout Germany and throughout Austria, figures as to the losses inflicted upon British shipping. The reason in their own country is quite clear. So is their purpose in other countries. There is no doubt that the pressure of the War is very great upon their population and the pressure is great upon allied populations—the populations which are allied to Germany—and they want to create a kind of impression that England, which is the most formidable enemy, in their view is the one enemy which is keeping this War going—that is the German view—they want to create the impression that in a very short time the damage inflicted upon our mercantile marine will be so great that we cannot last much longer, and the moment Great Britain is out of the War their view is that the whole of the Alliance will collapse. I am proposing to give the House some of the figures. My hon. Friend (Mr. K. Jones) wanted the figures with regard to the tonnage of losses. I have no objection in the least to giving those figures.
The unrestricted submarine campaign began in February, and, as I pointed out, I think early in the course of the year, there is an enormous advantage from the point of view of the assailant in being able to hit your ship without having to ask any questions as to the flag she carries or as to the cargo she carries. If they fire a torpedo at anything that appears on the surface, then undoubtedly their chance of doing injury to shipping tonnage is twice, at any rate, as great as it would be when they had to hesitate and to consider whether that was an American ship, whether that was a Dutch ship, or whether she by any chance should be a British ship, because it has got to be done instantaneously if it is done effectively. The moment the Germans came to the conclusion that they would destroy every ship that appeared on the surface of the deep, then the losses increased—they leaped—so that by the month of April we lost about 560,000 tons of shipping in a single month. Now I want to give the German figures. The German official figures claim that we are losing between 450,000 and 500,000 tons net—that is, after deducting the ships which we build every month, that our losses are 450,000 to 500,000 net. I give the worst month, and I begin with April. The 560,000 was gross, not net. Now came the Admiralty methods of dealing with the situation. There was several means which they devised of dealing with a very perilous situation, but they all had the effect of, first of all, giving more protection to our ships and of making it more dangerous for the submarine to ply its piratical trade. The result has been that the losses, which were in April 550,000 tons, in July came down to 320,000, which is a very considerable reduction.
Is that net or gross?
I am now taking the gross figures without deducting the ships which we are building. I am going to give the net.
British only?
The German figures are for British only.
Including mines?
It includes mines, but the losses from mines are not very considerable. The losses are mostly from submarines. This month—of course it is early days yet, but judging the losses by what has happened during the past sixteen days—this month will be better than July; but I do not want to predict. I am only giving figures for the first sixteen days of August. There is an improvement, and a substantial improvement, upon July in the figures of August. These are the figures, without deducting the tonnage which we have built. The net losses, according to the Germans, are 450,000 to 500,000 tons a month. Our net losses during the last six months, that is since the beginning of the unrestricted submarine campaign, so far from being 450,000 to 500,000 tons, are under 250,000 tons per month. If the August figures continue at the same ratio of loss as we have experienced during the first fortnight, then our net losses during the months of July and August would be at the rate of 175,000 tons a month. That is, taking the whole of the six months, we have only lost half what the Germans claim. At the present rate we are only losing one-third of what the Germans claim. That is a very serious difference, and I should like to point this out to the House. The losses are diminishing, the building is increasing.
I come to the methods adopted to counter this submarine campaign. Those which are adopted by the Admiralty I do not propose to dwell upon. All I can say is that the figures, which show a constant improvement, are a demonstration of the fact that the Admiralty plans are increasingly successful. You have only got to look at the losses in April of 550,000 tons, when the days were shorter and when the seas were more tempestuous, and, therefore, when the work of the submarine was more difficult—the losses then were 550,000. You come to the month of July, when the weather conditions are the most favourable for submarines, and the losses come down to 320,000 tons. So that with regard to the methods adopted by the Admiralty, without going into them in detail—it would be obviously unwise that I should do so— the figures indicate that they are meeting with considerable success in their endeavours to deal with submarines. The measure of their success is all the more conspicuous when it is borne in mind that the number of the submarines is increasing. In spite of that fact, the losses inflicted by them are diminishing, and have diminished very considerably as compared with three or four months ago.
I come to other methods for countering the submarine menace, measures of a different kind, measures which are undertaken by the Shipping Controller and by the organisations which have been set up for shipbuilding purposes. The Shipping Controller has succeeded in first of all reorganising the shipping of this country by means of better loading, by taking ships off longer voyages and concentrating them on shorter voyages, and by turning ships round more quickly, so that they should be able to make more voyages in the course of the year. He has been able by those means to secure that, although we have a diminshed tonnage, we have been able to carry more tons. I will just give the figures. Our shipping in June and July of this year, compared with June and July of last year, is something like 10 per cent. down; and, as there is no diminution in the tonnage which is devoted to the carriage of Government material for our armies abroad, that means that the diminution in the tonnage available for ordinary imports is down not by 10 per cent., but by 20 per cent. In spite of that fact, we succeeded in carrying, during the period which I have indicated, 150,000 more tons in British ships to the United Kingdom. I think, Sir Joseph Maclay is to be congratulated upon the business ability which he has applied to the solution of a very difficult problem.
5.0 P.M.
In addition to that, he has taken steps for the quickening of shipbuilding. There were a good many ships on the stocks in this country at the outbreak of war, and even after the outbreak of war the shipbuilding firms started ships. For one reason or another, probably because of the pressure brought to bear upon them by the Admiralty to utilise their resources for the purpose of building craft for the Navy, many of those ships were not proceeded with. Sir Joseph Maclay has quickened the building of many of these, and in addition to that he has laid down a good many new ships. He has also ordered a good many ships abroad, and there is something I think I can give to the House in figures. In 1915 the tonnage built in this country was 688,000 tons. The tonnage built in this country during peace times is, I think, on an average something a little under 2,000,000 tons. Two million tons represents rather a good year. In 1915 the shipbuilding came to 688,000 tons. In 1916 it was 538,000 tons. In the first six months of this year it was 484,000 tons. But in the second six months of this year —this will include some ships purchased abroad—the new shipping acquired by this country will be 1,420,000 tons in six months. A little over a million tons— nearly 1,100,000 tons—will be built in this country, and 330,000 tons will be acquired abroad, so that this year the tonnage which we shall acquire will be 1,900,000 tons. That is a very fine achievement, because I want the House to bear in mind the conditions in which that tonnage is built. It is the fourth year of the War. It is very difficult to get labour, and most difficult to get material, because you require steel for guns and shells and for the Navy. You have got the shipbuilding programme of the Navy, which, as my right hon. Friend knows very well, has gone up very considerably in the course of the present year. You have got all these demands for steel, materials and labour. In spite of that fact the shipbuilding of the country in this year will not be very far from what it was in the days of peace. I think that that is a very fine achievement.
Are those figures exclusive of naval work?
Yes; this is purely mercantile marine. I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has asked that question. In addition to that, there is a very considerable programme of additional naval construction which has been laid down this year. The tonnage of the naval construction this year will go up—I have not got the exact figures— but tremendously, by hundreds of thousands of tons. This shows what this country is capable of when it is put to the test. As my hon. Friend says, all we have got to do is to tell the people of the country what we need in order to win the War and they will do it. The House of Commons and the people of this country, and the people of Allied countries—yea, and the people of Germany—will now know what value to attach to this figure of from 450.000 to 500,000 tons per month loss of British shipping. That figure will narrow as we go along. I believe that the shipping losses will get less. One thing of which I am certain is that the shipbuilding will increase. But I do not want to underestimate the problem. It does mean that everything depends upon all those who are engaged in the shipbuilding industry doing their best. For instance, I asked to-day about the figures for August, and the Shipping Controller said, "I could give you the figures with trouble and the figures without trouble. If there is no trouble in the yards, I will tell you exactly what can be turned out." Everything depends upon everybody doing his very best, and, apart from that, it is quite impossible for us to fight the submarine menace, or any of the other great perils which are impending over this and every other country. It does mean also this: With all the shipbuilding which we can do, there is still a very considerable deficiency. Even now we have not got enough tonnage for all essential purposes. We have got to provide tonnage for France, Italy and Russia, as well as for ourselves, and we need more ships instead of fewer ships, and I am not going to pretend that there will not be at best a rate of diminution of our shipping which will embarrass us in the struggle, and therefore it is essential, not merely that this country should build, but that the other countries which have a great shipbuilding capacity should also build. But if the United States of America puts forth the whole of her capacity—and I have no doubt from what I hear that she is preparing to do it in her own thorough and enterprising way—I have no doubt at all that we shall have sufficient tonnage, not merely for this year—about that there is no doubt—but for the whole of 1918, and, if necessary, for 1919 as well, because America can expand very considerably her shipbuilding capacity, if the real need ever arises for her to do so.
My hon. Friend invited me to wander into very dangerous regions—those of naval strategy. I think I shall do best by taking note of what he says, and promising to take everything into consideration, and to do what we can. He also said something about the military situation. With regard to that, I scarcely think that the time has come for a useful review of the military situation. The main facts are well known to the House of Commons, to the country, and to the world. We had anticipated this year a great converging move against our foes. Russia was equipped for that task in a way in which she had never been equipped before, and I venture to use a phrase which I used before when I say that the nippers were beginning to grip. But, to be quite frank, one claw of the nippers was out of repair for the moment, and therefore you had not got the same converging pressure as we had anticipated. But things are mending. The situation in Russia is a very difficult one, and I should be very sorry to say anything that would make it more difficult. That is why I should deprecate having a discussion in this House which would bring in the domestic politics of Russia, because it is quite obvious that you cannot even state the facts without embarrassing those who are trying to restore the situation in that country. But while they are doing it—doing it bravely, with great courage and, I think, with great thoroughness—the brunt of the fight must fall on other countries, and notably upon ourselves. And I think, considering all the difficulties with which we are confronted, our Armies have won very conspicuous successes, because it is difficult even to dwell on the difference which the temporary collapse of the Russian military power has made in the task with which our soldiers are confronted. Take one case: A British division which has been fighting, which is temporarily exhausted, passes behind the lines until it is reformed. A German division in the same condition goes to Russia and holds a front, which does not impose any very severe military obligation upon it, and an absolutely fresh division comes from Russia to our front. That increases the numbers of the German Army on the Western front. And under these conditions what has been achieved by our gallant troops is one of the most brilliant episodes in the history of the British Army.
To-day they have been engaged in severe fighting on the Flanders front, and I have just had this message from the distinguished Commander-in-Chief of our Army. They attacked early this morning. It was not intended to be a very great operation. I say so now, because I do not want the kind of thing that happened in regard to our first operation—that is, that Germany exaggerated its objects in order to show that it failed. This is the dispatch: with severe losses, with hundreds of her guns captured—and that is not a bad test of winning or losing battles—all that in the year when Russia was practically out of the campaign. When Russia has recovered, and when America is really in—when those fine troops, of which we saw a specimen yesterday marching along the streets, the symbol of America's coming into this world-struggle with a virile swing—these are the things that the Germans and their allies have been, and are, thinking about. The present is the hour of their difficulty. Looking ahead, our difficulties will diminish, and our power will increase; their difficulties will increase, and their power will diminish—and they know it. It is for that reason I say that this is the supreme hour for patience, for courage, for endurance, for hope, and for unity, and let us go through this hour with the same temper and impetus that enabled us to destroy the great military despotism at the beginning of the nineteenth century, standing often alone, but saving Europe. Let us go through this hour now with the old temper of our race, and next year we shall begin, and the world will begin, to reap the fruit of valour.
The speech which has just been delivered does not call for, and will not receive from me, anything in the nature of extended comment, and certainly not criticism. The House will have heard, and the country will learn, with great satisfaction, the Report the Prime Minister was able to make on the progress which has been achieved in two most important matters—namely, the extension of our domestic resources in the production of food, and the frustration—or, at any rate, the mitigation—of the menace of the German submarine campaign. I, of course, am not in a position, nor is any of us, to do more than accept, and accept very gladly, the figures which my right hon. Friend has given under both those categories. The only comment which they suggest to me is that, both as regards the expansion of home production of food and the development of real safeguards against submarine menace, and in the case of mercantile tonnage the essential condition of progress and of success is the application of labour—labour upon the land and labour for shipbuilding, and that, to my mind, is the key of the whole situation. It is not so much a question of the expenditure of money, it is not even a question of the ability with which those in the service of the State carry out its organisation, it is not so much now a question of organisation—it is a question of labour, and you want both an adequate supply of labour and a willing application of that labour by those who are responsible for its use in respect of both those supreme national interests. The appeal which has been made on behalf of the Government, on behalf of the country, and on behalf of the Allied cause to our fellow-countrymen was never more imperious or more urgent than it is to-day. It is an appeal to all who are in any way able to influence the great mass of labouring people in this country that that labour should be supplied unstintedly, patriotically, assiduously, and, if possible, even with increased zeal, in the performance of those two great national functions.
I am certain that appeal will not fall on deaf ears. Those of us who have watched, as some of us have at very close quarters from the very earliest moment, the progress of the War, know that the success which we have achieved, the power of resistance which we have displayed, the development, the unexampled and unhoped for development of our resources, is due more than to any other cause to the willing and zealous co-operation of the labour classes of this country. They have gone into the Army and swelled its ranks. They have turned away from their old accustomed industries into new fields of labour. They have suspended and put in abeyance traditions, customs, rules, and usages which were very dear to them. They have done so willingly, they have done so patriotically, and the result has been a result which I believe has never been achieved in the history of a free and still less of an unfree country in the history of the world—the united co-operation of the whole population to the supreme national task. That spirit I am certain will continue to animate them, and will produce even greater results in the future than it has in the past.
So much, and that is all I wish to say, in regard to the situation here at home. As regards the position in the various fields of military and naval action, I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is one which we can survey, not indeed with complacency—who could survey with complacency such a scene as now presents itself to the eyes of the civilised world?— but with satisfaction so far as our own conscience and our own efforts are con- cerned. When this year opened, our military calculations—and when I say "our" I mean those of the whole of the Allies— were based on the assumption that we should have the concurrent, and, as my right hon. Friend said, the converging employment of the whole forces of this great allied combination in the different fields directed to the common purpose. I agree with him it is most undesirable, at this stage at any rate, that we should enter on any discussion of what has taken place in Russia. Unfortunately, one of the most important factors in that calculation has been frustrated, and any criticism that is passed on the military operations of the present year, if it is to be a fair one and a prudent one must bear that all-important consideration in view.
I do not hesitate to say, as far as it is possible to write or rewrite contingent history, that if what we had every right to expect and forecast had been realised, the position of the Allied Powers at this moment would have been one of overwhelming preponderance over all the forces opposed to them. I share, as we all share, the hope expressed by the Head of the Government as far as that aspect of the matter is concerned, that it is transient and will be shortlived, and that before long our Russian Allies, in whose annals there is no more glorious or inspiring chapter than the first two and a half years of this War, may resume to the full their share in the great common task to which as a nation they devoted themselves from the first, and to which I believe as a nation they are still devoted, to free Europe from the incubus of military despotism. Even with that qualification the military situation is one which gives no occasion, in my opinion, for anxiety or apprehension. The Germans, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, have the enormous advantage now of being able to move backwards and forwards, not between two active fronts, but between an active and a passive front, forces which otherwise would have had to be constantly engaged in severe conflicts on both fronts.
That our Armies in France—and I include those of our gallant French Allies —should under those conditions have been able to develop the offensive operations which characterised the last three months, and should have been able to make the progress which they have made, and to have taken positions which a year ago would have been regarded in fact as practically impregnable, and to advance and consolidate their line into territory to which we have never hitherto since the beginning of the War penetrated, is as fine a tribute as could possibly be paid to the strategic skill of our generals and the gallantry and endurance of the troops involved. It is a very foolish and futile occupation for a statesman and layman to forecast future military operations. All we can do, all civilians can do, whether we are in or out of the Government, is, as far as we can, to choose the best men to lead our Armies, and when we have chosen them give them our complete confidence and to see that they are not lacking, whether it be in material or in personnel. in the forces they need to achieve the purposes at which they are aiming. This House from the beginning of the War has shown no slackness and no lack of zeal in supplying our generals and their armies with what they needed. I believe they were never better equipped, never so well equipped, as they are at this moment. I believe we never possessed anything like the same reserves as we do now, both in regard to munitions and in regard to the necessary available forces. I think I am right in saying so.
Hear, hear!
I do not want to go into figures or ask the Government—that would be undesirable—but I think that that general proposition is perfectly accurate.
Quite right!
If that be the case, I, for one—and I believe I am speaking the universal opinion of the House when I say it—look forward with undiminished confidence to the future, because we have behind and beyond and above this gigantic, unexampled array of material forces that which sustains our soldiers in the field and inspires ourselves here at home—unabated belief in the justice of the cause for which we are fighting, and in the immeasurable results for freedom and civilisation which depend on our success.
I desire to say only a word or two, and I do not know that I should have risen if it had not been for some words which fell from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman who has just Bat down. I feel, however, that the tribute he has paid this afternoon to the services which Labour has rendered from the very beginning of the War is a tribute which is well deserved, and one which will be appreciated by the Labour forces throughout the country. I would make the same reference to the tribute of the Prime Minister. There has never been throughout the whole history of the world such an exhibition of service rendered to the State by the labouring classes. I do not use that word in the ordinary sense. Indeed, I would prefer that the word "classes" should disappear from our vocabulary, and at the very earliest possible opportunity. There has never been such an exhibition of work patiently and patriotically done as has been exhibited by the working men and the working women of our country during this War. They have responded to the appeal right throughout the country. They will respond to it, I believe, to the end. I cannot, however, but feel that I must say another word at this stage, and it is this: It depends now, as it has depended all along, upon how you approach the working classes. They will always exhibit the British faculty of refusing to be driven, but always allowing themselves to be led. I would utter this one word of warning again. I think there has been during the past year or so several attempts to drive when it would have been much better to have attempted to lead. Therefore I ask now, as I believe there is a growing disposition on the part of everybody to realise that what has been done was willingly and patriotically done, and will be as willingly and patriotically given to the end, that you should ask for it, and also give the necessary word of gratitude for that which is poured out, whether in blood, or work, or pleasure. I believe the appeal was never more necessary than to-day, and it is because I believe it will be handsomely responded to that I have risen on this occasion.
I desire to turn to a subject which was opened earlier in the afternoon when the Motion for Adjournment was made. The Food Controller has been subjected to certain criticism, and questions have been asked that I should like to endeavour to answer. The Ministry of Food is still in the early stage of its growth. We are but now erecting machinery for carrying out very big schemes relating to food supply and food control. The schemes involve, in regard to many important foods, the fixing of prices at every stage. It has been found that failure, so far as failure can be discovered, in the case of Germany and other countries has arisen largely from partial control, and from not having fixed prices at every stage for commodities handled and sold by those who are in the business. In doing this the Ministry aims at the object of securing for the consumer the articles which are required at as near as possible cost price. By that I mean as near the cost that must be paid for every kind of necessary service included in provision for the community as a whole. We are seeking to diminish the cost of transit; to regulate carriage rates. We propose to eliminate the middle-man and the unnecessary dealer in food, and to make it impossible to indulge in that profitable game of "profiteering" which, undoubtedly, in the earlier stages of the War, did much to increase enormously the cost of certain foods of the people.
To-day, industrial and other conditions show it to be necessary that maximum control must be applied, and prices at every stage must be rigidly fixed by law. The hon. Member for Wexford North (Sir T. Esmonde) who began this discussion, complained strongly of the Orders and Regulations which have been issued by the Ministry. There is no other method, no other instrument known to the law by which you can express your decisions than Orders and Regulations. Everyone seems to expect that the Government, in regard to these matters, should proceed upon the lines of dealing with the other people. It is inevitable that interests must be disturbed in the application of the law. It is because certain interests were left alone, and because those who produce, distribute, and buy and sell food were free to avail themselves of the opportunities created by war conditions that to a great extent prices were raised. Accordingly, all those who are now engaged in supplying the food of the people, just as well as those engaged in other pursuits, must face the risks of pursuing their avocations and callings subject to the Orders and Regulations which are necessary. Experience will, however, I think, show my hon. Friend that there is no intention of subjecting the producer or the farmer to the indignity that at every turn in his trade or calling he shall require a permit or get somebody's permission to do what it has been customary for him to do. The object aimed at is to prevent people engaged in a business or service which does not contribute one single item of value to the commodities which are required, from any longer increasing the cost of the commodities, because they will not be able to get a permit to engage in the profitable business of the middleman, or of the intertrader, whose services at a time like this can be dispensed with.
