asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Danish steamer "Kentucky" was salved near Frazerburgh by naval ratings in December, 1914; whether the ship and cargo were valued on leaving New York at £180,000; whether any salvage money was earned by the salvors; whether the list of salved merchant ships recently drawn out for which salvage grants have been made can be made public; whether the Admiralty will also publish a list of merchant vessels salved during the War by naval ratings upon which no salvage money has been paid; and will he state why salvage claims are permitted in some cases and not in others?

:The Danish steamer "Kentucky" was salved by a party from His Majesty's yacht "Corycia." The value was reported to be as stated. The Admiralty did not allow a claim to be made, as the "Kentucky" at the time was being sent to Leith under the charge of a naval armed guard for her cargo to be examined. In these circumstances, it was considered undesirable to add a naval claim for salvage. There is no objection to the list of ships to which salvage grants have been made being made public. No list has been kept of cases where naval crews have not been permitted to claim salvage, and it would be extremely difficult to compile one.

As regards the last point of my hon. Friend's question, the matter is by Statute one for the discretion of the Admiralty, but in general claims by the crews of naval vessels are allowed if the salvors are considered to have rendered any special service over and above their ordinary duty of assisting ships in distress and their special duty of protecting the property of the Crown.

If this is entirely in the discretion of the Admiralty, is there no Court of Appeal to which salvors can apply?

I do not know of any, except that they can ask the Board for representation.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the Admiralty decisions on the pay and pensions of officers of the Royal Navy will be published?

It is impossible to fix a date. I can, however, assure my hon. and gallant Friend that no time has been lost. The subject is very complicated, and the Board realise that the settlement, when arrived at, will in all probability last for a considerable time. They are approaching the end of their labours, and hope to be in a position to announce the result when the House reassembles.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty (1) whether men of the Royal Navy Sick-berth Reserve are entitled to the increases recommended in the Jerram Report; if so, whether he is aware that men who have been demobilised since 1st May have not yet received the higher rate as from 1st February; whether he will make inquiries into this matter;

(2) whether men of the Royal Navy Auxiliary Sick-berth Reserve are excluded from participation in the increases recommended in the Jerram Report; if so, whether he is aware that, although these men have received a higher rate of pay than active service ratings, in times of peace they receive no retaining fee or gratuity as other Reserve branches of the Navy; and whether, if these are excluded from participation in the increases, he will have the matter reconsidered in view of the fact that, unless they do participate, their pay will be lower than that of active service ratings?

No provision is made in the revised scales of pay for ratings of the Royal Naval Auxiliary Sick-berth Reserve. As a matter of fact, their existing rates of pay (including bonus, which they will continue to receive until demobilised) are already higher than the revised rates applicable to their corresponding active service ratings. Thus, a junior reserve attendant of over six months' service, serving in a ship of war receives 6s. 2d. a day (inclusive of bonus of 1s. 6d. a day), which considerably exceeds the 4s. 3d. to 4s. 9d. a day, according to length of service, now payable to an active service sick-berth attendant, and even the rate (6s. a day) applicable to a second sick-berth steward who has served for three years in that rating and passed his examination for sick-berth steward.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will extend the reduced railway fares given to schools to all children under sixteen years of age, whether at school or having left?

Under the travelling arrangements recently made for school children's excursions the ordinary age limit for children of twelve years has been increased to fourteen years so as to correspond with the prevailing school leaving age. I am afraid I could not yet recommend that the arrangements should be extended to older school children or to children who have left school.

I do not complain of the absence from the Treasury Bench of the Leader of the House, because I know he is engaged at a very important meeting of the War Cabinet, and, therefore, cannot be here. And I am sure that other members of the Ministry will take note of the point I am raising and convey them to my right hon. Friend. There are three points upon which I wish to say a few words. The first relates to the general topic of the Peace terms. No one can have failed to notice recently that there has been a considerable amount of unrest as to what is happening in Paris; so much so that it speedily reflected itself in the House here by questions directed to the Leader of the House as to whether the Prime Minister is weakening or not on the terms which have been demanded from our defeated enemies. Again we hear that he is strengthening, or supposed to be once again firm in the faith. My point is this, that anything which the Prime Minister does he does on behalf of this country. His action can only be really strong to the extent that he feels confident that public opinion will be behind him. We are all anxious to back our representatives in Paris, but we have not sufficient data upon which to form our opinion.