Then the question of permits does not refer to farmers at all?
Certainly a permit might have to be obtained by the farmer, but one cannot contemplate any conditions under which a farmer would run the risk of being refused a permit, our object being to increase as much as we can the volume of food, and the more you make it easy for the farmer to engage in his ordinary pursuits the better it will be for the community at large. The position in regard to the volume of food—our prospects—has been covered by the speech of the Prime Minister which we have just heard—a speech which has gone far to relieve me of the necessity of referring to certain points that were touched upon by various speakers. But, undoubtedly, there is a shortage of commodities in the world, and undoubtedly that shortage has interfered with that balance which operates in the markets of the world to keep prices at something like a reasonable level, and, that balance having been disturbed, action must be taken not merely by this country, but by the other countries engaged in war—and, indeed, by the neutral countries as well—in order that war conditions shall not inflict any longer any serious losses upon the masses of the people in regard to their daily food.
I think, on the whole, without seeking to paint too rosy a picture, that the facts and figures concerning the problem of food show that, despite the enormous difficulties in a country dependent to the extent of some four-fifths of its food upon outside supplies, there is reason for congratulation, when we compare ourselves with other lands. Prices in this country are, in regard to many commodities, far lower than they are in certain of the neutral countries. Mr. Hoover, who has recently been appointed Controller of Food, or Administrator—as he prefers to be called —of food in America, declared in his first speech that our wheat price was 30 per cent. below the wheat price in his own country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) has been answered already with regard to most of the points which he raised with reference to experiments in the cultivation of the soil, and all I can say with regard to one particular instance which he save is. that it is clear inspectors were required to see what was happening in the instance which he cited, but no part of his speech should in any sense deter those who have the business in hand from their further endeavours vastly to increase the cultivation of our own soil, and as that is in hands not directly connected with the Department for which I am speaking this afternoon, I need not pursue the subject further.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether the fixing of the loaf at 9d. would not have the effect of increasing consumption, and therefore increasing our difficulties on account of wheat shortage. One answer to that would be that a solution of the difficulties is apparently expected in some minds by keeping the prices as high as possible, and therefore keeping consumption down. All we can do is to fix a price at a limit or point which will greatly relieve the masses of the people whose staple food is bread, and accompany that fixing by the warning that wastage in food, even of the cheap loaf, would be one of the most harmful things that the working classes of our country could indulge in, and no appeal for economy should be lessened, and no practices of retrenchment in any household should be in the slightest degree diminished because of any attempts by the Ministry of Food to provide a cheap loaf for the masses of the people. As to the question whether it would not be better to reduce taxes, and relieve the people in that way, I can only answer that that is a question which I must regard as being addressed to the House at large, or particularly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At any rate, it is not a question which at the moment I can answer, but I do assert that, in view of the urgency of the difficulty, it is a legitimate and a proper thing for the Ministry to take some direct step to cheapen the loaf and make up the difference, I will say, the millions of money being made in excess profits in many of the trades and businesses of the country.
The hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) asserted very strongly that whatever else we did, we must leave the producer of food absolutely free to trade and deal as before. My answer is that the producer of bread has no more right to expect absolute freedom in trade and business during wartime than the man who is producing anything else required as a necessity of the times. The ordinary labourer is not free. The ordinary industrial workman is not free. Employers of labour are not free in the engineering, cotton, and woollen industries. Workmen and employers alike are subject to necessary conditions which war terms have imposed, so that the producer of food has now reached this point, that from one cause or another restrictions must be imposed on him in order that he should have for his future service no more than a reasonable rate of profit—a rate which it has been the endeavour of the Ministry to fix at a prewar level. The purpose of these decisions of the Ministry is to impose upon the producer of food no greater restrictions in the pursuit of their industry than have already been imposed upon millions of people in this country, both employers of labour and workmen alike.
Reference has been made on a number of occasions to the novel step which the Ministry has taken, without, it was said, consulting this House, in calling to the aid of the Ministry the local governing bodies, like town councils, borough councils, city councils, urban councils, and so on, and requiring them to assume a large measure, of responsibility in the carrying out of the policy of the Ministry. That conclusion was reached after the examination of the problem, and after finding that it would meet the difficulties of properly distributing food supplies, requiring the local authorities to work in co-operation with the National Ministry, and calling upon them to become the watchers, and, if necessary, the policemen of the town or city or village for the purpose of carrying out our Orders. We had to obtain local agents in the readiest and most acceptable way, and naturally we turned to the local authorities to represent the public and consumers in the areas over which they have jurisdiction. This is not without precedent, for the local authorities have been required during the progress of the War to assume many new duties which they have admirably carried out to the satisfaction of those whom they represent. Indeed, the Ministry greatly regrets further to burden those local authorities, because already they are doing far more than the normal service which is required of them in ordinary times of peace. We informed the local authorities that it would be their first duty to safeguard the interests of the consumer, and that in making any appointment, or in electing any food committees, the special point of the consumer's interest should be borne in mind. We provided that they must put on the local committee one representative of labour and one woman. Some misapprehension has arisen on this particular point, especially in regard to the opportunities which labour will have to find representation on these committees, and on this account I would like to draw attention to a statement made on a previous occasion as to what are the actual facts.
We have provided that every local food control committee must include one representative of labour and one woman, and this is subject to a provision that the membership of the committee shall not exceed twelve; but it is left to the local committees to use their discretion to appoint as many other representatives of labour as they may think fit. That will secure that in every instance labour shall have at least one representative, and in cases where labour is well organised and active, and already has representation on these local bodies, several representatives of labour will find their place upon these food control committees. Varying demands have been made that we ought to have made the number six. It has also been urged that labour should be represented to the extent of 90 per cent. on these committees. The fact is that the responsibility has been placed upon the local authorities, and those local authorities are entitled to claim a very large measure of freedom in the formation of these local committees. Responsibility to be real has to be accompanied by freedom. I hope every one of these local authorities will avoid the mistake of creating committees which will not at once command the confidence of the consumers in their respective areas. It is essential that they should begin without the slightest suspicion of men being on the committees who have any personal or private interests whatever to serve.
I should like to refer to a point which has been raised by two or three speakers who preceded me, the very contentious point of the price of cattle for January, which has been fixed at 60s. per cwt. All the information at the disposal of the Department goes to show that the maximum price for September and October allows a considerable advantage to the farmer. I observe throughout the speeches made that the only one defect singled out for attack with regard to this scale of prices was that defect of 60s., and it would appear that the absence of any criticism whatever with regard to the other rates indicates that the other prices for other periods are not merely acceptable, but highly satisfactory. It is indeed because of that fact that we must regard the farmer in Ireland and in this country as receiving prior to December or January a price which will recompense him very much for what appears to him to be the harsh or unjust figure fixed at the last end of the scale. A comparison of the scale which is now fixed with the Returns of the Board of Agriculture for September and December, 1913, and January, 1914, shows that the percentage of increase allowed on pre-war prices ranges from 85 per cent. to 105 per cent. over the ordinary prices, and in the case of the lowest price, the December or January price, the increase is 63 per cent. upon the price for January, 1914.
Can the hon. Member tell us what is the rate of increase in the price of stores and other things purchased by the farmer for the same period?
Each point mast be raised under its proper heading. I come now to a point which has a very important bearing on the price of cattle. Taking the scale as a whole, it cannot be said that the rates inflict any hardship on the farmers or the graziers. It should be remembered that the maximum price per cwt. applies only to the standard Army second quality beef and the price for dead stone weight is calculated on this basis, so that much the same price should be reached by a beast of this quality, whether bought by live or dead weight. The percentage of increase which the maximum price allows over the pre-war price in the case of deadweight prices shows such a considerable amount that no injustice ultimately will be done, taking the whole period into account to those who are interested in the rearing and selling of cattle. It has been suggested that instead of adopting this plan of a sliding scale it would be better to compensate farmers who have paid a speculative price for stores. This possibility was considered, and it was carefully discussed, but it was abandoned in deference to representations made to the Board of Agriculture on the ground of its not being possible, and a sliding scale was adopted in order that farmers might recoup themselves through the autumn months. This method would appear to the farmer to carry greater advantages than a system which would throw upon them the onus of proving losses by furnishing detailed figures.
The Food Controller received representations of the grievances of Irish farmers and of farmers in this country as well, but he is unable to admit that the price which has been fixed, which is at least an advance of 63 per cent. on pre-war prices, will not cover the cost of production, and he does not think that the result will be a shortage of home food. The maximum prices fixed for the Army supplies in September and October will allow even better returns to the Irish farmer than they are receiving at the present time, and have been receiving for a considerable time past. As I have already stated in reply to a number of questions, and which I am repeating in view of the criticisms which have been made, the rates of prices which have been fixed were decided upon after discussion with the representatives of the Irish Board of Agriculture, and ultimately with the assent of that Board.
6.0 P.M.
With regard to what might be done in the direction of cheapening feeding stuffs. it will be impossible, owing to the shortage of tonnage, to bring into this country as much cake and oil seeds as the Food Controller would like to bring in, and in order to get as large a supply as possible it will be necessary to concentrate upon the shortest routes. This will mean that there will be a shortage of linseed cake, the raw material of which has to be imported over very great distances, far greater than many other things. Arrangements have recently been concluded for the purchase of the whole of the Egyptian cotton seed grown on Government land, and this will enable the Food Controller to supply cotton seed cake at prices between £3 and £4 per ton less than the price now prevailing. That surely will be a considerable relief to those who are anxious for the cheapening of feeding stuffs.
The Irish farmer does not use such articles. His beasts are fattened on the land.
May I ask whether anything will be done to cheapen the price of artificial manures and agricultural machinery?
The answer which I have already given the House indicate that many traders who supply these various feeding stuffs have made considerable, if not enormous, profits. Investigations have been made by us, and I hope that steps will be taken to cheapen not only one kind but every kind of feeding stuff that the farmer requires.
I asked the hon. Gentleman with reference to artificial manures.
I can only give a general answer. If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to obtain information, I will endeavour to do so. We are making arrangements whereby these seeds will be supplied to farmers in such a way as to give preference to the owners of dairy herds and cattle, for which no alternative foods, such as roots or potatoes, are available, and it is hoped that limited supplies of Government cotton seed cake will be distributed in the course of November. Other investigations are being made into the possibility of controlling supplies of all kinds and cheapening the price of every feeding stuff and of oil cakes as well. Complaints have been addressed to us, particularly from labour quarters, asking how it is that we have delayed fixing prices even so long as 1st September. The machinery for the whole of this work is necessarily extensive and very complicated, and it cannot be established immediately. We certainly are not failing to bring to our service such expert assistance as experience in the past shows that a Ministry like this requires. The farmers, no doubt, will appreciate the second reason. A large number of farmers have bought store cattle at prices which were excessive, and it would be very unfair to compel them at once to sell their cattle at a price which would clearly mean a very serious loss in view of what they have paid. The Food Controller cannot admit, as I have already indicated, that any injustice has been done either to the consumer, who expected an earlier date, or to the farmer or cattle farmer who no doubt wished for a later date. The criticism of certain of the Orders made by the hon. Member for Wexford (Sir T. Esmonde) would, I think, disappear if he read fully the document from which he quoted. I do not see him in the House, but I will take an opportunity later to discuss the matter with him and place in his hands the fullest information that I have.
I am sorry that the Ministry is not yet in a position to announce definitely the policy of the Food Department with regard to potatoes, but in regard to the 1917 crop the guarantee of £6 per ton to the growers comes into operation on 15th September. The Department is actively engaged in working out the details for the fulfilment of that guarantee and for ensuring that the crop shall reach the consumer at a reasonable price. It is hoped that we shall be able to make a definite announcement on the subject at a very early date. The appeal which we made to the growers to do everything in their power to increase the supply of potatoes has met with a really splendid response, and we are able to say that the acreage under potatoes has been considerably increased and that this year's crops is likely to be quite ample to meet the necessities of the country.
Finally, I have been asked what is likely to be the effect of the policy of the Department upon production. It has been suggested that an alternative remedy for all the steps that we are taking would be economy in production. Our conclusion is that it is not one step, but many steps, which must contribute towards relieving the situation in which we find ourselves. The first essential is to keep up our supplies. We do not claim that we shall be able to keep them up to the point of abundance, but if they are kept up to a point where with due economy the necessities of the masses of the people will be met the Ministry will not have been created in vain. We are already in a position to state that we have in the country a larger number of cattle than even before the War, but we are dependent more upon home resources than we were in days of peace, and we are now driven more and more to maintain our Army upon home supplies, whereas up to quite recently we were able to feed the Army to a great extent upon imported meat. I would ask the House to remember some of the difficulties which a new and growing Department of this kind has to face. We do not expect that any interest which is attacked or that any section of the community which feels itself aggrieved will consider that those who have these matters in hand are quite the right people with the right type of knowledge to do well what is required. I can only say that anyone who takes a pare in this work will find that he has no spare time for anything else. He will find that he must try at any rate to fairly acquaint himself with an enormous mass of detail work, and he will find that the food question is everybody's question, and that everybody really has some special or particular point of view as to what is the best solution. My simple answer to all this variety of views is that things were going wrong with regard to prices and with regard to supplies, and that the country could not afford to leave people who trade in food, any more than those who trade in other things, free to do what they liked. A Ministry has, therefore, been created which takes as its first duty the procuring of sufficient supplies and then the fixing of those supplies at prices that will be fair and reasonable to the masses of the consumers in the country.
Although I follow my hon. Friend I do not mean to pursue the same topic which he has been discussing, but rather to go back to the Debate where it left off when he rose. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal party in this House opened a moving speech by an eloquent reference to the part that labour has played in the War. That was perfectly true. Therefore, I begin the observations I wish to make because, by a recent decision, labour has declared that the part it is to play in the War is not merely to produce munitions and supply soldiers, but to have something to say in the diplomacy which is going to end the War. One of the great difficulties in which Europe finds itself at the moment is that whereas in all our domestic affairs democracy has gone on from strength to strength, by some curious evil the Foreign Office has remained isolated from the general democratic movement, so that whereas if there were any domestic crisis on labour would be consulted, labour's view would be intelligently expressed, and labour would not be asked merely to echo other people's opinions and to follow them, but would be allowed to hammer out its own policy and to advocate that policy, and that policy would be very seriously and respectfully considered by whatever Government happened to be in power; yet, when we come to diplomacy, when we come to the question of the War, when we come to the conditions under which peace is to be established, then the Government, which means three or four gentlemen alone, is going to settle how long the War is to be prolonged, when it is to end, and in what circumstances peace is to be established. The decision last Friday of the special Conference of the Labour party seems to indicate that that will not be accepted. I hope that nothing is going to happen which will in any way break the continuity of the Labour movement.
I want, consequently, to put a case to-day which a statement which appears in the "Daily News" necessitates, because that statement made by Mr. Kerensky proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that when the Government decided what its policy was to be regarding Stockholm, it was misinformed, and it proves also beyond a shadow of a doubt that instead of those who were accused last Monday of having misrepresented the facts to their constituents, it was those who made the accusation who themselves misrepresented the situation. The position is this: Two telegrams were used. How, we do not know yet. We shall know by and by. Already inquiries have been made at the proper quarters and as soon as those inquiries have been answered the facts will be published. We have found out about one, but not about the later one. Two telegrams were used. One was the telegram read by the Prime Minister on Monday, which he complained had not been communicated to the Labour Party Conference. It was perfectly evident from the wording of that telegram—the telegram bore it on its own face—that it was a reply to an inquiry. There is no doubt about that. That telegram was not the spontaneous declaration of whoever made it. Whether it was the Russian Government, or an individual of the Russian Government, or a military Attaché belonging to either Embassy at Petrograd, we do not know; but it was perfectly clear that some Government or other, or some agent or other, had not only asked that this telegram should be sent, but had pressed that it should be sent. Whatever form the inquiry took, it did mean that the Russian Government was informed that one or other of the Government of the Allies would be very much obliged if they would declare against the Stockholm Conference. That was one telegram. The other telegram was one which stated, quite categorically—it is said to have come from Paris—that Mr. Kerensky's own views were opposed to the Stockholm Conference. I regret very much that I was absent on other business on Monday or I should have taken an immediate opportunity of contradicting a statement that was made. On Monday the Prime Minister read an extract from a statement that I had made at the Labour Party Conference. He stated that the hon. Member for South-West Ham (Mr. W. Thorne) interjected:
I wish clearly to understand the hon. Member's position. He has not told us what interjection was answered. I understand it from the extract in the paper to have been, "Did Mr. Kerensky initiate the invitation or associate himself with those who sent it?"
The right hon. Gentleman knows it is always very difficult to pick up an interjection at a conference. As I understood it at the time— I can only give the sense—it was, "Did Mr. Kerensky associate himself with the conference?"
The hon. Member will see that that is the essence of the quotation by my right hon. Friend. The whole point of it is, Did Mr. Kerensky associate himself with the invitation or did he not?
Surely as it stands the Prime Minister never assumed that that nonsensical interjection could have been answered by me. The interjection which the Prime Minister read was, "Did Mr. Kerensky invite the Powers?" I am sure he would never accuse me or anyone else of saying "Yes" to that. The Report bears on the face of it an error. What I said was that Mr. Kerensky was in favour of the conference, and associated himself with the conference, and the words which I used were practically a quotation that he desired the conference in order to strengthen his hands. That is perfectly obvious by the context, because in making a comment upon it the Prime Minister said:
The position about the conference is perfectly simple. The Coalition Government in Russia consists of representatives of four main organised parties, three of which are officially promoting the conference. One of them, the Cadets, is standing aside and is divided in its opinion as to the utility of the conference. The great majority of the Cadets are opposed to the conference, but I understand there is a minority that is not opposed to it. Mr. Kerensky himself has used the expression that the conference was necessary in order to strengthen his hands, and the meaning of that is perfectly clear. What he meant when he used that expression was this. He had the greatest difficulty just now to persuade the Russian people that the Allies are fighting a democratic war. We have no difficulty in persuading our people that that is so. But it is imposed upon every country as a necessity to understand other people as well as itself, and if an Englishman goes to Petrograd to-day he may discover that the estimate of himself in Petrograd is not the estimate of himself in London, and it is part and parcel of the delicacy and difficulty of the situation for us to take such action as will prove beyond the shadow of a doubt our democratic genuineness to our Allies. Now, says Mr. Kerensky, immediately after the revolution and to the whole of Russia, there is some grave doubt about the position of England in this War. The right hon. Gentleman's speech increased it. He did not mean it. We have all fallen into that mistake. The kettle had better not call the pot black in that respect. Statements in this House increased that suspicion. The "Times" articles very much increased it. The "Morning Post" articles to-day are maliciously feeding it, and newspaper correspondents contributing articles to papers in this country, with connections in the Cadets and with connections in the reactionary political parties, are all feeding that suspicion. Kerensky, anxious to maintain the alliance, anxious to keep the countries together, himself a Socialist, and knowing the minds of these active political organisations of this country, at once came to the conclusion that if he were going to be successful in doing that he had to secure some sort of international conference at which the representatives of the Labour organisations of the Allies could put their case. Then he could go to his people and say, "Here was an international conference. It has deliberated. The delegates have met all the organisations with which they are associated and with which they act in times of peace. Here are their conclusions, and Russia can either make peace upon them or fight." That was Mr. Kerensky's view, and that is his view to-day. It may be somewhat hampered by his new Government, but do not let this House imagine for a single moment that the coalition composed of four political sections, three of which are officially joining in calling the conference, is a Government that is going to oppose the conference, even though it has got to take a very correct attitude in order not to offend. Everyone knows, and Mr. Kerensky himself knows perfectly well, that is so. He does not change his opinions with his Government. We may assume, in fact he has said so himself, that he desires that this conference should be held. Therefore, we did not misrepresent the case. The Russian Ministry is not opposed to the conference, Mr. Kerensky is not opposed to it, he is in favour of it.
It is perfectly evident from the speeches made on Monday that our Government itself was misinformed, that the Government had put meanings upon telegrams which one of the telegrams did not bear, and they took as correct a second telegram which has turned out to be absolutely incorrect in its statement. I think we may assume that the Government had these telegrams in its mind when it decided to refuse passports to Stockholm. If that is so, is it reconsidering its decision? If it is not, are we to understand that it came to its decision irrespective of the Russian Government or not? The implication in the Debate on Monday was that it was because these telegrams had been sent that the Government decided to refuse passports to Stockholm. That is all explained to-day. The interview published to-day does that. Other information does that. As a matter of fact, one does not require that interview in order to know the situation in Russia. Therefore, I hope that this Stockholm Conference affair is still open. Ministers must remember that after the War they have to maintain their alliance and their friendship with European democracies. I am perfectly certain they are not blind to the sort of things that are being written in important European newspapers, not only newspapers of the enemy but newspapers of certain of the Allies. If they at this crisis take up this rather old-fashioned—I will even conceive the expression correct—diplomatic attitude, that old-fashioned kind of idea that war and peace can only be settled by certain gentlemen who have been trained in the somewhat twisting and tortuous methods of thought and action, they are doing the country a very grave disservice. We heard a statement this afternoon about the great burdens that are put upon the country. That is all right, but do let Ministers remember that that is only one side of the story. The other side of the story is this, that if military necessity imposes these burdens upon the country it is the duty of the Government to see to it that those military necessities exist not a single moment longer than they are absolutely required in the circumstances. It is perfectly true that if Labour goes to Stockholm it goes unbound. It goes with- out any authority from the Government. It cannot go and say, "We agree to this as one of the terms of peace" or "We reject that as another suggestion about peace." That is absurd. That is not the function of the Conference at all. The function of the Conference is to bring the Labour view of the various countries concerned together, to piece it together, to show it to Europe, and to abstract from misunderstanding what is real and substantial. Surely no greater service could be done to the soldiers in the field and to this nation and the whole of Europe than that! Governments cannot do it. Governments cannot go and send unofficial representatives to The Hague, Stockholm, to Copenhagen, or anywhere else, to meet similar representatives from Germany or Austria. That is absolutely impossible. In those circumstances, however, you would be very much nearer peace than you look at the present moment.
What Governments ought to do is to allow the representatives of well-organised Labour bodies in particular—the other day I also added Churchmen—every organisation that is authoritative, that is responsible, that has been ably conducted, and that contains men who understand the international situation, to go and meet similar men from other countries, to explain the situation in the various countries and to discuss it, and I venture to say that when that is done so little will remain to fight about that peace will very soon come. Above all that there is this fact, that we want no peace in Europe under the old conditions. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Kennedy Jones), who made his maiden speech to-day, referred to the peace of Frederick. That is not the only peace that Europe has suffered from during the last 100 years. We can have our Fredericks. We can do in 1919–20 what his representatives did in France in 1871. We can march into Berlin. We can put our headquarter-staff in the Kaiser's Palace and we can put our flag on the top of that palace. Then you are not going to have that peace, then you are not going to have that security which you have promised your men in the field to give them if they would only sacrifice themselves. That security can come by democratic understanding and by democratic understanding alone. These international labour bodies are willing to go to Stockholm, are willing to meet in Stockholm, not to barter and bargain and sell in the pettifogging and disreputable way that some of the gutter Press charge us with. No; we have not come so low as that Press itself yet. I hope we never shall. We want to go and meet each other honestly to discuss the problems from which the War has sprung, the problems for which the War is created, the problems which the War cannot solve itself— honestly to discuss them all, to lay them down as intelligent men, so that when the War is over it will have secured the conditions of a permanent peace. I beg you, therefore, and I beg the Government with all my heart and with all my soul, do not tell us again to-day that what you said on Monday was the last word you are going to utter about the International Conference in Stockholm.
The hon. Member has made, as he always does make, a very interesting speech. With regard to his remarks about the dangers of secret diplomacy, I think we are all agreed, but the Stockholm Conference is quite another matter, and the impression left upon my mind, after listening to his speech, is this, that when you take these different telegrams and interviews, one with the other, it is impossible to reconcile them. If the telegrams are genuine, then the interview of this morning cannot be accurate, unless it may be that M. Kerensky has changed his mind in the meanwhile. I think we are all agreeable to that conclusion, that if the telegrams are genuine and if the interview is genuine too, there is only one explanation to this, and that is that M. Kerensky has changed his mind between the date of the telegram and the date of the interview. Under those circumstances I really do not think there is much to be gained by discussing this matter any further at this stage. I do not know how far the Government were impressed by the fact that M. Kerensky did or did not want this conference. I think one thing is clear, and I have no doubt the hon. Member agrees with me, that he does not suggest that the Russian Government as a whole wants this conference.
Yes.
I do not think it is suggested even now by anyone in the House that the Russian Government as a whole wants this conference. There is no doubt, of course, that this matter has been the subject of suspicion, and I think the hon. Member and his friends have some reason to understand why that suspicion appertains to this conference. At the same time, a great many people in this country —and I am one of them—genuinely think that this is only one of the German tricks with which we are so well acquainted. For my own part, I think we ought really to deal with one underlying matter in the hon. Member's speech. He talks about democracy, and he talks about labour, and he seems to me to confuse the two, or rather to identify the two together, and when he speaks about democracy I mean labour. We all represent labour in this House. We would not be here, any of us, unless we did; and, if the hon. Member will allow me to say so—and I can assure him I say so without any feeling—that he has no association with labour himself of any kind any more than have the rest of us in this House. Indeed, I say it not by way of compliment or complaint, but the hon. Member is in no sense a working man. Nor is the hon. Member for Blackburn a working man, or the hon. Member next to him (Mr. Ponsonby), or the hon. Member next to him (Mr. Jowett). How is it? Where did they get this wonderful instinct that they and they only are the people who represent the opinion of the working men in this country? As a matter of fact, they are representatives not by association, but by assertion, and of that, of course, we have had quite enough during the course of these Debates. For myself, I do not think anybody in this House ought to allocate to himself the right of representing labour as a whole in this country, and I am bound to say, too, that I do not think anyone, or any two or any three or any group of Members in this House can say that they alone represent the labour classes or the working classes generally.
What is this conference going to do? It is admitted that it cannot do anything mandatory, and that is made as a kind of concession. At the most it is a sort of consultative meeting, and they go there in order to discuss the situation. Now, I am bound to say, in the interests of the country, that I should like to know much more about the hon. Member's own views with regard to the War before I will trust him or anyone else with this sort of semiofficial pilgrimage to Stockholm. Do I understand now that he agrees that we are right in regard to this War? That is a question easily possible of reply. It only wants a "Yes" or "No," and I notice the hesitation and reticence of the hon. Gentleman. If a man does not know or will not say whether we are right or wrong in this War, then I for one would not trust him to go to Stockholm. I do not quite know what his attitude is towards war or towards this War. As I understand some of his friends, they think that war is wrong—all war. Is that his attitude, or is it his attitude that only this War is wrong? We have heard something about the Russian Revolution. There has been assassination and murder in the Russian Revolution, but not a word of complaint from those benches about what happened in the Revolution. As a matter of fact, they are against all war, unless it is civil war.
How about Carson?
There is an obvious answer to that, but I did not quite catch what the hon. Member said, and if I had caught it perhaps I should not have been able to understand it, and therefore I do not complain of my misfortune. Now, I say that the group with whom we have to deal see no harm in a man killing his own fellow-countrymen, but they think there is a world of difference in a man killing another who is not of his own country. That really is the position at which we have arrived. I would like to ask the hon. Member: Do you want peace on any terms? Is it your view that the War must be stopped on any terms in order to get peace? If you represent the Labour party of this country—and of that I am in very great doubt—and if you are going as the representative of the working classes of this country, are we not entitled to ask these men who are going to speak on behalf of the great majority of the population of this country, what their real views are upon these points? Their very utterances, and still more their silence, give us a very shrewd idea what the object of this Stockholm Conference is to be—that it is to be an end of the War on any terms that are possible. [Interruption.] Then I take it it is to be on certain terms. Then let me ask: Is it to be on the terms of restoration? Is it to be on the terms of punishment for the past and of security for the future? Are we not entitled to ask these questions before these gentlemen go to Stockholm?
But has not the Labour party issued a statement?
My hon. Friend is premature. My hon. Friend is always premature. It is quite true the Labour party has issued a statement, but it is a statement that is not approved officially by the party, and, therefore, the hon. Member's interruption—quite consistent with all his interruptions—is quite out of place and irrelevant to the point which I am now making to the House. At any rate, if hon. Members here were able to tell us that that draft programme which the Labour party has issued is the programme that they would adopt at Stockholm, that would put the whole matter in a very different light, but, as far as we know, they are going to Stockholm to see the hon. Gentleman's friends at the Conference, his German friends, if I may use the phrase he used himself at the conference. I do not like that attitude. We must remember that the Socialists of Germany form, I suppose, the majority, and we know all the outrages and the infamies of which they have been guilty in this War, and when a man refers to these people as his friends I "have only to say that if he is their friend I am afraid he is not our friend for the purpose of securing peace. Therefore, I submit that there is only one thing to be done. As far as the causes of the War are concerned, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) was in America when the War broke out, and when he came back he said he had not quite made up his mind.
I did not say that.
He was reported to have said that. It really does not matter much at this stage what the causes were. We are in the War, and I speak frankly when I say that from my point of view what we are fighting for is sheer self-preservation. The cause is one thing, the continuance is another, and we are fighting merely to preserve ourselves. We hear perorations about civilisation and all that. We are fighting not only for civilisation, justice, humanity and all those abstract terms, we are fighting for more than that. We are fighting for our existence as a nation and people. If you come to make peace upon such terms as will give no security for the future, I think really our last state will be worse than our first, because unless we get some security against a repetition of this War all our sacrifices will have been in vain. As long as we can fight we must go on fighting for our existence as a people. I venture to submit that the Labour party, or rather the working men and working women of this country, if really consulted and if properly represented, will whole-heartedly support the policy which is the prevailing policy of this country, and that is to go on with the War we have begun until we achieve the end which we have in view. The people of this country, I suppose, are divided into a very large majority and a very small minority. The very large majority very reluctantly and unwillingly felt bound to set out upon the high adventure of an honourable war in order to secure justice. There are a few, a very few, who are talking about seeking not justice primarily but shelter. But, whether you would find justice or shelter, your only chance of either establishing justice or obtaining shelter is to go on until the enemy is defeated and we are able to dictate such terms as will give us security.
I do not propose to follow the hon. Members who have spoken into the topic which they have opened. I would only say one word upon it. I am fully in agreement with the closing words which fell from the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Griffith). I am thoroughly convinced that this country is resolved by an overwhelming majority to persist in the War until we have achieved our object, and our object is to defeat the Germans. Until Germany is defeated there cannot be, and ought not to be, any question of peace. For any delegation representing the Labour party—and not, as far as I know, representing anybody else—to go and talk about peace at Stockholm would give only a misleading impression to all Europe. They would represent nobody but themselves. They are utterly unfit, mentally and by training, to deal with the questions which would come up for discussion, and the chances are that they would do something very foolish. I would as soon send a child of three up in control of an aeroplane as agree to the Labour party sending delegates to Stockholm. I do not wish to pursue that controversy. It is a controversy which can only be pursued to any purpose by discussing Russian domestic politics, about which we, none of us, know anything, not even the hon. Member for Leicester, and about which we would almost certainly say something which is very mischievous. I therefore turn to another topic, of a different kind, which I am anxious to bring before the House.
I want to draw the attention of the House to the relations between Lord Rhondda and the firm of Mitchelson and Company, and to the transactions which have taken place arising out of that relationship. I am aware that this seems to be a question too trivial to occupy the attention of the House of Commons at this moment. It may seem so, but I do not think that appearance is a just one or one which justly represents the truth. It is at the present time becoming more and more a rule, and in many respects a very desirable rule, to admit men with experience in business into high official positions. We have already got in the Government several distinguished business men. It becomes, therefore, quite necessary to see that the category of business men includes people of very different kinds. It is impossible to lay down any exact rules upon the matter. It is a matter of discretion, to be exercised by the Prime Minister in each case. I regret for my own part that we have, in regulating the relations of men of experience in business to political life, already adopted one rigid rule, and that is that no Minister is to be a director. I do not think that is a particularly reasonable rule in all respects; and it has this danger, that people get to think that if you have secured that precaution you are. safe altogether, and nothing more is necessary. I am quite sure that is an unsound opinion. You cannot lay down any exact rule; it must be a matter for discretion, and in exercising that discretion the Prime Minister must bear in mind that it is not enough to prevent anything like actual corruption or the improper use of political influence for making money, or anything definitely abusive of that kind. More is necessary. Outside the boundary which divides purity from corruption there lies a zone which we will call the zone of propriety of action, and it is quite possible to transgress the boundaries of that outer zone without being in the least guilty of anything amounting to corrupt practices. We are, of course, perfectly familiar in many relations with that system of placing outside the Boundary of what is vital a protective zone, a zone of propriety of action.
7.0 P.M.
Let me say that, in criticising or asking for explanations in regard to Lord Rhondda's relations with Mitchelson and Company, I do not desire to be understood to suggest that there is even any ground for suspicion of more than a transgression of the boundaries of propriety of action. I do not for a moment-desire to suggest there is anything of a graver character. It is one of the difficulties of discussing these matters that one is always thought to mean, to insinuate, to imply a good deal more than one says. I very expressly want to say at the outset that that would not be a fair way of treating my observations. I shall try to be quite outspoken in saying what I believe to be true, but I hope I shall not be held to imply more than I say. I want to say what I mean, but I do not wish to be understood to mean more than I say. What is, briefly, the story in this matter? I see my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London in his place. He will be able to correct any mistake if I should inadvertently fall into one, because he is the person who first called public attention to this matter in the Press. Two circulars were issued by Mitchelson and Company. They were not in all respects on parallel lines, but for my purposes we may treat them as being similar. In both these circulars Lord Rhondda's name appears on the top of the paper as a partner in the firm. They were circulars designed to recommend the sale of shares in businesses which Mitchelson and Company were selling. In itself I need not say that the use of a Minister's name in this connection is open to serious objection. Moreover, these circulars recommended the sale of these shares because the businesses concerned had made a very high profit. Indeed, the profits in both cases were more, I think, than 100 per cent.
Just under 96 per cent.
These profits were, it appears, in some instances, apparently made out of articles whose value had been affected by the economic conditions produced by the War. I am not reflecting in any way on the firms controlling the businesses concerned. Profits in time of war fall into two categories. If they result merely in taking advantage of the circumstances of war, I cannot see that they are in any sense immoral or indefensible. They are quite proper subjects of taxation, but they are not in any sense an offence against the community. But it is conceivable that there might be profits made by creating scarcity or increasing the difficulties of the economic situation. These would be in another category. There is no suggestion of that kind here. These businesses, as far as I know, made perfectly legitimate profits, but the objection which I have to make is to a firm using Lord Rhondda's name to recommend the public to buy shares by reason of very high profits at a time when the Ministry of which Lord Rhondda was a member were exerting their public authority to diminish high profits. Obviously a Minister is in an obviously false position if in his private capacity he recommends the public to buy shares because they are earning a high profit, and in his public capacity does his best to make that profit low. Indeed, I do not think that any defence on the merits of the circular is attempted. As far as I understand Lord Rhondda's circular and the answers which my hon. Friend got in this House the defence is of quite a different character. Lord Rhondda says, as I understand it, that he was only a sleeping partner in this firm, that he had forgotten that he was connected with it, and that as soon as his attention was drawn to it he left the firm. In short, the defence which he puts up is the defence of inadvertence.
First of all, as to being a sleeping partner. As I understand it, a sleeping partner is a person who gets a share of the profit of the undertaking without himself working in the undertaking. Obviously, whether he was a sleeping partner or active partner, the principal objection to Lord Rhondda's connection with the firm was that he was making a profit, and that objection is unaffected by whether he was an active or a sleeping partner. Second, it is quite clear that, though he may have been himself inactive he was an important element in the firm, because his name appears on the circular. I am told that this is necessary in order to comply with the law, but whether it is necessary in respect of the law or not, undoubtedly it is a circumstance likely to affect investors who may buy their shares. Then it is said that he forgot all about it—that he was inadvertent. I have no reason for denying the truth of that. It may very well be true, but I cannot think that a satisfactory defence. Observe how the matter stands. Here is a gentleman of great business position holding a very large number of directorships and, among other things, that of a sleeping partner in this particular firm. He was invited to join the Government last December. He is, of course, perfectly well aware that in his position there is that difficulty, that embarrassment, and that he must take such measures as will make it clear that there is no conflict between his business interests and his official duties; and, further, that there must be no use of his official name for the purpose of making money for a private undertaking. If he did not know about it at the time he should have been reminded of it by the requirement to resign his directorships. Then he forgets all about these particular firms for months past, and it is not until my right hon. Friend writes to the newspapers that he remembers and resigns.
Granted that it is inadvertence, I say that that sort of inadvertence would never happen with the sort of man who ought to be made a Minister of the Crown. The man who is sensitively conscious of the danger of the slightest appearance of scandal in such a relation would never have overlooked such a circumstance in his life, and would never have overlooked his connection with a firm of this kind. No one can imagine a business man of the right type forgetting all about whether he was a partner in a arm of outside brokers and forgetting to sever his connection when he must have been thinking of what it was necessary to do to avoid all appearance of being under the influence of pecuniary motives when he became Minister of the Crown; and, moreover, he ought to have reflected that his active partners were persons very ill-qualified to be trusted to use his name. They could not have been inadvertent. They must have been perfectly well aware that Lord Rhondda's name appeared on their circular. They never seemed to have thought it worth while to call his attention to the matter and to point out that he was in an ambiguous and unsatisfactory position. Therefore, accepting the defence of inadvertence by Lord Rhondda, it is the sort of inadvertence which ought not to be possible to a Minister of the Crown.
And there comes a third consideration. Messrs. Hooker, who I understand are manufacturers, among other things, of aeroplanes, were desirous of enlarging their business. That was a purpose approved by the Ministry of Munitions, and apparently the Ministry recommended in the public interest that the application of Messrs. Hooker for permission, which is now necessary, to borrow capital in the market should be granted. Messrs. Hooker's application was put forward, and they entrusted to Messrs. Mitchelson and Company the duty of putting these shares upon the market and so arranged the terms of the bargain that a considerable commission was to remain in the hands of Messrs. Mitchelson and Company. They were to undertake the borrowing of new capital in the market. and they were to make a profit out of it. It is quite clear that it is no argument to show that that was an improper thing for a firm of which a Minister of the Crown was a member to do. It is quite clear that the Minister of the Crown ought not, in carrying out Government business, to make a profit, directly or indirectly, out of contracts which the Government has granted. So far as I am aware, no one disputes that if Lord Rhondda knowingly had been a party to such a transaction he would have been blamed. Mitchelson and Company say that before this arrangement was made Lord Rhondda had resigned his membership of the firm, and ceased to be a partner. Lord Rhondda resigned membership of the firm on 30th June, and early in July, on the 11th, there was a notice in the "Pall Mall Gazette" of this transaction, showing that the application for borrowing was further delayed. That does not show that the matter was of so recent date as Mitchelson and Company now maintain. It is almost incredible that the matter should have been referred to in the Press at all in these terms if many weeks before, we will say, the arrangements had been already virtually completed. Of course, some final or formal stage might not have been taken until after 30th June, but I do not myself at all believe that the transaction was not already in an advanced stage towards completion long before Lord Rhondda left the firm. This is a matter which the Government could, if it pleased, make absolutely sure. They certainly could ascertain the facts from the Treasury Issue Committee, who control these borrowings. If the transaction had been brought to the notice of that Committee the Government could very soon have ascertained the facts.
I certainly think this is a matter about which a very full explanation ought to be given. Lord Rhondda is in a very important position. He has censured in very strong terms profiteering. It certainly is not desirable that a Minister undertaking that sort of duty should be a person about whom anything can be said that is not consistent with the highest standard of political propriety. There are two circumstances which seem to me of public importance. The first is that the National Provincial Bank were informed, or believed themselves to have been informed, that my right hon. Friend's action had given offence to important firms. The account of a business with which Lord Rhondda was formerly connected was withdrawn, and there is no reason to doubt, if that account was withdrawn, that it was withdrawn by persons who were friendly and sympathetic to Lord Rhondda. I want the House to realise how serious that sort of pressure may be on Members of Parliament. A very large number of Members of Parliament are more or less engaged in various ways, and a man in a great position like Lord Rhondda in the world of money-making might have a hundred ways of bringing pressure to bear on different Members of Parliament. It might be a very real consideration with a great number of Members whether they should offend so powerful and wealthy a man. I think it is very desirable that Parliament should do its utmost to discountenance anything which distantly resembles an attempt to intimidate a Member of Parliament. We are familiar with intimidation in ordinary electioneering.