It is true that we have had a summary of the peace proposals, but we do not know what is really causing all the trouble at present. Germany and Austria apparently know, the whole range of our enemies obviously knows, but we who are imposing these terms upon them and upon whom the Prime Minister depends for his authority in enforcing or relaxing these terms have not sufficient information on which to give him our support or our considered criticism, as the case may be. I think that the time has come, indeed it is long overdue, when we ought to know what the facts are, and, knowing them, then we can express an opinion for or against in relation to those critical matters which are in issue in Paris today. After all, one of the great demands of those who are engaged in supporting this War, and of course those who opposed it, was that we should do best in diplomacy by reasoned publicity. It is perfectly true that we cannot tell the public everything at the time, and it was a cause of controversy which was associated with the drawing up of Peace terms when certain publicity was tried, and it was evident that it was easy to go too far in that direction. But now the time has arrived, and is long overdue, when you want to take the public into your confidence and to give them the opportunity which they really seek of knowing what are the facts. As long as that is not done we are the prey of those who seek to make things difficult rather than seek to make them easy. 'I do not want to take my arguments from those who opposed the War. They leave me quite cold. Their tears have no particular effect on me, because I know that throughout the struggle they and those who worked with them addressed arguments which might just as well have been addressed to us by our enemies. But it is fully time, in the highest interests of the State, that we should know where we are, and, if the Prime Minister is right, let us back him with all our might, and if ho is wrong, let us criticise him with all due sense of responsibility.

Now one or two words on the general question of the Peace terms. As we know, they have been the cause of a great deal of doubt in well-balanced men and women about whose patriotism there can be no shadow of question. One cannot help being struck with the articles which have been written recently in such a paper as the "Observer," by such men as Mr. Garvin. They must mean something. Young Oxford, which at any rate cannot be accused of lack of patriotism in the War——

What about young Cambridge?

Young Cambridge is waiting an opportunity, I have no doubt; but make what deductions you like. I am stating facts. Turn where you like to contemporary journalism of a responsible kind, and you will find the evil of unrest, and that opinion cannot be neglected. As far as the mere question of punishment is concerned, nothing that can be meted out to Germany is too much. If your object is merely penal, that is quite true. But if at the same time it is intended to be reformative, then you must be very careful as to the measures you propose to mete out, and as to the spirit in which you propose to administer them.

Turning from that, just a word or two as to our difficulties in Russia. I listened with the deepest interest to the speech of the Prime Minister some couple of months ago on that question. I agree with every word of it. It seemed to be based on the experience of history and in line with the best ideals of statesmanship. I quote his own words—I think I am right in the quotation that I now give—

"It is a fundamental principle of our foreign policy that we should never interfere with the internal affairs of another nation, however badly governed."

And he went on to say that it is for the Russian people themselves to decide as to whether that people shall be Czarist, Republican, Menshivik, or Bolshevik. Those were the words of the Prime Minister, and we are entitled to assume that that is the policy of the Government. But if those were his words, what are the facts? On this question also it is no exaggeration to say that there is grave unrest throughout the country, and indeed throughout the Army. The Secretary of State for War a few days ago, in referring to the policy or impolicy of the circular which was issued to the troops, gave us a summary of the replies which have been received. I agree entirely with him in his criticism of the policy of issuing such a circular, but I also agree entirely with him as to the remarkable results which it produced. The remarkable answers which were produced show that, whatever criticism might be made about commanding officers, so far as I can see, they acted most fairly in the summaries of the replies which they gave. One of the questions was:

"Will they parade for draft to overseas, especially to Russia?"

I will take the second, third, and fourth of the replies. The others are not particularly important. The reply was:

"Troops will parade for drafts overseas with the exception of Russia. About which doubt exists. The chief reasons why service in Russia appears to be unpopular are:

(2) Ignorance of policy to be adopted about that country.

(3) Taking part in active warfare against an enemy who is to them undefined.

(4) They do not know what the campaign in Russia is all about or even if it is a campaign."