We know that in canvassing the shopkeepers steadily refuse to answer the question on which side they are, because they are afraid of some influential customer withdrawing his custom. Intimidation was a subject of legislation in the Ballot Act. If it be a serious matter to intimidate a voter by threatening to withdraw custom, how much more serious it is to intimidate a Member of Parliament by withdrawing custom, because the Member of Parliament has a greater political influence than any individual voter. I cannot help feeling that we are passing into the penumbra of the great evil which has faced for so many years past American politics. This is the sort of instance that you might expect to hear of in American politics. I do not know that we have ever heard of it here, except perhaps in one of Belloc's political romances, but in that case it was a Jew. On this side of the Atlantic we have never, so far as I know, heard of such an incident occurring. Another thing, about which I may be merely the victim of suspicion, is this: I cannot help noticing that the Press maintains a stony silence about this matter. I regret that very much. I am quite sure that publicity is the right remedy for these things. If on one side the facts are put forward, and on the other side the facts are put forward, the public will be able to judge where the truth lies. If the Press does not perform the duty of securing wholesome publicity in matters of this kind, to a large extent the rest of us are helpless. It really is a serious responsibility that lies on the Press. The Press when it does not give publicity loses its savour; there is nothing to correspond to a responsible publication of the facts. It may be said that they do not wish to raise a matter which embarrasses a Minister at an anxious moment. But I can only say that the Press has not shown indulgence to all sorts of Ministers and on all sorts of occasions, and, therefore, I cannot think that in this case it is marked by patriotic motives.
But most of all I press upon the Government the necessity of inquiring into this matter themselves. I am not suggesting a formal inquiry by a Committee or anything of the kind, but I do suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should himself make the inquiry if he can spare the time, and if he cannot that he should select someone of unblemished integrity and with a sufficient knowledge of business to assist him and look into the matter. It may be said that an inquiry could not make progress. It certainly cannot make progress if Lord Rhondda is not going to give facilities or if everyone is going to stand on his legal rights and refuse to answer questions. Such an inquiry might, for example, clear up the question of the dates as to Messrs. Hooker's capital and that particular question should be cleared up. On the general question the inquiry could only go forward with Lord Rhondda's full consent and co-operation. If he is willing to give that there is no reason why any individual the Chancellor of the Exchequer likes to appoint should not make himself perfectly acquainted with the whole matter in all its details. He might also ascertain very easily, what I honestly do not know, what sort of position the firm of Mitchelson hold in the City of London in money-making circles, and how far that is a firm which a man who is selected to be a Minister ought to have been connected. In short, the whole matter can be made clear. I have tried to say exactly what I meant, and not to imply more than I meant. But let me say if nothing is done, if the Government are satisfied with the position as it stands now, and if they say "It is no concern of ours, we really cannot look into it further," the impression upon my mind will be that things have gone a step backwards, that there really is ground for suspecting something seriously amiss, because I cannot believe such an inquiry cannot be made, and should not be made, unless Lord Rhondda shrinks inquiry. If he is perfectly willing to give a person properly appointed full information and to induce his friends to do likewise, an inquiry is perfectly feasible. If there is no inquiry the inference will be obvious, that he does not want it and shrinks from it. That is the position in which the matter stands now. I earnestly hope that both the House and the Government will treat this question, and all questions of which this is a type, as being matters of very grave concern in a democratic community. We hear often, not at all too much, of the dangers of what is called Prussianism—that is to say, the exaggeration of State control and authority. There is also this other danger. I may call it "Americanism." The danger of the spread of corrupt relations between money and politics. I do not suspect corruption here, but, as I said before, I do suspect a breach of the proprieties which protect public life from the danger. Let us be jealous at the outset, let us take pains by applying the great remedy of publicity from the very beginning that we shall escape the whole infection, and keep public life here unaffected in this way.
My Noble Friend cannot make on any subject a speech which is devoid of interest, but there are one or two of his illustrative remarks which might have been put in a way which, I think, when he comes to read it to-morrow, he will agree might have been better. He expressed sentiments with which, so far as the principle is concerned, I am in entire agreement, that delegates neither of the Labour party nor from anybody else can represent this House and the country in regard to peace terms. He said that they could not do this from lack of training, with which I agree, but he said also that they could not do it from lack of intellect, with which I do not agree.
I did not mean to impute stupidity. What I suggested was a lack of mental experience to qualify them.
My Noble Friend knows, and nobody better, that it is what he has said will be taken, and not the intention which he wished to express. He dealt with another topic also by way of illustration which I certainly hope will not be cabled to the other side of the Atlantic. I hardly think that his constant references to "Americanism" is a thing which at any time I would greatly approve of, but if it is the case should we not rather look for the mote, if it be only a mote, in our own eye before we talk about the beam, if we dare to make such a distinction, in the eye of any other nation? As regards this subject which he has raised, I confess it is painful to me to have to say anything about it at all. My Noble Friend did give me notice of it last night but, as it happens, Lord Rhondda is indisposed and it was therefore impossible for me to communicate with him, and the House will understand that I cannot now attempt to make any defence against the charge which my Noble Friend has made. But even the nature of his attack, temperate as it was, does, I think, enable one to form some general conclusions in regard to it. My Noble Friend said, and this was another illustration, that one of the bad features of this case was that the Press kept quiet in regard to it. He made another remark that newspapers were not usually slow about attacking Ministers. I agree with him there. My experience has told me that he is quite right in that from the way in which the Press carries on its operations, but there is another explanation and it is one which I think should make Members of this House very careful before they bring charges of this kind, and that explanation is that the Press is not like Members of the House of Commons, for if it makes insinuations of that kind it has got to pay for them, and for that reason they are rather slow to make them. [An HON. MEMBER: "In what way?"] By actions for libel.
The "Morning Post" published it.
I am dealing with what my Noble Friend said about the Press and that probably is the explanation of it. As regards the nature of the charge which has been made, it is rather difficult for me with the information I have, which is confined to what has been given in answer to questions, to follow the exact nature of the charge against my Noble Friend. As the House knows, a rule was made by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman that no member of a Ministry should continue to hold directorships. I remember very well that my right hon. Friend beside me (Mr. Balfour) opposed that at the time on the ground that you cannot make any rule which will prevent men from doing wrong if they are inclined to do wrong and that the best plan was to trust them. Ever since that rule has been adopted by successive Governments, but what has happened does give some weight to what my right hon. Friend said at that time. What was the position with which Lord Rhondda was faced when he was asked to join the Government? He knew the rule about directorships. I am sure of this, though I have not spoken to him. I am sure he made great pecuniary sacrifices in order to serve his country by giving up the directorships. He knew, he was told I have no doubt, because he would ask, what the rule was, that Ministers were allowed to keep their connections with their own private business. Mitchelson, of which he was a partner, was his private business and naturally he would say to himself, "I do not need to give it up." Now we come to the charges about this particular firm. First of all, my Noble Lord referred to the transactions between that firm and the Government Department. It is quite obvious that no Minister should permit that. Any dealing by any firm in which he was interested, directly or indirectly, with a Government Department, while he was a Minister, is something, obviously, which ought not to be done.
If they have a Government contract!
That is the same thing. What I am saying is that no Minister should be concerned, directly or indirectly, with a firm that is in any way dealing with Government business. I remember I was asked a question about that, and the answer furnished to me was that Lord Rhondda had ceased to have any connection with that firm before it made the arrangement to which my Noble Friend referred. It may be—it is quite possible—that arrangements and negotiations had begun before that. I know nothing about that. But surely if that were not the kind of business which the firm was in the habit of doing and it had begun these negotiations without Lord Rhondda's knowledge, no one, unless he were of a very suspicious mind, would say that Lord Rhondda deserved to have his name brought up before the House of Commons on account of these dealings. But, to my mind, the whole essence of the question is the nature of the firm. It is obvious, by the rules which guide Ministers, Lord Rhondda was entitled to continue his connection with the firm if it was a reputable firm. That is the essence of the whole transaction. Yet my Noble Friend ends his speech by saying that he recommends us to find out something about the firm, because, honestly, he does not know what is its reputation! That is the essence of the whole question. I do not think he should have made the speech he has made to-day until he had found out what was the nature of the firm with which Lord Rhondda was connected. That is all I am going to say about that matter, except one general observation: I remember, while I was still in Opposition, I was urging upon the Government of the day the employment of a larger number of business men in connection with the work of the War. It was said at that time that it was difficult to employ business men because their ramifications and their interests were so wide that you could not tell when they would be affected by something you were doing.
I said then—and I believe it now, and my experience of business men employed in the War bears it out—that if the Government deals with business men in the nature of bargaining, you will find that the business man will get the better of them. If, on the other hand, the Government goes to the business man and says to him, "We entrust you with this particular work for the sake of the country," then in ninety-nine cases out of 100 they will sacrifice their private interests in order to carry out that trust. I have no reason to believe for a moment that this is not true of Lord Rhondda. Certainly I know it to be true of a great many others who are serving the Government now. I am bound to say this, that it would be a bad thing for the Government of this country; certainly it would be a very bad thing if there was any suspicion of improper use of monetary influence. Also, it would be a very bad thing for the country if, whenever a man engaged in business occupies a position of some pre-eminence you regard everything he does, or has done, with the microscopic eye of suspicion, instead of trying to believe the best, and believe that he is honestly trying to serve his country at a time such as that in which we are engaged. That is all I am going to say on that subject.
I must say a few words about the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester (Mr. R. Macdonald). The House will understand that this is not a subject on which I would say a word if I did not think it necessary. It is quite obvious, even from what the hon. Member for Leicester said, that the position of the head of the Russian Government is a very delicate one in connection with this whole matter. I should therefore have preferred to say nothing more about it after the inevitable Debate which took place the other day, but I am afraid the speech of the hon. Member makes it impossible for me to take that line. He implied that a telegram which appeared in the "Daily News," and also, I think, in some other papers, was directly at variance with the telegram which was sent by the Prime Minister to be read at the Labour Conference. In my opinion, it is nothing of the kind. I am going to look at the case made by the hon. Member for Leicester. He analysed, or tried to analyse, the effect of the two telegrams. I do not know what he meant by the second telegram. Neither the Prime Minister nor any other member of the Government referred to more than one telegram, the telegram received from the Russian Government.
The other one was published!
Published by whom?
In the newspapers.
What have we to do with that?
An HON. MEMBER: That is the case.
I am dealing with what was urged by the Prime Minister in explanation of the action of the Government. What was that telegram? The hon. Member for Leicester himself seems to realise that in order to do away with the effect of it he must discredit its origin. He implied—indeed, he almost said so in so many words—that that telegram was sent to the British Government as the result of a fishing message sent by us in order to get something of the kind to support our attitude. There is not a word of truth in that suggestion from beginning to end. The message came spontaneously, so far as we are concerned, from the Russian Government; so much so, that when the Prime Minister received it he was struck by it, and for that reason sent it at once to my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnard Castle, so that he could make it public at the Labour Conference the next day. Let me add this: In this "Daily News" interview to which the hon. Member referred there are these words:
"They are drawing a wrong deduction from our Note."
There is no question whose Note it is, even from this. Let me read again what the words of that Note were—and remember that in this interview the head of the Russian Government still describes it as his Note:
"You are hereby authorised to inform the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that although the Russian Government do not deem it possible to prevent Russian delegates from taking part in the Stockholm Conference, they regard this Conference as a party concern, and its decisions in no way binding upon the Government."
Is not that a reply to a request: that is what I said?
It is not a reply to a request of any kind sent either by the British Government or on the initiative of the British Government. That is perfectly definite and clear. But let the House notice this: The real importance of the attitude of the Russian, in our view, was up till that time the view generally held in this country, was that the Russian Government were themselves at the bottom of, and were initiating, this Conference. More than that, I believe—I cannot recall the dispatches—but I believe that up till the time of the change of Government that was true. A change of Government took place, and the Russian Government not only ceased to initiate, or become the promoters of, but they expressly dissociated themselves from any responsibility with it. Will the House look at what it said even in this interview, and contrast it with what was said by the hon. Gentleman? He spoke as if the Russian Government, and Mr. Kerensky in particular, had declared himself to be in favour of this Conference. He stated that over and over again. But not a word to that effect was in this communication. What Mr. Kerensky said was:
"We are a Coalition Government, and, therefore, since the Conference is a party matter, we cannot, as a Coalition, be bound by its decisions.
But it has been said that M. Albert Thomas declared that you said you are opposed to it?
Nothing of the sort. I am not opposed to it. I have insisted again and again—"
Why does the right hon. Gentleman leave out the intermediate sentence?
I am dealing with that which bears directly on the point I have to put before the House. [An HON. MEMBER: "Read it all!"] Mr. Kerensky said:
"That does not mean we are opposed to it. It is not our business to be opposed to it or in favour of it."
Now, that is the whole case which the Government made, and which they wished to have put before the Labour Conference. That is our whole case. We did not deny —we never denied—that the Socialist party have advocated this Conference, but what we did say was that the Russian Government as a Government had nothing whatever to do with it, and were not advocating it in one way or another, and every word I say bears that out. In confirmation of this—I am sorry to go into any dispute as to words with the hon. Gentleman—but he referred to the quotation from the speech made by the Prime Minister. This is the interjection as it appeared. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Ham (Mr. W. Thorne) asked:
"Did Kerensky invite the Powers?"
It is obvious it could not be in that form. The hon. Member replied:
"Yes, he did."
I did not reply to that effect.
The whole point was, what was the question to which that answer was given? Everyone who read the account of the speech of the hon. Member took it for granted that that question was definitely this: Is this invitation to the Stockholm Conference issued on the initiative of the Russian Government? That is what everyone who read that speech understood it to mean, and the answer the hon. Member gave was, "Yes, it is." I say that the answer which we have received from the Russian Government, which I have read to the House to-day—and nothing in this report differs from it—is to this effect, that the Russian Government in no sense or form is pressing this conference as a conference upon its Allies or upon anyone else. I said I would not have dealt with it if I could have helped it. Could anyone read that interview as a whole—read the words I have quoted about being neither opposed to it nor in favour of it—read the words in which he says it is not so important as it was some time ago—can anyone read that interview without knowing that there has been a great change in the situation in Russia since this conference was first proposed, and that Mr. Kerensky recognised that change and expected other people to do so? My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made no claim that Mr. Kerensky was opposed to the conference. Let me read what he did say, if the hon. Member doubts it:
"Under the old conditions the Russian Government was supposed to be not merely in favour of the conference, but to be promoting it. What did this telegram mean? It meant that as far as they were concerned, they as a Government had nothing whatever to do with the conference, but they felt that they could not possibly prevent delegates from attending it."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th August, 1917, col. 931.]
That is the case made by my right hon. Friend.
Read column 932.
I cannot read the whole speech, but I heard it, and I say now that in the case made by the Prime Minister the ground on which he thought the alteration should have been put before the Labour Conference was simply this— and it makes, to my mind, the whole difference in the situation—that before it was believed the Russian Government were promoting this conference, that now we had it, on the authority of the Russian Government themselves, that they were not promoting it, but that they regarded it as a party conference with which, as a Government, they had nothing whatever to do. I am quite ready to leave it there. It is quite obvious, as the hon. Member said, that a member of a Coalition Government, as Mr. Kerensky is—we have had some experience of that—has not the same freedom to express his views either on one side or the other as if he had a Government entirely of his own party. I admit that, and I say that is the reason why all of us should recognise the difficulty of his position, and not attempt, by putting words into his mouth which he has never used, to make his position more difficult in the trying circumstances in which he is placed.
There is only one thing more I have got to say. The hon. Member said we ought to reconsider our view about the Stockholm Conference, because, as he thinks, we were misinformed about the position of the Russian Government. We were not misinformed about the position of the Russian Government, and we are not in the least misinformed as to the effect of British subjects attending a conference which will be attended by the enemy. There will be no change in the attitude of the Government on that subject. We all recognise—nobody more than I do—the part which Labour has played in this War, and I agree with what was said by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions last night. I felt from the beginning that, unless we had the working classes of this country on our side—wholeheartedly on our side—we could not possibly win in the life or death struggle in which we are engaged. I recognise that; but there is something else we have got to recognise too. Our soldiers are meeting the Germans every day and every hour. They are meeting them with weapons in their hands. They are falling every day, and are we to expect our troops to keep on that struggle when they know that behind their backs their own citizens are hobnobbing with their enemies? And I say something more. I say that, in addition to depending upon our arms, we cannot win this War unless the country at home is solid in regard to it. Does anyone who really means not to be beaten in this War think for a moment that you could allow British citizens, with the permission expressly given by their Government, to go and talk to our enemies without destroying the morale on which victory must depend? Yes, Sir, we realise the part that Labour has played, and must play, in this War, but for us, at least, there is no need to have a revolution in order to express the popular will. This nation is a nation as a whole, and when the time comes to talk of peace it must be a body—either this Government or some other—which represents not a section, but' the whole nation.
The Leader of the House has made a reference to the possible effect that the granting of passports to the Stockholm Conference might have upon the soldiers in the field. There is one simple way by which the Government can ascertain the views of the soldiers upon this question. They can do it by putting that question to them, and those of us who are in favour of attending the Stockholm Conference would be quite willing to abide by that decision with the greatest confidence. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman leaves the matters in dispute precisely where they were before. He selected from these statements by the Russian Prime Minister certain sentences which suited his own purpose, but he was careful to avoid calling the attention of the House to other sentences of a somewhat different kind, which, if quoted, would not have served the right hon. Gentleman's purpose. The right hon. Gentleman has attempted to maintain the position that those who have been in favour of the Stockholm Conference have tried to gain support for that proposal by endeavouring to convey the impression that the invitation came from the Russian Government, or, at any rate, that it v as supported by the Russian Government. May I state, certainly not. for the first time, that there is no foundation whatever for a statement like that. The right hon. Gentleman may quibble as he likes, but he cannot convince any honest person who has heard or read the speech which the Prime Minister delivered in this House last Monday that it bears out his argument. The Prime Minister said that if the Labour Conference last Friday had been told that the Russian Government were not favourable or were opposed to the holding of the Stockholm Conference that the decision of that conference would have been very different. There was no attempt made at all to influence the vote of that conference by conveying an impression of that kind. It was well known to every delegate from whom the invitation emanated. In the Agenda Paper which was in the possession of every delegate at that conference there was published the full text of the invitation to the Conference, and that invitation showed clearly that it did not come from any Government.
How many had read it? They only got it on the morning of the conference.
The invitation stated that it came from the Russian Soviet and from the Dutch Scandinavian Committee sitting at Stockholm, which represents the International Socialists' views. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman has not removed at all the impression given by the Prime Minister's speech on Monday that the Labour Party Conference had been misled. Although abundant evidence has been adduced that the Prime Minister's statement was unfounded, there is nothing that remains for us but to say that there is no truth in the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the conference did not vote under the impression that the invitation had come from the Russian Government, because the invitation had come from the International and Socialist movement. The International Socialist movement would not participate in a conference under Government patronage. They do not want that. The conference has been called to give an opportunity to the International Socialist movement to consult together upon questions connected with the War. The position, as stated by M. Kerensky, has been understood by the International Socialist Party. There was one sentence in the interview with M. Kerensky which the Leader of the House quoted, and that is the first sentence in the interview, which reads: Governments in this matter, which is not Government business, but which is the business of the International Socialist democracy. I have already quoted what M. Kerensky says in the first sentence of the interview, and I will now quote what he says in his last sentence:
What does the right hon. Gentleman say now? He says the very opposite. He will not have this expression of public opinion. Here we have another difference of opinion between these two Governments. What are those two Governments? One is a democratic Government, the other is the Government of an autocracy. Who elected this Government? Have they been elected by this House or have they been elected by the country? Do three of the Members of the War Cabinet represent the democracy of this country? Are Lord Milner and Lord Curzon typical democrats! The view which the right hon. Gentleman has expressed here this afternoon is the view, not of democrats, but the view of autocrats. The view expressed by M. Kerensky is the view of the head of a real democracy. I want to say one thing further. I have already said that we do not want the patronage of Governments in this matter. All that we want is an unrestricted opportunity, so far as means of communication are concerned—
made an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
The hon. Member opposite will go down to history, if he goes down to history at all, with one reputation. There is on record the case of a man who was known as "Single-speech Hamilton." He made one speech in this House. The hon. Member, if he is known to posterity at all, will be known as "Single-sentence speech Thorne."
Then I will make one after this.
The only contribution which the intelligence of the hon. Member can make is to interrupt other people during the course of their observations.
You are a champion at that, too.
We do not want any patronage of the Government. What international Socialism is asking for is every opportunity to meet together to do its own business. I want to warn the Government of the consequences of pursuing and persisting in the attitude that they have adopted. It is perfectly evident from many things that have happened lately that there is a deliberate intention on the part of certain Governments associated in the Alliance to prevent international democracy from having a voice in the settlement of peace. One might mention a number. The Prime Minister himself has made several speeches within the last three weeks, and that point has always been introduced into his speech. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith) spoke in a peace Debate we had in this House a few weeks ago, and his concluding observation on that occasion was to the effect that democracy would have to be consulted in the settlement of peace. Not only Governments, said the right hon. Gentleman, but democracies too. What reply did the Prime Minister make? He said the question of a peace settlement was not the business of any section; it was the business of the Government. The Prime Minister made a speech at the Queen's Hall, and he made the same statement there. His words in effect were that the Government were going to keep in its own hands this question of a peace settlement. On what condition did the Labour Members agree to remain in the Government when it was transformed some time last year? At the interview with the Prime Minister the question was put as to whether Labour would be directly represented at the Peace Conference. The Prime Minister did not give a straight answer to that question. He declined to commit himself to a promise that Labour would be directly represented, but he talked in an evasive sort of way about Labour exercising an influence upon the peace settlement. This House is going to adjourn within the course of the next few days, I suppose, for something like two months. A great many things may happen during that time, but if what one hears is correct and if the obvious interpretation is placed on certain things that one sees, there is a movement going on now in addition to the military movement—a diplomatic movement—the purpose of which is to prevent the democracies of Europe from asserting themselves in the direction of a peace settlement. I put a question to the Foreign Secretary last week about a statement which has been made that recently there has been meeting in Switzerland a conference of international financiers. The purpose of this conference was to bring about peace in order to prevent the development of the revolutionary movement in Europe. The right hon. Gentleman denied all knowledge of it. The statement was made upon the authority of a man who is at the present time employed by the Government on important diplomatic work, and from evidence which he says is unimpeachable he knows that such a conference did take place.
The Government, it seems, are going to persist in refusing to grant passports for this Stockholm Conference. I see a suggestion in one of the newspapers to-day that the Prime Minister should go to the adjourned Labour conference next Tuesday and use his eloquence to persuade them to rescind the decision at which they arrived last Friday. There is nothing in the world I would like better than to see the Prime Minister upon that platform next Tuesday. Not all the eloquence of the Prime Minister would be able to alter the decision of that conference. There is one characteristic of an Englishman: if you tell him that he must not do a thing you make him all the more determined to do it. That conference next week will not reverse the decision at which it arrived last Friday. I doubt if a vote will foe taken, but if a vote is taken I have not the slightest doubt that the decision will be affirmed by a larger majority. What does it mean? We have the Russian democracy determined that the Stockholm Conference shall be held. If they have not the support, at any rate they have not the opposition of the Russian Government. The Government says that British Labour shall not go. British Labour says that it will go. Therefore, we are going to have a direct conflict between the Government and British Labour. A person who was at one time influential in the Labour movement and is a very shrewd man said to me after the conference on Friday, "This vote is not really on the question of whether we should go to Stockholm or not. It is a pacifist vote." He does not share my opinion. He is a strong supporter of the War. I do not agree with that statement, or at any rate I should not put it like that. I should not say that the majority was a pacifist vote. I will tell you what it was, and I ask the Government to remember it. It was the vote of men, the overwhelming majority of whom were formerly supporters of the knock-out blow, that policy which was stated so bluntly this afternoon by the hon. Member who made his first contribution to our Debates. He said the aim of the Allies was to defeat Germany to her knees and then strip her naked. The majority of the men who voted for going to Stockholm last Friday formerly held that view.
Nonsense!
The significance of the vote is this: They no longer believe in the policy of the knock-out blow.
That is all fudge!
They no longer believe in the possibility of a military victory. What they want now is an opportunity to see if this War cannot be brought to an end by other means than the arbitrament of the sword. That is what that vote means. Therefore, if the Labour party reaffirms its decision and the Government stand by the position which has been re-stated by the Leader of the House this afternoon, it means a direct conflict between British labour and the Government, and that the feeling I have just described will continue to get stronger and become more militant. It will not stop there. The Leader of the House told us the other afternoon that in refusing to grant passports to Stockholm they were taking a line similar to that which has been decided upon by the French Government and the American Government. Now the French Socialists, majority and minority alike, have decided to go to Stockholm. The Italian Socialists have decided to go to Stockholm—majority and minority, war supporters and the antiwar party. What are we going to see? The British Labour party in opposition to the British Government; the French Socialists in opposition to the French Government; the Italian Socialists in opposition to the Italian Government. And you are going to have the Russian democracy in opposition to all the Allied Governments which refuse to allow Labour to attend this International Conference. Therefore the policy of the Government means this: that the Governments of the Allied Powers are going to create a clear line of division between themselves and the democracies of their respective countries. From one point of view—I do not want to be misunderstood—I would not regret that, because I believe that we can only get such a peace as has been described by many speakers this afternoon—namely, a permanent peace—when that peace has been made by the democracies themselves. If the Governments will not take the democracies into co-operation with them, then the democracies will work out their own salvation in their own way, and in opposition to their Governments. That is all I have to say in reply to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I am perfectly certain that the forecast I have given to the House this afternoon will be justified by the events of the next few months.
Let me now, for the first time in this Debate, turn to the Motion which is before the House. That Motion asks us to agree to an Adjournment till the 16th October next. Assuming that the House rises on Tuesday, that means that the House is to be in Recess for two months The Prime Minister told us this afternoon —he was only repeating what other members of the Government have said during the last few days and weeks—that we are at the most critical stage of the War. We all realise that. Yet the Government ask the House of Commons to go into Recess for a period of two months at the most critical period of the War. I want to move an Amendment to this Motion, to leave out the words "16th day of October," and to substitute the words "11th day of September." Instead of eight weeks of Recess, that will give three weeks for a Parliamentary holiday. I submit, in view of the present circumstances, that three weeks is quite as long as Parliament ought to be in Recess. I can make one general statement which ought to be sufficient to support my Amendment, namely, that we cannot trust the Government out of our sight for eight weeks.
Not a week!
At Question Time today there were something like 150 ques- tions on the Paper. For weeks past hon. Members have been pressing upon Ministers something like 700 questions a week. That is an indication of the enormous number of important matters about which Members of the House want to be in constant and direct touch with the Government. Within the last few days, when the question of Parliamentary business has been raised, the Leader of the House has had to say that certain important matters could not be dealt with now for lack of time, but would have to be held over until we resume in the autumn. The hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle) this afternoon once more raised the question of the official instructions to be issued for the purpose of carrying out the recommendations of the Committee which has been inquiring into the scandals connected with the examination of rejected men. We are going away —if we do go away—and that question is to be left unsettled. There are some 200,000 or 300,000 men in the country to whom this is a most anxious matter. They are waiting for the decision of the Government upon it. My hon. Friend must have, as I have, letters every day from these men. They have seen in the newspapers the recommendations of the Committee, and they want to know whether those recommendations have become law, and whether they can apply to this Special Invalidity Board for a re-examination. We cannot get a reply from the Government. Instead of a reply, we get the promise of eight weeks' holiday and the probability is that when we reassemble in the autumn nothing at all will be done. In view of what I said a little while ago, and the rumours—very well-founded rumours—that diplomatic, I will not say negotiations, but conversations, are going on now upon the matter of peace, can we afford to delay, for a long period like this, dealing with such a question? I submit that we cannot. During a war Parliament ought not to be in Recess for such a lengthy period as is proposed by this Motion. It is necessary to be eternally vigilant if we are going to maintain our liberties. It is quite true that during recent years the power, influence and authority of the House of Commons have been getting less and the power and authority of the Executive have been growing stronger. Therefore, it is necessary that the House of Commons should assert itself. It has now an opportunity of doing so by saying that it will not leave the Government for such a long period as eight weeks, with all control and executive power, without any influence on the part of the House of Commons.
I beg to move, as an Amendment, to leave out the words "16th day of October,' and to insert instead thereof the words "11th day of September."
On a point of Order. If this Amendment is put, will those of us who wish to speak on other subjects on the Adjournment be debarred from doing so?
For the time being, yes, until the Amendment is disposed of. When it is disposed of, we shall go back to the main Question.
I beg to second the Amendment.
My hon. Friend has referred to the statement made by the Prime Minister to-day, that we are at the most critical time of the War. At Question Time to-day the Leader of the House was asked if the House would be called together again if a great political crisis or a military crisis arose. Surety it would be better, in view of the fact, as it seems to me, that a political crisis must now arise, that the House should not adjourn for so long a period as two months. Before that a grave political crisis must arise out of the statement which has been made by the Leader of the House. What is the position which must follow on this decision of the Government not to grant passports to the delegates of the Labour congress? The Government calls itself a Coalition Government, and the main feature of the Coalition is that it has certain members who are called representatives of Labour. They are there as representing Labour. The vote of the congress seems to show that they do not represent Labour in a great issue. I presume that the congress will call upon these members who sit in the Ministry as representing Labour to do their best to carry out the expressed desire of labour. One thing or the other must follow as the result of the vote of that congress. If these hon. Members stay in the Government they are there not representing Labour, having been rejected by Labour, and to that extent Coalition Government no longer remains a Coalition Government. If, on the other hand, they resign as not being representatives of organised labour, because it was as representative of organised labour that they got there, immediately it seems to me the Coalition Government comes to an end, and we are certainly involved in a political crisis. Consequently, putting aside the military situation, if we have regard only to the prospect of the near political future, we certainly are in the very gravest crisis of the history of the War. It is no doubt true that the decision of the Government must involve us to a certain extent in an industrial crisis. We have had very grave reports coming in of the Commissions inquiring into labour unrest. Throughout the country there is serious unrest and discontent. In certain districts it is greater than in others. It is quite obvious that this action of the Government in flouting organised labour must increase that unrest to a very great extent.
We see every day now in the papers statements as regards the possibility and the probability of revolutionary movements in this country, and the peculiar thing is that these articles and statements do not come so much—they scarcely come at all—from representatives of Labour as they do from people in a different position in society altogether. We have, for instance, Lord Sydenham writing an article in the "Sunday Times" setting forth the probability of a revolution in this country, and wherever you go you hear people talking of the possibility of revolution. I believe there is very grave danger in such talk. You talk of the inevitability of war, and it is the first step to get to war. You paralyses the efforts of those who try to find a solution for international difficulties by always talking, as you did before the War, of the inevitability of war. If you go on talking in this way of the inevitably of revolution you take the first step to getting revolution. I think there is only one greater horror than war, and that is revolution and internal strife. But if you dismiss the House of Commons for two months at this crisis you are closing down a safety valve, a poor inefficient one, and it is getting more inefficient every day as the representative nature of the House of Commons lessens, but still, to' a certain extent, it is a safety valve, and if by your action you are going to increase the industrial unrest you are going to increase the feelings of resentment which are stirring throughout the country, and if at the same time you close down the House of Commons, you are taking a very serious and dangerous course and one which I do not wish to see the Government pursue. There is no doubt a great change of feeling is taking place in the country, and one reason is that the people are beginning to regard with something like horror the prospect of another winter of war. I had a letter a day or two ago from a man who acts as my representative in my Constituency. I held several meetings there some time ago. He said: "The people desire you to come down again and address more meetings. They are not those who see eye to eye with you, but they are people who regard with great apprehension the idea of another winter of war." That, I believe, is a sentiment that is spreading through every section of the community—a feeling of apprehension and of something like horror at the possibility of this War being dragged on through another winter. The Prime Minister to-day, in his flaunting statements and tub-thumping efforts talked of victory in 1918. He reminded me of the child's words, "this year, next year, some time, never."
The main reason why I object to the dismissal of the House of Commons for two months is that when men are being sent to their death in thousands a day, or to mutilation in tens of thousands a week by this House of Commons, it is not a time for this House of Commons to be taking a holiday of two months. I believe the House of Commons, particularly at this time of crisis, should be here day by day watching the interests of the men at the front, because we are in a military position which seems to me to be different at this moment from what it has been at any other time. We have been told throughout the War that for an offensive to be Successful it must be conducted on all fronts at one time. What do we see today? There is no offensive, of course, on the Russian front. There is no offensive on the Italian front. The French are undertaking no great offensive. They joined with us in the offensive a few weeks ago. I was rather surprised to see it, but I saw afterwards the statement that the Germans had. captured a large number of black troops, and I saw that the French General-in-Command was the French General who commands the black troops. I believe the French offensive, consequently, was undertaken with black troops and not by Frenchmen. A few months ago the French Minister for War, in consequence of the outcry raised in France and the great political crisis which arose there and continued for weeks as the result of the failure of the offensive of last April, made a statement reported in our Press in these words. He said "We shall stand opposite the Germans until American reinforcements arrive." As a result of secret debates in the French Chamber, followed by an open debate, in which the Minister for War spoke, and as the result of a demand being made largely from the trenches, it was decided to discharge certain classes from the trenches and provisions were made for leave being granted to the troops. They are sending their soldiers back from the front line. It seems to me, therefore, that the French are determined at the present time not to undertake any great offensive that is likely to involve great sacrifice of life. They have forced their Government to give them that assurance. What does this resolve itself into? It means that the offensive that is being undertaken is falling on the British soldier alone. We have furnished by our conscription millions of men to the commander-in-chief in the field, and he alone and the British troops alone are undertaking to-day offensive operations when we were told that offensive operations to be a success must be conducted on all fronts at the same time, and that the sacrifice must be made by all the armies of the Allies at the same time. I enter my protest against the House of Commons going for a two months' holiday when that is happening. It is no use to tell us that these terrible sacrifices of men endured by the British Army virtually alone are any contribution to victory. We are learning a good deal of the truth of the military situation from authoritative statements in the American papers as to the position on the Western Front.
The hon. Member must not develop the general argument. He must follow the lines of the special reasons why the date of the Adjournment should be different from the one in the Resolution.
I will keep your ruling in mind, but I should like to draw my arguments together. In the first place I consider that the decision of the Govern- ment as regards the refusal of passports for Stockholm is likely to engender a dangerous position, and to dangerously increase the industrial unrest in this country. To dismiss the House of Commons for two months is to close down something in the nature of a safety valve. At such a time as this when our troops are being called upon to make big sacrifices, sacrifices which are not falling to the same extent upon some of our Allies, and when there is great cause to think that the sacrifices may be largely, if not wholly, in vain, it is wrong for the House of Commons to be dismissed for two months. It is impossible for any man to surrender his personal responsibility for whatever is happening in the field. On these grounds I beg to second the motion.
I rise to say on behalf of the Government that we cannot accept this Motion. I quite admit that in times like these, times of great crisis, it would be extremely dangerous for Parliament to be adjourned for any lengthy period without the possibility of its being called together at any time when a special emergency might arise. I would point out that although the Government now proposes to adjourn for a period of practically two months, whenever Parliament has adjourned for a period of fourteen days it can always be summoned again by proclamation within six days. We are quite satisfied that it is quite safe under these circumstances to adjourn for the time we now propose.
I hope that your ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will not prevent any future speakers developing to some little extent the questions which have been mentioned by the Mover of this Motion. If that is so, I do not know whether it is a diplomatic move, and will prevent discussion on other questions.
It certainly does not do that. We must get the Amendment out of the way and then the hon. Member will be entitled to make his speech on the main Question.
There is a danger in that. It is perfectly evident that the Amendment which has been moved will be voted down, and the result may be that those who want to speak will be shut out. During the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) I interjected certain remarks and I offer no apology. I have heard him more than once interjecting in this House. Perhaps he feels a little warm like I do at times. I do not care a thimbleful of salt whether the House meets every day or not. Personally I would like to see the House meeting every day. It is not a question of holiday for me. I seldom get holidays. Therefore, I could vote for the Amendment. Perhaps the hon. Member for Blackburn thinks that on this side of the House we support the Government in everything they do. I can tell him that I am not tied in any shape or form either to this Government or to any other Government. I have got just as free a hand as he. I should like to deal with some of the questions the hon. Member raised, but I do not know whether I an entitled.
I must confess that I did not hear the whole of the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn. If the hon. Member will wait until we have disposed of the Amendment he will have a freer hand.
Then I will wait.
I want to support the Amendment. It is quite true, as the Noble Lord (Lord E. Talbot) said, the Government can, if they wish, call the House together at any time, but the fact is that if we pass this Adjournment Motion in its original form we leave ourselves entirely in the hands of the Government as to whether the House is to be called together or not. The House, then, is to adjourn for two months unless the Government thinks it necessary to call it together. In point of fact, and as experience tells us, we know perfectly well that the Government will be only too glad to have the House adjourned, and unless there is an absolute crisis of a most serious character there is no question of the House of Commons, or Parliament, meeting again until the 16th October, which is the day fixed in the original Motion. I think that is too long a period, and for that reason, if my hon. Friend goes to a Division, I shall certainly support him. We are to-day, as everyone knows, in the midst of the greatest calamity which has ever befallen the civilised world, and we are, as the Prime Minister told us, at the very crisis of that calamity. There is probably to-day a considerable chance of having negotiations entered into and an honourable peace secured. There is also the chance—to me the hateful prospect—of this War going on until it becomes a mere war of attrition, each side trying to wear down the other by mere slaughter. Is this a time at which the House of Commons should adjourn for two months and have no voice whatever in the great affairs which are going to be decided? Let me give only two instances of the urgent problems upon which decisions may have to be taken. There is, first of all, the question of the Stockholm Conference, which has been so much debated already this afternoon. That seems to me to raise most urgent and most important problems. As the Government has acted, it seems to me to be impossible for the working classes, for the Labour party, to accept the decision which has been reached. They began by telling the Labour party that they should have free choice as to whether they should go to Stockholm or not. Then it was discovered, or they assumed, that the right hon. Member for Barnard Castle—
On a point of Order. I want to know whether the hon. Member is entitled to discuss these points on this Amendment, because I could have developed my argument in the same way.
If the hon. Member will listen to me, I was saying that this is an urgent problem which will have to be decided before October 16th, and it is very important that Parliament should meet and discuss it. That is what I was trying to show. In order to show that I have to show that it is very unlikely that the decision that has been reached by the Government will be accepted by the Labour party. The reason why I think that is because the Government have acted in such a way that no self-respecting party could really reverse the decision they have already come to after what has happened. For instance, the fact has become clear that when they said they wished to give a free choice to the Labour party they were really doing nothing of the kind, and they were prepared all the time to withhold passports if the decision reached was not satisfactory. I say that is not treating the Labour party fairly—they are not treated fairly in any way. Then there is the question of what are the views of M. Kerensky. I am not going to develop that, because I should be out of order if I did so. But it is evident after what has Happened that there was a serious mis- understanding, I could even say misrepresentation, of M. Kerensky's views. For these two reasons alone it is quite evident that there will be a very serious collision of opinion between the Labour party, between those who represent Labour in this House, and the Government, and it is very undesirable that at such a time the House should be kept absolutely from having any voice and be kept from discussing this question.