If those questions had been addressed to this House I think it is not unfair to say that the majority of Members, at any rate, would have given answers something like that. We are ignorant of the policy to be adopted. We are taking part in active warfare against an enemy who is undefined. We really do not know where we are; we do not know in general terms what the campaign is all about, or even if there is a campaign. There is not a war, but there are military operations. Let us see if we can get into our minds exactly what is happening so far as our Armies are concerned. They are engaged in active military operations in the Archangel and Murmansk regions. So far as I am concerned, I do not see how we can avoid that. Looking at the matter as carefully and impartially as I can, I do not see how that could be avoided, and the operations there for the restricted object for which they are undertaken have my hearty support. But we are also engaged on the Finnish and Polish borders and in Caucasia, Turkestan, and other places, and the British Fleet is imposing the strictest blockade in the Baltic, and at present also in the Black Sea. What does all that really mean? If it was meant to support Admiral Koltchak because he was winning, then that is backing the wrong horse, because, though I have no other information than is accessible to any other hon. Member, yet, as I understand, the position is that Admiral Koltchak has had to retreat well over 100 miles from Samara to somewhere in front of Ufa. The Secretary of State for War the other day admitted that recently on his right or left front Admiral Koltchak had sustained what the right hon. Gentleman described as a serious reverse. So far as such information as has come to me extends, it seems to me to have been a very severe defeat on the whole line. I do not know, but at any rate he has had to retire over 100 miles, and the whole position there is one I should think of a serious nature so far as Admiral Koltchak is concerned. What is happening so far as we can gather, as to our Allies. M. Clemenceau the other day, according to a Reuter telegram, had an important interview with what corresponds roughly to our Conference of the French Trade Union Congress, at which protests were made on behalf of organised French labour, and have been made constantly in this country by organ- ised labour here against armed intervention in Russia. He stated that French troops had evacuated Odessa, and I think they have also evacuated Sebastopol.

What is the position with regard to the United States? I gather from the Press— I have no other means of knowing—that their troops are also being withdrawn— some of them at any rate. I do not say wholly withdrawn, because it was stated that they were guarding a long length of line. They are being withdrawn, at any rate. I ask the question: Are not the French troops and the American troops being withdrawn in much larger measure, and much greater proportion than our troops, and is it not a fact that their contribution in munitions, and certainly in money, is not what should be their fair proportion, supposing it is a joint undertaking? Who is bearing the financial cost? A very important question was addressed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) to the Financial Secretary to the War Office on 26th May, and he pressed the Financial Secretary very strongly to let the House know what the cost was. I press also for that information to be given to the country. It can be given because, of course, the War Office and Treasury are keeping careful account. They know what we are spending in France and in the various theatres of war. Why not let us knew what the cost is? I hazarded a guess, I think, in quite the early days of the Session that our intervention in Russia was costing us at least £100,000,000 a year. I should think that is a pretty moderate estimate. I ask again that we should be told what it is costing us in money. What is more important than money is what it is costing us lives, and we should be delighted to know that the fears expressed in that respect are ill-founded.

My point about the Russian business is this: Except for the sole purpose of extricating our own troops, our own nationals, and, where near the coast it can be easily done, refugees from the Bolshevik terror who are there, it is a huge mistake for us to go on with this indefinite policy of military intervention in Russia. The Prime Minister, in his speech on this question, drew a parallel between the Russian Revolution and the French Revolution. It was very interesting, but of course all parallels have their danger. One thing, at any rate, comes out perfectly clear in the Russian Revolution of to-day, and what happened in the French Revolution. It is this: One of the main causes which united the French Revolutionists and lashed the legions of Dumouriez into a highly efficient army, which subsequently swept over Europe, was the intervention of other European nations, and the fear and the national pride evoked by the armies which not only hovered along the borders of France but actually invaded their soil. That lesson, at any rate, we can still take to heart and carefully bear in mind, in the hope that no Russian Napoleon may arise on the ruins of this revolution to set up a military oligarchy which would repeat the devastation of the Napoleonic Wars. But there is the lesson for us, writ as large as history can make it, of the danger when a country is in revolution of unwise intervention of other nations, which they construe, rightly or wrongly, as intervention in their own national affairs. In conclusion, may I ask the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he will make one point quite clear with regard to the blockade? Where food is being bought by Germany, that, of course, necessitates the export of German goods to pay for it, because there is no gold and they can pay in no other way. Is that a necessary part of the entry of food, and is it quite understood?

The situation in regard to the revictualling of Germany is that food is being sent into Germany very largely by the Economic Council in Paris. Any country may send food into Germany, and, of course, that necessitates certain business transactions in the way of finance; and any country can receive goods from Germany, but, as my right hon. Friend knows, in the countries of the Allies it is forbidden to trade with Germany at the present time in regard to commodities. As he knows, it would be absolutely illegal for anybody to trade in ordinary commodities with Germany at the present time, but in respect of food there is unlimited import up to Germany's capacity to pay for the import of food.

I am much obliged for the information which the hon. Gentleman has given. Generally, I would say this with regard to the blockade: This necessary severity must fall in the main upon those who are in no sense responsible for the iniquities of the War. That is the thing that troubles people. I do not think the time is far distant, whatever measures are adopted for supporting our Peace terms, when the blockade will have to be removed.