Then I deal with another topic and a different topic, but it seems to me one of great urgency and of great moment, which ought to be considered by this House. That is the message published to-day from His Holiness the Pope, a Message in which he outlined opinions in favour of peace. That seems to me one of the most moving, one of the most pathetic, and at the same time one of the most important documents that I have read for a long time. I do not myself belong to the Catholic Church, as so many Members of this House do, but I am certain that no one can read that document without feeling its urgent importance from the point of view of its prestige and character, and without feeling that a suitable answer should be given to it. It seems to me that here again it is utterly wrong that you should give a free hand to the Government to say what reply should be given after a document of that sort has been received without consulting Parliament in any way. I was astonished that when the Prime Minister spoke to-day—speaking at a crisis like this he should not have had a word to say, while dealing with the general situation of the War, with regard to the Pope's message. Here was a message affecting the belligerent nations, a message putting forth new grounds, as I think, yielding a possible basis for negotiation, a message that recognises the two great fundamental objects for which originally this country went to war, that recognises the correctness of those objects, and admits as fundamental objects that the independence of Belgium should be restored, and that France is to be evacuated and security given to her. There you have a real urgent matter—no one can deny that it is a matter of urgency, and that a suitable answer should be given to a message of that kind. It seems to me that if we really are a democratic country, if we really are fighting this War as we say we do on democratic grounds and as democratic men, if we really are a democracy, and not an autocracy, as is so often suggested, it is absolutely urgent that Parliament should have an opportunity, at any rate, of expressing its opinion upon a message of that sort.
Let me recall to the House what happened when the German Government put forward the proposal for a conference over a year ago. That was at the time when this House was in Recess. They may have been right or they may have been wrong, but at least they deserved some respectful reply. What happened? The Government turned on their Press to insult these proposals as being a trick, as being a snare, as being a noose. They were rejected offhand without any apparent consideration, without the case for this country being properly put. That, I say, is because the proposal was made at a time when it was impossible for Parliament to debate the question. Unfortunately, Parliament had already adjourned at that time; Parliament was in Recess when the German Government put forward their proposal for a conference. To-day we are in a different situation; to-day we have the proposal made by the Pope, which I submit give you, at any rate, the basis, even if it is not altogether satisfactory, at least the basis of negotiation, submitted to us when it is impossible for this House to give its opinion upon them. At present the country is being represented to Europe in a way which places it in a most discreditable position. We have the "Times" writing insulting, jeering articles deriding' the Pope's message. The "Times" is thought to be the Government organ; the "Times" is thought to be inspired by the present Government to represent this country abroad. I wonder whether the Noble Lord who spoke just now, and who ought to have special reasons for desiring that the Pope should not be insulted—I wonder whether he read the leading article in the "Times" to-day, and whether he thought that it was in that sort of way that this country ought to respond or be thought to be responding to a message of that kind from the Pope. Personally, I thought it was disgraceful. If proposals are made for peace of that character it is at least right that they should be received with consideration and with respect as having been made in good faith, as I am certain that they were. I would go much further. I would like to see them accepted as a basis of negotiation. But, whether you accept them or not, it is a surprising thing that the Prime Minister, making a speech on the very day when they are published, should have passed them by altogether in absolute silence, as if they were not worth consideration.
There seem to be, at any rate, some good reasons why we should not adjourn to-day for two whole months. I do not know what the experience of other Members may be, but my own experience is that there is a great sense of unrest and disquiet in the country. I have never received so many communications as I have in the last few weeks from people who want to know how much longer the War is going to be fought as it is now, whether really it is necessary that we should go on sacrificing this perpetual stream of the best of our manhood for objects which are not declared and which are not understood by a great part of the country. Those are the sort of communications that I am continually receiving. I also receive an immense number of communications, such as I am sure everyone else receives, from those who are suffering from grievances of all kinds through the way in which the affairs of this country are being conducted. I had letters in my pocket only just now from a widow who was at the point of starvation because she could not get the separation allowance due to her from her son. Only just before coming into this House I was dealing with, I suppose, a dozen letters of that kind, or more. Every day they keep pouring in. What happens? We know that when the House is in Recess you can never deal with these cases effectively, because the only thing the Government fears is a question and having the publicity and exposure which a question leads to.
There is another case on which I put down a question to-day, with regard to a conscientious objector, without being able to get any satisfaction. A conscientious objector is the last man for whom you can get any justice done. This man is being kept in prison, and, according to the information I get, is literally being starved to death. He was a well-known athlete, a swimmer, in Burnley, who has now been kept for three months on bread and water in Gosport military gaol, with only half-an-hour's exercise every week allowed him, and who is in a state of actual physical weakness and of prostration, so that a friend who saw him thought he was in danger of his life. It is impossible for us to raise questions of that sort if the House is going to be in Recess. These questions are coming before us every day, and it is an outrageous thing that at a time like this —a time of much misery as we have never known before, when people are being slaughtered and mutilated in thousands every day—this House should give up its opportunity of challenging the Government as to its policy and of doing what it can to secure when the time comes, and I believe the time is very near, that the Government shall not pass by the opportunity of gaining an honourable and lasting peace.
I am not going to traverse the ground covered already by hon. Members, but I will take it from another point of view. I think it is a most unwise proceeding on the part of the Government to ask for a, holiday at this particular time. It appears to me, as a business man, that this is just the time when the House ought to sit, because there is not only going to be a War crisis, but also a commercial crisis and a social crisis. We are approaching a state of things now in which it is proposed by the Food Controller to set up different controllers in various portions of the country with, I suppose, officials in charge of each of these different businesses —I understand with the enjoyment of a large salary—who will be able to take premises and employ clerks and carry out the whole business of the country without consulting anybody. If that be so, it is a very dangerous position of affairs, and I really cannot understand why, in the face of the various dangerous positions that are spread all over the map at the present time with regard to Stockholm, with regard to differences between labour and the Government, with regard to food control and other matters, the Government should ask for a holiday. There is no member of this House who does not receive a number of letters in connection with separation allowances and pensions and the supply of goods of various kinds. You cannot bring these things forward unless the House is sitting.
It appears to me that the Government, in their own interests, should not ask for a holiday. It is an extraordinarily bad case of being unable to read the signs of the times when the Government, in the midst of the chaos that exists at the present time, ask for a holiday for themselves. We have no, member of the Government present on the Front Bench. When demands of this kind are made they are generally absent;' because they do not wish to hear things that do not please them. That is so with most of us, but we have not the same responsibility as the Government; The Government enjoys' a certain authority, and, by the way, the House of Commons at the present time is practically not a House of Commons at all. We are merely a number of men who assemble here as we are ordered, and can put down questions, but the Government is a despotic Junta, and, we do not count. They do not ask our opinion. They did not ask our opinion about this holiday, and the result is that in the midst of the dangerous circumstances that exist at the present they want to adjourn for a holiday for two months. I do not always agree with some of the Members who are supporting this Amendment, but I certainly will support the Amendment, because I think it is the wrong time to ask for a holiday when the War is at such a crisis and there are so many difficult and dangerous questions to decide which ought not to be determined by permanent officials and clerks without any reference to public opinion or Parliamentary procedure.
9.0 P.M.
I had hoped to have had the pleasure of speaking in this Debate in the presence of some representative of the Foreign Office, but as that is not possible at the present moment I propose to address myself to the special subject of the Amendment. The question raised by the Amendment is whether we should not adjourn simply for three weeks instead of for two months. I believe that in times of danger and stress Parliament, like the men at the front, should be at their post. That is why I shall support this Amendment. I met the other day a friend of mine who is engaged in secret service work. I remarked that he had a very easy time because when he was sent out on missions with nobody to supervise him he could take a day off on his own account whenever he liked. His reply was, "The dangers which I undergo and the difficulties of my position and the reports which I am asked to furnish are such that I would very gladly exchange my position for yours. You are about to adjourn for two months' holiday. Ever since this War began three years ago I have been carrying my life in my hand in various countries," some of which he mentioned, "and I have not had a day's relaxation.
That represents a very important consideration. We are taking two months' holidays. I do not want to suggest that any Member of this House will relax into slothful luxury or unworthy ease. That is quite impossible: There are actual duties for which we are paid, which our constituents expect from us, which we have to perform in connection with the numerous personal appeals, and the very large correspondence we receive which we cannot possibly perform, and many of us are obliged to lay them aside until the period of vacation. But I feel myself, to speak quite frankly, that I am unworthy of two clear months' holiday, and I believe that there is no honest Members of Parliament, however courageously they have faced their difficulties, however assiduously they have attended from prayers to adjournment from day to day, as I have done, and attended the numerous calls, whether conveyed on green cards or in the numerous letters which we receive, who feels in his heart that he should give himself two months' holiday. I believe that when we are able to relieve our soldiers from the daily, hourly, nay momentary danger of their lives, and the menace of the actual fighting, then and not until then shall we toe entitled to take more than three weeks' holiday. I appeal to the Government to reconsider their decision. They will not do their work any the better for Parliament not being assembled. I know that some of them are very hard pressed and some of them are labouring under great difficulties, but I am sure that they will not be in any way hurt by the constant contact with Members of this House. I believe that their point of view is enlarged, their experience is enriched and their decisions are thereby strengthened, that if they deal from day to day with Members of Parliament who can, in a few words, very often convey suggestions, advice, communications, that come to them from the country and the constituencies. I say that daily contact which Ministers can have with Members of Parliament is a valuable asset in the performance of their task. I do not want to relieve them from the advantages of that contract.
Personally, I am willing, so far as I am concerned, to go away. I think that things are being so unfortunately and mistakenly managed in many ways that it would be a moral and mental relief to me to think that, whatever the Government may do, they will do it apart from Parliament without their knowledge, without any possibility of protest, of suggestions, or counsel on the part of Members. To me it is a relief to go, personally, a very great relief; still, I feel that I am not doing the duty that I could do. I feel also that Ministers are not profiting in the way they might profit, and I believe that the country may be faced at any moment by important matters at a time when we ought not to be taking two months' holiday. There is only one more matter in this connection, it is this: I suppose really that the date at which it is suggested that this House should again reassemble, the 16th October, is fixed by the fact that the money voted by the last Vote of Credit will last so long. Has it not been the experience of Governments, and pre-eminently the experience of the present Government, that it has always spent much more than it expected to do. Has anybody had a more disastrous experience in that respect than the present Chancellor of the Exchequer? He brought in his Budget one day, and six weeks afterwards he told us that the expenditure was a million beyond what he had estimated. Can the Government assure us, can my hon. Friend the Solicitor-General, who is the official guide, philosopher and friend of all the members of the Government, assure us that the financial provision which has been made is adequate to carry us to the 16th of October? If he can assure us that it is, I shall feel greatly relieved, very greatly relieved, because one of the worst things about this War, so lightly regarded, is the ever-mounting and increasing financial expenditure which receives so very little attention, and, to my mind, which is absolutely so vital for the success of our Army in this protracted War. That is one consideration on which I think we ought to have some reply. I hope, after the remarks I have made, we shall now have a further reply from the Treasury Bench, and that we shall not have the prolonged holiday of two months, which I think is ill-advised and not to the public advantage.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 74; Noes, 18.
Division No. 98.] AYES. [9.8 p.m. Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte Gulland, Rt. Han. John William Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike Astor, Hon. Waldorf Hanson, Charles Augustin Pratt, J. W. Baird, John Lawrence Harmswotth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) Pollock, Ernest Murray Baldwin, Stanley Hewart, Sir Gordon Prothero, Rt. Hon. Rowland Edmund Barnett, Captain R. W. Hewins, William Albert Samuel Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. Bliss, Joseph Hills, John Waller Raffan, Peter Wilson Boyton, James Hinds, John Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel Brace, Rt. Hon. William Hodge, Rt. Hon. John Rea, Walter Russell Bridgeman, William Clive Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Richardson, Albion (Peckham) Bryce, J. Annan Howard, John Geoffrey Roberts, George H. (Norwich) Cautley, Henry Strother Hunt, Major Rowland Salter, Arthur Clavell Cawley, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) Samuels, Arthur W. Cheyne, Sir W. Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) Clough, William Keating, Matthew Sherwell, Arthur James Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth) Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootie) Stanley, Rt. Hon. Sir A. H.(Asht'n-u-Lyne) Cory, James H. (Cardiff) Layland-Barratt, Sir F. Tickler, T. G. Craig, Ernest (Crewe) Levy Sir Maurice Ward, A. S. (Herts., Watford) Craig, Colonel James (Down, E.) Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) Watson, John Bertrand (Stockton) Craik, Sir Henry Loyd, Archie Kirkman Watt, Henry A. Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth) Macmaster, Donald Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.) Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) Wolmer, viscount Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Macpherson, James Ian Young, William (Perthshire, East) Fisher, Rt Hon. H. A. L. (Hallam) Millar, James Duncan Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes (Fulham) Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord Fleming, Sir John Nield, Herbert Edmund Talbot and Capt. F. Guest Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham Parker, James (Halifax) NOES. Anderson, W. C. Macdonald J. Ramsay (Leicester) Rowntree, Arnold Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) McMicking, Major Gilbert Shortt, Edward Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W. Mason, David M. (Coventry) Snowden, Philip Burns, Rt. Hon. John Morrell, Philip Thorne, William (West Ham) Field, William Nuttall, Harry Lambert, Richard (Cricklade) Outhwaite, R. L. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Lynch, Arthur Alfred Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Jewett and Mr. King.
Main Question again proposed.
I must apologise to the House for not being present during the whole of the afternoon, because perhaps if I had been I should have been able to raise one or two questions that have been talked about by the Prime Minister and by the hon. Member for Leicester regarding the Stockholm Conference. Not hearing those two speeches I can say nothing at all about them. I was, however, in the House when the hen. Member for Blackburn made his speech. He raised one or two very important points to which I think reference should be made. In one part of his. speech he mentioned the decision that was arrived at the Conference on Friday last in connection with this Stockholm International Conference. So far as I am concerned, I have no complaint at all to make, either to this House or to the delegation outside, as to how that vote was taken, because it was taken upon the same conditions and terms, and under the same constitution, as all the other votes have been taken, either at the Trade Union Congresses, at the annual meetings of the Labour party, or at special meetings, with the exception of the one that was held at Leeds on 3rd June. The hon. Member for Blackburn, of course, was very elated in consequence of the decision of Friday last on account of the vast majority who voted in favour of his ideas.
I should like, however, to remind the hon. Member for Blackburn that when the Manchester Conference was held in January last there were three resolutions on the orders of the day in connection with the holding of an international, and the resolution that was down on the orders of the day from my own organisation, and another one down in the name of the British Socialist party, was turned down by vast majorities; and because of that the hon. Member for Blackburn the following week in the "Labour Leader" wrote a violent article on the way the vote was taken. I want to say that the vote taken on Friday was exactly on the same lines as the vote at Manchester. There was no difference at all. Every delegate there was entitled to one vote, and one vote represented a thousand or a fraction thereof. I could never under- stand how it was that at the Manchester Conference the decision was given on the three resolutions as it was: one against the international, one against opening peace negotiations under present European conditions, whilst the third was in favour of prosecuting the War to a successful termination, and also authorising the Executive of the Labour party, if a peace conference took place between January and next January to put themselves into communication with the Government with a view to holding a conference with the Allied nations, and to sit in the same town where the peace negotiations were taking place. My only complaint about the decision that was arrived at last Friday is that, personally, I think the conference acted unwisely in taking the vote, or, at any rate, adjourning after the right hon. Member for Barnard Castle had delivered his speech. Before he made his speech I entered my protest against a resolution that was moved by a member of the Miners' Federation that the conference should adjourn after the right hon. Member had made his speech. That meant, so far as I was concerned, that there was no possible chance of any of the other delegates putting the other side of the question, and I said that the right hon. Member was going to make his speech in favour of Stockholm. He said, "Wait and see." It was a foregone conclusion. It was common knowledge to many of us, although not reported in the papers, that he was going to make a speech favourable to Stockholm, because he had advised the Executive Committee of the Labour party to go to Stockholm, and, therefore, it was natural that he should make a speech in favour of the proposition.
I am under the impression, rightly or wrongly, that if the delegates at that conference, after the secretary of the Labour party had made his speech, had had a chance of discussing his speech, the vote would have been somewhat different, but I am not prepared to say that the majority would have been turned the other way. I am not prepared to go so far, but I think the majority would have been somewhat less. The result was that we heard one speech, and that was from the right hon. Member in favour of going to Stockholm, without any arguments being advanced why the conference should not be held. I thought it was a lop-sided way of doing business, but, nevertheless, the Congress decided in its favour, and, of course, we were in duty bound to accept that decision. There has been a good deal of discussion about the invitation in regard to the Stockholm Conference. I want to say unhesitatingly that during the time I was in Russia, even then, the Russian Government had nothing what-ever to do with attempting to organise the Stockholm Conference. My colleagues and I met exactly the same people as the right hon. Member for Barnard Castle met. We met the Central Committee on several occasions. We met them on the Sunday afternoon of 15th April, and pa the 16th we met also the then Russian Government. Kerensky was present and all the Ministers. We met them again some time after.
So far as our delegation was concerned, we made our position perfectly plain. I have turned no somersault at all, and my position is just the same as it was when I was in Russia. You can consult the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. O'Grady) or the three French delegates we saw on that Occasion who will confirm what I have said. We put before our Friends in Russia the resolutions passed at Leeds, and we said we were going to adhere to them because they represented the overwhelming opinion of the organised workers of the country. We said that we could see no need for holding an International, and that we did not think that any good results could come from it. They were under the impression that if an International was held, and you could get the German delegates in front of you, that you would be able to get some declaration with regard to peace proposals. As far as I can understand the situation, I say that if the Stockholm Conference is held you will never get a declaration from the German Socialists at all. You will never get them to declare against the Kaiser. If there was any likelihood of that would he allow them to have passports, when in the old days he would not grant them passports? The Kaiser's opinion is what is going to be represented by the German delegates.
Those who read the speech of Herr Schiedemann which he made before the German Emperor will be able to understand what would come from his lips when he got to Stockholm. He said that they were Socialists, and that they were not Zulus or Kaffirs. That is putting us down as Zulus and Kaffirs, and Herr Schiedemann only said that because a few blacks had been captured with our troops by the Germans. If Herr Schiedemann is an International, why should he refer to Zulus and Kaffirs—because we recognise them as equal to ourselves? We are all Internationals, and we make no distinc- tion. Herr Schiedemann also said, "Some of our, comrades engaged in this War are expecting us to follow the same lines as the Russians. What is happening in Russia? Socialists are shooting Socialists, and so far as we are concerned we are not going to do anything of the kind or attempt to bring about a revolution in Germany." The Russian delegates on more than one occasion have shown that they were under the impression that the German Socialists were going to attempt a revolution in Germany, but that is impossible. I have attended more internationals than any man who sits in this House to-day, and at every one of them when it comes to a question of discussing political matters you will never get the German delegates to discuss them with you, because they say that is against the constitution of their organisation, and if they attempted to do so when they returned to Germany their organisations would be dissolved. At international industrial conferences, such as those held in connection with the miners or the metal workers, the German delegates have always said the same thing, and I am certain that if this Conference is held at Stockholm you will not get anything out of the German delegates declaring themselves against the Kaiser, or that they are going to democratise Germany.
During the remarks of the hon. Member for Blackburn, when he was talking about the Russian free democracy, I interrupted and said that we in this country had the freest Constitution in the world. The hon. Member for Leeds said "No." I want to challenge him to point out to me any country where there is a freer Constitution than we have in this country. I say to-day that with all our restrictions and difficulties we are freer in this country than in any other country that is at war, even including America and Canada. We have the freest Constitution. As a matter of fact, if the people of the country have the will they have the power to do anything they want, and when this new Franchise Bill becomes an Act of Parliament it will give them a great deal more power than they have to-day, and, if they do not use it wisely and well, it will be their own fault. What is the position of Russia to-day in consequence of having an unbridled democracy? Everybody knows what is going on. They are doing things contrary to all ideas of democracy, simply because they allowed everybody in Russia, no matter what school of thought they represented, to go out and propagate their own ideas and opinions. They never attempted to curb anyone in the slightest degree. The result is that certain individuals in Russia have almost got the upper hand. Lenin, who brought thirty others from Germany, got his passports through. How? It must have been in collusion with the Russian Government. Otherwise, he would never have got those passports for himself and his colleagues. Money had to be found to keep them. "Down with the Provisional Government. Down with the War. Make peace and complete the Revolution." That was the propaganda that was carried on by Lenin and his thirty companions. In consequence of the Russian Government giving that particular individual and his companions complete freedom, and in consequence of this unbridled democracy, he worked his way into the armies and the factories and workshops, with the result that there was that serious set-to the other week, when sixty civilians and soldiers were killed and about a thousand injured.
I am not sure whether some people in this country are not trying to do the same thing. The hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outhwaite) this afternoon spoke about a revolution and what it would mean. I know what a physical force revolution would mean, and I am prepared to say in this House what I have said outside. What are some of our friends forming these Councils of Soldiers and Workmen for? Why are they trying to get the soldiers on to their council? Why are they trying to worm their way into the regiments at the front, unless it is for the purpose of trying to get the soldiers on their side? No revolution, either in this country or any other country, will be successful unless you get the soldiers on your side. The revolution in Russia was a soldiers' revolution. Otherwise, it could never have been a success. Some of the leaders of this Soldiers' and Workmen's movement know where they are going, where they are drifting, and what they are after, but some of those who follow behind do not know where they are being led. What would a revolution mean in this country at the present time? There is no comparison between this country and Russia. Russia, to a great extent, is self-supporting, so far as foodstuffs are concerned, and so to a large extent is Germany. Nobody can say that we are in this country. The result is that to-day in consequence of the German submarine menace we are almost living from hand to mouth. If a physical revolution were to take place in this country, it would mean the dislocation of our railways and transport.
And starvation.
Quite right. It would mean starvation within two weeks, and the people would be fighting one another to get the little food there would be left in the country. The dislocation of the railways and transport would mean that our boys at the front would not be able to get the munitions and all the material of warfare or food supplied to them. In six days the stock of munitions of war out there would be used up, and the Germans would be able to walk through our boys and practically murder them. I do not care if I never get returned to this House again, I am never going to use my tongue or my pen in that direction, but I am going to do all I possibly can to prevent that kind of propaganda work being continued. I have done it and I will do it, anywhere, at any time, and in any circumstances. With regard to Stockholm, I could go there if I wanted to, but I am not going. How could a man be consistent and go there if he does not believe in any good results accruing from Stockholm? I am rather surprised that some of my colleagues in the Labour movement who were up against the Stockholm Conference last Friday now wishing to send a delegation. What is going to be the composition of the delegation? Eight will be elected from the Labour party. One is a pacifist; everyone knows it. Eight are to be elected at the conference to be held on Tuesday next—I am not sure that one or two pacifists will not be elected there. Some are to be elected by the Parliamentary party, some of whom may be pacifists. Certain sections at that conference who will claim the right, as they are part and parcel of the conference, to vote for our eight members. They are also claiming the right to select their own four members, without anybody voting at all. There are four sections which will be in a position to do that. Nobody can challenge their right to elect four members of the Independent Labour party. I think I can name who they will be, and I think I can name the four from the British Socialist party as well. The result will be that eight, if not ten, pacifists will go without the conference having any voice as to who the delegates should be. Their eight delegates will represent 35,000 people, while the eight delegates elected at the conference next Tuesday will represent 2,250,000.
I have said over and over again that I do not think this is an International in the sense that hon. Members understand an International, because the invitation has not come from the International Bureau. Several efforts have been made during the War to get the International together, but in consequence of the deep-rooted divisions between the members who form the International Executive in the different countries, it is impossible for them to come together and debate matters with any amount of calmness. I agree with the hon. Member for North-East Manchester (Mr. Clynes) that it would be a bear garden. Just imagine the delegates from Turkey and Bulgaria meeting the delegates from Montenegro and Serbia? Imagine the delegates from Italy meeting the delegates from Austria, or the delegates from France and this country meeting the delegates from Germany! We know quite well that we cannot even agree among ourselves. Whenever we discuss War problems the fat is in the fire at once and it causes a great deal of hatred and anger. If that is the position as far as British workers are concerned, everyone can see, especially after what occurred at last Friday's conference, and the probability is that the same thing will occur on Tuesday, that no kind of good can come from the Stockholm Conference. I am certain that if the conference is held you will find that you will get nothing from the Germans. You will be as wise about the German position as you are to-day, but the Germans will be wiser when they leave than they are at present. That is my firm conviction. I think the Government made a huge mistake in preventing passports being granted, at any rate for the time being. It would have been very much better if they had allowed the matter to stand adjourned until the Trade Union Congress was held, because it had to elect its delegates. No one can say for a certainty what position the delegates at the Congress will take up. All these things are very uncertain, but if one can judge from the opinions of the delegates at the last conference, unless there has been a complete somersault, I believe the Trade Union Congress would have turned the proposition down and at that congress the position will be different from that which was held last Friday, because at the Trade Union Congress you get about 3,250,000 organised workers elected in the most democratic way possible. I do not complain of the way the delegates were elected for last Friday's conference. It was the best method possible, but in consequence of the shortness of the notice it was impossible for them to elect them in the usual way. I am not complaining either about how they voted, but I think it would have been very much better if the Government had held its hand until after the Trade Union Congress and then if the congress decided in favour of delegates going to Stockholm you would have got the overwhelming opinion of the workers of the country.
I can read some of the men's minds. They look upon this now as a direct challenge. They say the Government has thrown down a challenge to organised Labour, and I feel convinced that at next Tuesday's conference the decision will be reaffirmed by a bigger majority than last Friday. The same spirit is shown in our branches when an official who has been censured will refuse to go down again until the resolution has been rescinded. It has been said that if the Russian telegram had been read by my right hon. Friend the decision would have been different, but I do not think it would have made the slightest difference. The only possibility of a different decision would have been if we had had a Debate before the delegates adjourned, because there was only one speech and the delegates had to decide upon it. My right hon. Friend made a carefully prepared speech, and as soon as it was made you could tell which way the delegates would vote. It made no difference to my hon. Friend (Mr. Thomas), because he had made up his mind before, but when walking out of the hall with my hon. Friend (Mr. Duncan) you could see how they were going to vote. What has changed my hon. Friend's mind I do not know, and I cannot understand for a single moment. I cannot understand why he never consulted some of his Parliamentary colleagues before the change was made. It is quite true to say that he consulted the Executive of the Labour party, but I think the members of the Labour party of the House of Commons are as important as the Executive of the Labour party. I think he should have consulted his colleagues in the House of Commons and got their views. I am not complaining. It is his business, not mine; but I think it is unfair not to get the views of his colleagues. If he had called the Labour Members of Parliament together, and we had discussed the matter, the hon. Member for East Leith (Mr. O'Grady) and myself would have put our views and the views on the other side would have been put. Perhaps my hon. Friend would have put his views in a more persuasive way and he might have converted my colleagues to his way of thinking.
The position is a serious one. In travelling about the country one can hear of nothing but the Stockholm Conference. I have been in three different towns during the last few days, and the one theme in everybody's mind is the Stockholm Conference. Some people say, indeed, I think the hon. Member for Hanley and the hon. Member for Blackburn said, that if the Stockholm Conference is not held there is going to be a row. If there is, I have no doubt they will go down to engineer it. I feel sure that is the game they are going to play. I feel sure they will go down to the industrial centres with a view to causing divisions. What was the object of the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn this afternoon, if not to set one nation against another? He said that if the Government insist upon carrying out their declaration it will cause a keen division between the men in Russia, and will set one Allied country against another. I do not think anything of the kind. I believe that if the Russian people discuss matters with the Germans it will not make the slightest difference. They will hear what is said, and will go back and report the discussion in various parts of the country, but on the whole the Russian people have quite enough to do now to put their own house in order in consequence of the very serious state of things at the present time. I do not believe that if a plebiscite was taken of the organised workers in this country that they would agree to our delegates going to Stockholm. I know it is impossible to have a plebiscite, because we cannot get it done properly, but if a plebiscite was taken an overwhelming majority would turn down the conference proposal. We are the mouthpiece of the organised workers for the time being, and we have to find out their views through our branches, which is the most democratic way. That has been done, and a vast majority of delegates have decided in favour of going to Stockholm. No one can tell what is going to happen at the, Blackpool Conference. So far as I am concerned I shall take one side, and the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) will take the other. Perhaps he may be more persuasive than I am, but I am going to carry on the same line of action I have adopted throughout the War. If we had taken the advice of the right hon. Member for Derby twelve months ago we should have been in a worse position than we are now. He was a strenuous supporter of the voluntary system, and I was against it, because the voluntary system had failed. I would like to ask all Members who voted against that Bill whether, as a matter of fact, if it had not been passed and we had been in the position we are in to-day, we could have obtained the men we wanted? I say absolutely, No.
Yes.
My hon. Friend says, "Yes." I say it is nonsense.
We should not have wasted them.
We have not wasted them.
Yes, we have.
Where?
At the Dardanelles, and in Mesopotamia.
That makes no difference. The Dardanelles exploit was on before, and everyone knows the cause of that exploit. If you go to Russia you can soon find out the cause of it.
An HON. MEMBER: What is it?
Our hands were forced in that Dardanelles exploit, absolutely forced.
An HON. MEMBER: By whom?
By the Russian Government—certainly. That is all I want to say, and I am much obliged to the House for listening to my remarks.
I am neither an expert in Labour psychology, nor have I any special knowledge of Russia in the domestic sphere, and I should not, therefore, have intervened in this discussion if it were not that I think it sometimes useful that the House, and especially the experts in the House, should know how matters strike the average member of the public who is also, incidentally, a Member of Parliament, and who looks upon these transactions a little from the outside. I myself look at them all the more from the outside because I am, in a sense, a foreigner, as, being an Irishman, I am to some extent, at any rate, apart from many of the special interests of English domestic politics, and I can bring a mind a little more unaffected and a little more impartial to bear on the matter than can usually be found. On that ground I should like to say one or two words to-night, I will not express any opinion upon the Stockholm Conference itself. I will not venture to say whether it should be held or not, for it would be impertinent of me to express any view to the House on the subject. Beyond that, however, I should myself have thought that on the balance of advantage and disadvantage the disadvantages attaching to the course taken by the Government were on the whole the greater. I may be wrong. I am quite willing to believe that I am wrong, and I am very willing to be convinced. I am willing to be convinced that the Government has been right in announcing their intention of refusing passports; but I am bound to say this, and I think it useful that I should say it, because I probably represent the views of a good many people. The speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to my mind absolutely inconclusive. Earlier in the Debate to-day the Prime Minister told us that it was right that the people of this country should be told the whole truth—he said the pleasant truths as well as the ugly. But also let us have the unpleasant as well as the pleasant. Let us at any rate have the whole truth. I am bound honestly to say that the Leader of the House departed, I think, in this matter from what is his usual habit of frankness.
10.0 P.M.
I must say I think the House of Commons and the public have a right to know very much clearly and definitely than the right hon. Gentleman saw fit to tell them what the real reasons are which have determined the Government upon its course. Though I should have been the last to ask any Minister to embark upon so delicate and difficult a situation as that of the relations between this country and the Russian Government, or still less to enter upon any discussion of internal Russian politics, I am bound to say that when the issue is raised I think it should be dealt with more frankly than the right hon. Gentleman saw fit to deal with it this afternoon. Undoubtedly the right hon. Gentleman gave the impression, seemed to labour to give the impression, that Mr. Kerensky had expressed no opinion on the holding of the conference—no opinion, I should say, favourable to facilities being given to the conference. The right hon. Gentleman quoted and stressed those words in which Mr. Kerensky was at pains, very properly, to point out that the Russian Government, as a Government, and especially as a Coalition Government, could take no responsibility for the conference, that it was in no. wise committed to the conference, and that as a Government it had no opinion upon the conference. The right hon. Gentleman stressed those words, quoting them in full, but the right hon. Gentleman failed entirely to deal with the subsequent sentences immediately following those he quoted. The right hon. Gentleman did not, for some reason best known to himself, mention one single syllable of those very capital sentences of Mr. Kerensky, in which he says: one of them—who, in no circumstances, no matter what the provocation, no matter how clearly the issue may seem to be raised between his own class and another, will fall away from the position of high patriotism and support of the country's cause which they have taken up during the War. I know that is true of individuals, but I know also how difficult the position of such individuals can be made. I have seen myself, in my own country, how we who in Ireland from the first have done all in our power to carry our country on the side of the Allies, who in our own lives and fortunes are deeply engaged in the success of this cause—I know how deeply and terribly we have been hampered by successive mistakes of the Government. I know how, in particular, the belief, perhaps a wrong belief, but at least one supported by plausible reasons that the Government was not in Ireland perfectly fair between, different sections of the community, has injured our cause and the cause of our Allies in Ireland; and I greatly fear that if this course is persisted in, if we have not more frankness of statement than that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us to-day, and if the issue drifts, as it seems likely to drift, through want of frankness between one side and another into a class warfare on which on the one side is not all but the majority of labour., believing that labour as a class has been snubbed and wronged, and, on the other what used to be called the governing class in this country, there will be a disastrous condition for the first time since the opening of the War. It is because I think so that this is the first time I have ever found myself in any sympathy whatever with the hon. Member for Blackburn since the beginning of the War, but I do find myself in a certain sympathy with him to-night, for these reasons: It is because I feel that the hon. Member for Blackburn on the main issue of this War is wrong, because I feel that the cause of the Allies is a just cause, because I believe that the whole future of liberty and everything that is good and beautiful in the world is bound up with the definite victory of the Allies in this War, that I do beg the Government to treat this matter, which is full of menace to the future happiness and welfare of Europe, with greater frankness and greater consistency than, in my judgment as a humble observer, appears to me to have been exhibited up to now.
I desire to raise another topic. That is the subject of the eviction of tenants from land under the Defence of the Realm Regulations which are put into force with the object of increasing the production of food. I am sure that the House and the Board of Agriculture will agree that these Regulations should be so administered that farmers should at all times be fairly and reasonably treated, and, what is even more important, that farmers should feel that they are being fairly and reasonably treated. A case came under my notice recently in my own Constituency, which is a short epitome of this question, and which illustrates the points of procedure under which the Board of Agriculture is working at the present time. I submit to the House that the case shows that the procedure does not safeguard the interests of the tenants, and that they are liable to be turned out, in the first place, without knowing what the complaint is against them, in the second place, without any opportunity of being heard in their own defence, and in the third place, without any chance of satisfying the requirements of the Board of Agriculture. The facts of the case are perfectly simple, it is that of a tenant named Sherman, of Gaddesden Hall Farm, Hemel Hempsted, whose landlord is Lord Brownlow. It is a farm at 142 acres, and he has occupied it for twenty-four years. To this tenancy the Local Inspection Committee paid two visits in the early part of this year. No notice was given of either visit to the tenant. As a matter of fact, the tenant tells me that he was absent on business on both occasions. The first thing he heard of any dissatisfaction of any kind, the first official intimation that he got, was at the end of May, when he received notice determining his tenancy at Michaelmas. He received it from his landlord, acting as the instrument of the Board of Agriculture. The Inspection Committee was composed of very excellent and practical men. I have not the least doubt that they did their work very well, with the exception of their failure to give notice to the tenant. They compiled a report which was extremely unfavourable to the tenant, and that report was corroborated by the County Committee's Inspector, Mr. G. J. Turner, a land agent of high reputation.
I should be very sorry to contradict a single word of that report made against this tenant. It is not my case at all to show that this man was not a bad farmer. The point I wish to make is that this person had no opportunity whatsoever of contradicting the report made against him; he never saw it; he had not the slightest idea what the complaint was against him; he had no opportunity whatever of making any reply to any charges; he had no opportunity of offering to make amends, nor did he know what the requirements of the Board of Agriculture were. The first thing he knew was that he was to be turned out of his house and home, which he had occupied for twenty-four years. I am not surprised that in the circumstances a petition was signed by a considerable number of local farmers, his neighbours, and it was circulated and received the signatures of other farmers expressing their sense of the injustice done to this tenant. I wish to guard myself against being supposed in any way to be attacking the Agricultural Committee of the county, which is composed of very excellent and able men who have done admirable work, and who deserve the gratitude of the people who live in the county, for their labour. But their work is being carried on under a novel procedure, which has no experience behind it to give guidance, and which in the light of experience now is shown to possess defects, and I am sure that I shall have no unsympathetic ear in the President of the Board of Agriculture if I respectfully suggest to him that some of these defects might be remedied. The conclusions which I should like to submit are that in all these cases of eviction of tenants that in the first place every tenant should be entitled to notice in writing of any intended inspection of his farm. In the second place, every tenant should be entitled to receive a copy of any adverse report made against him and have the opportunity of replying to any charges before an order is made. That, I think, is a very important point. It will be within the recollection of the House, in the case of officers in the Army, that formerly they had no right to see confidential reports of an adverse character made against them. In consequence of, I think, cases brought up in this House a few years ago, the paragraphs of the King's Regulations relating to reports against officers were revised at the time, I think, when Lord Haldane was at the War Office. Those Regulations were altered and provisions were inserted giving every officer the right to see a copy of a report which reflected on himself. I am sure the representative of the War Office will say that that change gave great satisfaction in the Army and has worked well in time of war and has prevented many cases of injustice.
The third point I suggest as to procedure is this. Of the two Sub-sections under which the board act one is mild, that in which they call on the tenant to fulfil their requirements, and the other the severe one under which they give him notice determining his tenancy. I suggest that in every case the milder Subsection should be used before the severe one is resorted to. I am quite sure public opinion is in favour of that and of giving every man a chance before he is turned out. It may be that there are some cases so perfectly hopeless that it is a waste of time, but I feel sure those cases must be very rare and that the Sub-section should be only resorted to in very exceptional cases. I asked a question on this subject yesterday, and received a most valuable reply from the Secretary to the board in which he told us that no less than 160 of these cases had recently occurred. In view of the facts which came to my notice in the case I have quoted I cannot help feeling a little doubtful as to whether those 160 farmers who have been or are being evicted had under the procedure opportunities of defending themselves or of making amends for past neglect. Only a month ago, when we considered the Report of the Mesopotamia Commission, the greatest anxiety was shown both by the Government and the House that officers in high positions and high officials adversely reported on by that Commission should nevertheless have no hostile action taken against them before they had a better opportunity of defending themselves than was given them before the Commission. I feel sure that the President of the Board of Agriculture will wish that these humble men, these village Hardingees, should have the same opportunities as highly-placed officials. I do, respectfully, submit to him that it would be a great advantage, and the apprehensions entertained by the farmers would be allayed, if he will make a declaration, and, if necessary, give instructions to the local executive committees, that the increase of the food supply of the country should be affected without avoidable injury or injustice to the interests of individuals.
I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for his courtesy in giving me notice that he was about to bring forward this question, and, if I may say so, for the very moderate way in which he stated the case. However, it involves a considerable amount of explanation, especially that part of his suggestion which relates to the two different processes under which the Board acts, and to making one a condition precedent of the other. As a matter of fact there are two methods which the Board may pursue where it is of opinion that the national supply of food requires action to be taken as regards the land. First, if the Board is of opinion that an occupier is neglecting a part of his holding, and not cultivating it sufficiently so as to produce a proper amount of food, they may serve him with a notice that he has to cultivate that part of his land according to their requirements, and if he fails to comply with these requirements, negligently or wilfully, then he is committing a summary offence against the Defence of the Realm Act. That power is delegated by the Board to the War Executive Committees of the counties. The other procedure is of a different kind, different in purpose, different in scope, exercisable by different persons, and has a different sanction. Where the Board is of opinion that the holding as a whole is so under-cultivated as not to be producing a proper amount of food the Board may authorise the landlord to determine the tenancy, or may determine the tenancy itself. There the power is so strong that the Board reserves the exercise of it to itself. It does not delegate the power. It acts either on its own initiative or on the recommendation of the Committee, and if it acts on the recommendation of the Committee it insists upon a full explanation of the reasons for that recommendation.
Let us apply those two rules to the case brought forward by the hon. Member. I want to point out that the first of these two methods applies to a portion of the holding which may be in a neglected condition, and that the second of these processes, the one under which we are now acting, applies to the whole holding. The farm in question was inspected by the Inspection Committee of the War Executive Committee. The Inspection Committee reported as follows: could not have been got rid of under the ordinary law until 29th September, 1919; until the 1918. harvest was over. The point of issuing the order was that, while all other provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act still apply and the outgoing tenant is able to make his claim on the incoming tenant, as under the Agricultural Holdings Act, the landlord has the opportunity of terminating the tenancy in time to get the harvest of 1918 by an energetic and competent tenant. That is the point of the order which was issued by the landlord, acting on the Board's authority, and at his own discretion upon the tenant, and the tenant receives notice to quit. I may add that the Board, although it has exercised its powers upon the, recommendations of the Executive Committee of the county, and upon these reports upon the farm all confirming them, sent down their own commissioner, who is a very distinguished agriculturist, to inspect the land, and he reported that there were two acres of lucerne and clover were unsatisfactory, ten acres of winter oats were foul, that in another instance the ground was smothered with a growth of weeds; in the case of two acres of turnips after oats a close inspection is necessary to find the turnips, which have been sown broadcast; that this tenant, on a farm of 140 acres, was selling all his grass off the land, that he did not eat his turnips off with his own sheep, but usually got other farmers to eat off his turnips with their sheep; the tenant admits that he could get soldiers from the local camp if he chose, but did not do so, and the Commissioner winds up his report by saying: "I consider that the Executive Committee are absolutely justified in the course they have taken." There is nothing in the wide world more painful or distasteful to any agent than to turn out an old tenant of twenty years' standing. These, however, are not ordinary times, and the Executive Committee of the county is exercising a very painful duty with a high sense of the public interests that are involved, and I am quite sure, after hearing this account of what passed in this case, the House will support the action of those men, who have done their duty at the expense really of their own feelings. A tenant, after twenty-four years, goes out with great reluctance, but you have to harden your hearts in these times. This case is so clearly established that I do not believe that the House for a moment would throw cold water upon the efforts of these men to do their public duty wholly unpaid, a duty most unpopular, and undertaken from patriotic motives.
I was very pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman who spoke on behalf of the Ministry of Food state that profiteering was to be closely looked after, but I must say that I was not at all satisfied with the reasons which he gave for the Food Controller fixing the prices of fat cattle higher in the autumn than in the following months of winter and spring. The hon. Gentleman stated that a chance was to be given to those who had bought cattle dear to realise their money by getting a good price for them. The tillage farmer who sells his cattle in January or after pays just as high a price as the grazier. They meet in the open market, and one pays just as high a price as the other. All the same there is a big difference between the grazier and the tillage farmer. The grazier disposes of his cattle in the autumn. Their food, as everybody knows, is grass, and grass is the cheapest food. Labour is not requisite, because the cattle can find their own food. It is very different in the winter and spring months, because the cattle have to be housed and to be hand fed. They have to be cared for and attended to, and this throws a great deal of labour upon the tillage farmer and his men. If any difference is to be made as regards the grazier and the tillage farmer, the tillage farmer ought to get the higher price, because he is the person who has stood between the country and want. It is to the tillage farmer that we must look to provide food for the people in spite of the German submarines. I would, therefore, respectfully appeal to the Food Controller to reconsider his decision and to do justice to the tillage farmer.
I would like to refer to the scheme of the Government to buy 100,000 cattle in Ireland after August. We do not object to it, but we are very anxious as regards our Meat Supply Company in Wexford. We hope that this scheme will not interfere with this company. The company was formed with farmers' money. They have an immense place fully equipped in a most up-to-date manner for the slaughter and dressing of cattle. They can, if necessary, dress 400 cattle weekly. What we hope is that the Government will give a contract to the Wexford Meat Supply Company, which is an Irish industry. I have often heard my colleagues complain, and I have had reason to complain myself, that very little of the revenue from the taxes is spent in Ireland. Here is a chance for the Government to do something. They can lose nothing by giving a contract to the company, or, if they do not give a contract, the Government should guarantee that their buyers will not interfere with the supply of cattle by which the company carries on its business. In an answer given by the Chief Secretary to a question, I was assured that the company would not be interfered with, but at the same time, if the Government buyers are allowed to go all over the country, of course they will come along to Wexford county and the surrounding counties from which the Meat Supply Company obtain their cattle.
I would not trespass on the time of the House were it not that I have been commissioned to raise two or three points which affect my own Constituency. The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Wardle) said that labour could be led but not driven. I quite agree. That applies not only to labour, but in particular to Ireland, and also to industry, commerce, and the distribution of articles. I am glad to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer here, because he is an acknowledged expert in financial matters, and, perhaps, has a grip of commercial matters not possessed by some hon. Members. We have heard a good deal of war policy, but we have heard very little about social, economic, or food policies. I understand that the policy of the Government with regard to food and various other matters is that they should be put under control. We all know that the present is an abnormal condition of things, but in my view it is rather a dangerous thing, although one cannot help it, to interfere with the ordinary laws of supply and demand in regard to the different industries. The Commercial Committee of the House of Commons discussed this matter the other day, and the majority of the Members were anxious to know how control and distribution are to be managed in the future. If our anticipations are correct it is that a Controller will be appointed at a large salary and he will have the power of acquiring premises, of fixing the salaries of large staffs, and practically taking the management of the commerce and distribution to a large extent out of the hands of men who are engaged in commercial pursuits. This appears to be a very large order and it will add an enormous amount of expense to the carrying out of what may be called Socialistic government in this country. If experience in other businesses is the same as in the meat trade, it certainly does not appear that the Government knows how to manage this business. As far as possible, business men ought to be used to give their assistance and co-operation in the Departments in which they have knowledge, and I hope it will be possible to utilise their services in an economic way. I am chairman of a control committee in Dublin, and I managed it in this way. I throw the suggestion out for the Government. In my view, wherever you have a control committee concerned with any particular commodity, it is the duty of the Government to get some of the business men in the particular trade, to utilise the methods and machinery of the business, brokerage, and that sort of thing, so far as you possibly can in order to co-operate and to produce economy and efficiency. I have carried that out in connection with the control committee, and I believe some such system as that ought to be adopted by the Government if they take on such a tremendous job as controlling practically all the industries of the country and at the same time guaranteeing their distribution. I have here a paragraph about food distribution and what are called the honorary supervising accountants appointed for various parts of Ireland. So far as I know, and I have a fair knowledge of commercial matters in Ireland, the businesses concerned have not been consulted. It would be a wise thing that all the leading business men in the various commodities dealt with by the Government should be consulted.
There are one or two Irish points which I have promised my Constituents to raise. There is, first, the question of a receiving depot in Dublin. It is thirty years since this question came under my notice. The Dublin Trades Council passed various resolutions. It is twenty-two years ago since I asked a question of the then Chief Secretary, Mr. Morley, and he told me the matter would receive attention. It has been receiving attention ever since, and we have not received a receiving depot yet. Resolutions have been passed by every public body in Ireland. A definite promise was given to the hon. Member for Water-ford (Mr. Redmond). I received a nice letter from Mr. Forster. Lord Chesterfield could not touch it. The most procrastinating policy I have ever known has been pursued in regard to this matter. I do not like to use strong language, but sometimes it is necessary. It is an absolute breach of faith on the part of the Government that this examining and receiving depot has not been established in Dublin. I have no personal interest in the matter. I am not a producer. I am not even a consumer. The military authorities and the civil authorities in Ireland want this examining and receiving depot, but some occult influence behind the Government apparently will not allow them to do what is right. Undoubtedly there is some extraordinary influence which is preventing this depot from being established. The Duke of Connaught, when he was Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in Ireland, absolutely promised it. But promises, so far as this House is con-concerned, are like pie-crust—made to be broken. Even Lord Derby was not able to help us. I do not know what ill luck it is that prevents the establishment of this depot. It would be for the benefit of the Government and everyone concerned. It will add to the efficiency and decrease the cost.
As to food prices, a deputation came to me from Scotland, and I expect to see Lord Rhondda, the Food Controller, next Tuesday. He has made an appointment with the executive of the Commercial Committee of the House of Commons, of which I am a member. I hope to enlighten him, but I do not know whether I shall succeed, because I understand he is rather obtuse about things he does not want to know. I will endeavour to tell him what are the prevailing views in regard to the meat question. The correspondence which the Chief Secretary has received would be enough to make a mountain. I hope it will have an effect upon him. Our constituents think that you have only to ask a Member of Parliament to do a thing and it is done. But everyone in this House with the twenty-five years' experience I have had will know how difficult it is to get anything done in the House, and that at the present time with a war on and a War Council it is almost a crime to do anything except ask a question in the House of Commons. We really have no power as private Members; we are simply the tools and pawns of the War Council, and they say what is to be done. Talk about soldiers and sailors, they have nothing like the rigid discipline that we have in the House of Commons at the present time.
I hope the Chief Secretary will take a note of what I am going to say. I have very nice letters from the Chief Secretary. He is an artist in words, and I am sure that if he took it into his head to write a novel about the House of Commons he could give us some very extraordinary experiences, and that most of the literary gentlemen would not be in it with him; that is, judging from some of the letters I have received. He begins, "My dear Mr. Field," and finishes, "Yours truly," and so on. I have also been asking the Chief Secretary about a trades board, and he always shoved me on to Mr. Hodge, who says, "That requires legislation." Anything that requires legislation in the House of Commons means that you are not going to get it. We are told here that there is no time to do anything, and now in the middle of the crisis we have the Government coming and asking for two months' leave. They have no time to pass legislation; they expect everybody to do everything for them, and in the middle of a crisis like this they come and ask for two months' leave. With respect to the Trades Board, there is bound to be trouble in Ireland unless that Board is appointed. I am told that in the county of Wicklow there is a strike on with regard to gathering the harvest. That is a very serious matter, and the same thing is true with regard to labour in Dublin.
I am coming almost to my last indictment, and that is about the milk, brewing, and distilling. I hope some modification will be made in order to enable the proper supply of grains to be forthcoming during the winter, because I happened to travel up with the manager of Guinness's Brewery on Tuesday, and he told me that there were between 400 and 500 men disemployed, that they were obliged under the pressure of these restrictions to brew less, and that it was only with the greatest difficulty that they were able to provide for the cattle. That is a very serious question, because the milk question affects the children, and it is one of the most important articles of food that can be dealt with. I think some arrangement should be entered into whereby fair play would be given to men who have been in the trade, so that there would not be absolute beggars, as some are, with regard to the distribution of porter and whisky.
The last thing I have to say is about the allotments. The right hon. Gentleman has extended the Allotments Act for the War, but that is not good enough. There has been an Allotments Act in England for the last twenty-five years, and in Scotland for, I think, thirteen or fourteen years. My Constituents have started an Irish Plot Holders' Association, because they want security of tenure. I have been making inquiries, and I understand there are something over 2,000 allotments in Dublin. We could do with 4,000. The result has been that we have got plenty of potatoes and vegetable produce, and, in addition, it gives employment and brings men and women out to the fields—very often the whole family. No more useful piece of legislation has ever been passed than this Allotments Act, because it has brought unoccupied land and unoccupied labour together, with the result that we have increased food production; but unless these men get some sort of security of tenure they will not put their hearts into the work as they have done up to the present. I have been asked by my Constituents to put these matters forward, and I hope the Chief Secretary will be able to give some sort of satisfactory reply. I have endeavoured to put them forward in a moderate and good-humoured way, because I do not think there is much use in frontal attacks on the Front Bench when they are in a position to torpedo you at once unless you approach them in a most respectful manner. I hope the Chief Secretary will be able to give a reply that will satisfy my Constituents.
I should be too sanguine if I promised my hon. Friend (Mr. Field) a reply that will satisfy the whole of his constituents. He has given the House a long recapitulation of all the things which successive Governments have failed to do in Ireland in the last forty years.
It is time they were done now.
11.0 P.M.
I am afraid it is not in the power of any Chief Secretary to give entire satisfaction to the hon. Gentleman and his constituents, but I am glad he referred to one topic on which something has been done. That was the small measure with regard to allotments. I say now, with regard to that subject, that there is no intention on the part of the Government to allow the provision which has been brought into existence during the War for the establishment of allotments in the urban districts of Ireland to recede at all from the position which has been reached. Whatever measures may be necessary to protect them, so far as the present Administration is concerned, those measures will be taken to see that the objects which my hon. Friend has in view, and with which I entirely sympathise, are secured. My hon. Friend also referred to two or three other topics of a kindred nature. He referred generally to the housing question. However, he did not refer to something which has been done. Notwithstanding very great' difficulties, the Dublin Corporation at the present time is engaged—he is familiar with the details of the schemes, which are in fact being carried out—is engaged in pressing forward housing schemes which will not only have the effect of making an appreciable contribution—not a conclusive contribution, but an appreciable contribution —towards the solution of the housing problem in Dublin, but also have the advantage in a time of distress in Dublin of providing additional employment. The general problem of the housing of the working classes in Dublin is one of the most pressing problems that are engaging the attention of the Government in Irish affairs. That matter is the subject of consideration at the present time between representatives of the Local Government Board and the Dublin Corporation, and I hope, although it may not be practicable to put the larger schemes into operation during the War, that as soon as the War is over steps can be taken on a considerable scale towards the solution of that great and long-outstanding problem. Another topic was Wages Boards. The Corn Production Bill, which is now in its later stages in another place, provides for the establishment of Wages Boards in agricultural Ireland. The establishment of Wages Boards for industries in Dublin and some other towns, which are said to be sweated districts, is a subject upon which my hon. Friend has been a great deal in communication with the Minister for Labour, and I have every reason to hope that those communications will produce some improvement in the conditions. A mass of information has been obtained by official inquiry in Dublin, and by the efforts of those in Dublin who are interested in the subject, and I do not think that that labour will be without result. The hon. Member referred to other topics which are connected more directly with the War, and i think that I can deal with them in general terms. Great apprehension has been expressed by hon. Members from Ireland lest the course of agriculture was going to be disturbed, that the business of farmers was going to be made impossible, that they were going to be ruined by unnecessarily low prices, and there have been various other dismal prognostications of that kind. But anyone who visits Ireland and sees what the present conditions are, notwithstanding all the trials of war, will see that the Irish farmer has not been hurt either by the neglect or the unfairness of the Government.
At the present time the Irish farmer is doing well. Nobody grudges him whatever advantage he has obtained by his industry in the supply of commodities which have been required throughout the United Kingdom. I do not see any prospect that the Irish farmer will fail to do well during the War. Hon. Members referred to such subjects as the fixing of maximum prices, and the requiring of permits and other incidents of the kind which are the outcome of the state of war and the artificial conditions in which we are living. It is impossible, when prices have mounted to the amazing figures to which they have mounted, that there should not be some action on the part of the Government for the protection of the general body of the public, the consumers, and, in the course of action of that kind, provided that the farmer has fair play, I do not believe that he will be found complaining against whatever regulations are reasonable and necessary. The hon. Member for Wexford said that there were some people who would not understand the numerous regulations. There is not the least difficulty in Ireland in getting instruction in these matters. There is in Ireland a most efficient Department of Agriculture. There are representatives of the public service in every parish in Ireland, easily accessible and quite ready to render assistance in all these matters of explanation and inquiry to which attention has been directed. With regard to prices, the means which the Government are taking are sufficient to ensure that the farmers shall get remunerative prices, and the flexibility of procedure by regulation is such that it enables a mistake which may foe made at any time to be remedied before anybody has suffered any great hardship. Possibly there are difficulties in regard to the price of butcher's meat and certain cereals. Producers are making representations which are being attended to, but the governing consideration must be twofold —ensuring a supply of the products of the soil, and ensuring, also, that while there is a remunerative profit to the producer, there shall be a reasonable degree of protection to the consumer. I do not apprehend in the least degree any danger to the producers in Ireland, or that they will suffer any detriment. With regard to the questions raised by the Member for Cork, it is quite true that the plant of the newspaper was seized for persistent publication of seditious articles, and the seizure will continue to the extent that is necessary to protect the public from outrages of that kind. My hon. friend also referred to the proceedings of the Losses Committee in Dublin. Questions relating to that have often been discussed in this House. I have some information on the subject, and no doubt any other facts will be brought to my notice.
Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why graziers are to be paid a higher price for cattle than tillage farmers?
I do not know that it is the fact that there is differential price. There is a differential price, no doubt, as between the immediate producer and the dealer.
The price is 74s. by weight now, and 60s. in January. That is where the great difference comes in. The hon. Member for Wexford's point is why there should be the price of 74s. in one case and 60s. applying to tillage farmers.
Whether it is well or ill, I do not discuss now, but the price for January is between 60 and 70 per cent. more than the price of the same kind of commodity before the War.
I want to say only one word in answer to the reply of the Leader of the House to my Noble Friend the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) with regard to his criticism of Lord Rhondda. My right hon. Friend said that the firm of Mitchelson was a private firm. May I point out to my right hon. Friend that the firm of Mitchelson is a firm of outside stockbrokers. Sometimes they appeared as a limited company and sometimes as a private firm. It is difficult to know the actual date at which they ceased to be a limited company and the actual date at which they became a private firm. I have a circular headed "Mitchelson, Limited," issued in March, April, or May. I forget the actual date, but it was issued since Lord Rhondda joined the Government in December last. I do not know how long Lord Rhondda has been connected with this firm, but I do not think it has been for a great number of years. Then my right hon. Friend omitted to reply to the point made by my hon. Friend in regard to the action taken in withdrawing the account from a certain bank. The account which was withdrawn was an account of a limited company, the controlling interest in which was acquired by Lord Rhondda in July, 1916. Lord Rhondda has not thought fit to take notice of a statement made publicly by myself a fortnight ago in the Press that this account was withdrawn in the opinion of the officers of the bank on account of the action which I have taken, and which I have thought it my duty to take as a Member of the House of Commons. My hon. Friend more than a week ago wrote a letter to the Press, in which he said he had no doubt that Lord Rhondda would explain that his action had been taken without his knowledge, and that he much regretted it. Lord Rhondda has taken no notice of that communication. I should like to point out to my right hon. Friend and to the House of Commons that if in future hon. Members who think it their duty to their Constituents to take action and to criticise the conduct of Members of the Government or of other Members of the House of Commons or of another place if they happen to be directors either of a bank or of another public company and if the result of their action is that pecuniary pressure is put upon the shareholders of the company in which they are interested, one of two things must result. One is that no director of a great public company can in future become a Member of this House unless he is prepared to sacrifice his public duty to his private advantage. I do not know, and I will not express an opinion as to whether it is advisable that you should have in this House bank directors or other Members serving companies of that description, but if it is desirable they must be protected in the execution of their public duties, and matters of this sort ought not to be allowed. I do not want to keep the House any longer, and it is with great regret that I rise this evening to say anything which in any kind of way can be considered a personal matter. As far as I am concerned, when I felt that my action would in any way conflict with the interests of the shareholders, I had only two courses open to me. One was, to consult my private interests and to remain a director of the bank, and make some sort of statement which would have induced Lord Rhondda to represent to this company that they had better retain their account with the bank. The other was to sacrifice my private interest, in order to maintain what I consider to be the right and duty of every Member of Parliament, that is, to criticise any member of the Government who he thinks is not performing his duty or is taking part in. something which he thinks deleterious to the public life of this country. I had no alternative, and I at once resigned my directorship. But I say that is trying a man very hard, and it is not right that Members of this House should be put in that position. That is all I say on the matter.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned"—[ Lord E. Talbot ]—put, and agreed to.
I wish to protest.
The Motion has been passed.
I was standing.
The House has passed the Motion.
The House could not pass it.
Business of the House (Friday Sitting)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do sit To-morrow."— [ Lord E. Talbot ]
I wish to protest against this Motion. I know, of course, there are other Members who spoke on various points. I wish to protest—
That would not be in order. The question is, "That this House do sit To-morrow."
I object to that. I submit that when the Prime Minister comes down here and makes a very important speech, and he is replied to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife, and then by the Leader of the Labour party, many hon. Members who were anxious to take part in the Debate—I do not speak for myself—have not been able to do so. I say that an important Debate like that requires an opportunity for discussion. The Prime Minister very seldom comes to this House, and when many hon. Members come down, as they have done to-day, and we are asked now to carry this over again until to-morrow, I say it is a most reprehensible action on the part of the Government.
The hon. Member should apply himself to the Question, "That this House do sit To-morrow."
I am trying to argue that.
The choice is between to-morrow and Monday.
I submit that the same arguments apply either to to-morrow or to Monday. I am trying to explain the reasons why I object to carrying over the Debate.
The House has determined to carry over, and the only question is whether we shall carry over until tomorrow or Monday. The hon. Member must apply himself to that.
My arguments apply either to to-morrow or to Monday.
That is not the question. I must warn the hon. Member. I have warned him two or three times that he is pursuing irrelevant arguments. The question is as to whether the House shall sit to-morrow or Monday.
I certainly favour sitting to-morrow rather than Monday.
Then the hon. Member is in favour of the Motion.
Question put, and agreed to.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen minutes after Eleven o'clock till To-morrow, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of this day.