I wish to say a few words most seriously on the question of the Russian situation and our future policy. I beg the attention of the Secretary of State for War and the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs particularly, to this matter. I have taken every means to find out the true position of affairs in Russia as nearly as I could Let me, to start with, admit most fully and deplore the appalling atrocities and injustices committed by Bolsheviks. They have set back the cause of progress by their violence, and let me say, secondly, that the so-called Saviour of Russia, Admiral Koltchak, is a most admirable young naval officer, a man of high ideals, who is trying to do his best for Russia, according to his lights. Let me start with that basis at once, that the Bolsheviks have committed the most enormous atrocities, their system is impossible, and has already broken down, and Admiral Koltchak, and even General Denikin, are men who are patriotic, and are trying to do their best for Russia. The Bolsheviki started off with a very advanced programme of complete communism. After eighteen months they have abandoned the most advanced tenets they held. They have admitted the right of the peasants to own their land. That cuts at the very root of the extreme Bolshevik tenets. Certainly the railways, mines, forests, and canals are nationalised in Russia. There is a powerful party in this country which proposes to nationalise the means of production when they are monopolised in this country. Therefore that alone is no reason for attacking the Bolsheviki. They are being assailed by and are having a much harder time with their own Left Social Revolutionaries than they are with outside counter-revolutionary folk.

I said just now I have taken every means I could to find out the facts. I am not going to quote at all from official information which I have obtained as a naval officer. I am going to leave that out, unless I am challenged, but I have talked to Englishmen and Americans back from Russia, I have talked to Russian Cadets, Czarists pure and simple, men with no politics at all, men who are representatives of the Ukraine anti-Bolshevik Republicans men who are Right Social Revolutionists and men who are Left Social Revolutionists. I have talked to bankers, business men, landowners, farmers, ex-naval officers, ex-military officers, men who talk my own language, and I do say that our policy at the present moment is utterly mistaken. We have two possible programmes with regard to Russia. Having decided that the second social revolution in Russia was a danger to civilisation, we-could have invaded Russia, put down that Government by force, and restored law and order and held elections. That would have been an understandable policy. The other policy would have been to see if these people would listen to reason, and. make peace with us on reasonable lines, but we have done, neither one nor the-other, said neither "Yes," nor "No," but, instead, have wavered and wobbled in Russia, and sent weak detachments.

You have first of all backed one reactionary party and then another. Now, apparently, you are fostering the civil war which is being waged by that high-minded patriot Admiral Koltchak. Supposing Admiral Koltchak reaches Moscow and sets up his own Government by force, then the Bolshevist idealistic philosophers will say that they have never had a chance of working out their theories, and that they have been put down by force. If he gets to Moscow there will be civil war for at least three years in Russia, for he will not be accepted by the mass of the Russian people. That is literally true. M. Kerenski, who has a right to be consulted, being himself a patriot, has stated that he will not accept the Koltchak Government. The anti-Bolshevist Government of the Ukraine, that is the present Government, are prepared to co-operate with Admiral Koltchak up to the point of freeing their own 'Country from the Bolsheviki, because they are anti-Bolshevists "but will not accept Koltchak, because they are not Russians. Their strong nationalistic feeling makes them desirous of setting up their own Government. Directly that is done the Ukranian people will resist Admiral Koltchak.

If events move as they are moving at present, the Ukraine, Siberia, Russia, and Finland, with all their vast possibilities in the matter of trade, will be cut off from British industry and commerce, and we will not get the material we so badly want. There is a tremendous dearth of manufactures in Russia at present, and it would be well if we could have trade free with that country. Definite Peace terms have been offered. I have seen a copy of them. They want to get the matter of peace settled so that they can work out their own programme, their philosophic and idealistic programme, and we should allow them, so that later they will not be able to say, "We have never had a chance."

Do you agree with their views?

I answer that by saying, "in some respects, most certainly." I agree with the nationalisation of great monopolies—mines, railways, and so on, but not in the abolition of private property. If I am challenged I say I believe in these things—but the world may not accept them at the present moment.

What about the suppression of representative institutions?

They have decided that the Parliamentary system is unsuitable for Russia. [Laughter.] They have their own idea of the form of government they want, which I can explain later to the House. They believe they know what is the best alternative form of government possible in view of the illiteracy of a country like Russia. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth objects to the Constituent Assembly in India on much the same lines as for Russia. But I can not take up the time of the House explaining that aspect of the case. Hon. Members who do not know what Soviet Government is have no business to take part in this Debate. I am not defending every thing done. But Admiral Koltchak is not carrying the people in his rear with him. Many of them are joining for the moment for the sake of food and security. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If it is asked why Admiral Koltchak has not called the Constituent Assembly into being in Siberia, the reply is that he intends to; most of the voters there are small landowners, who, while they would support him on an elective basis, want to see better grounds for helping than the continued influx of outside money, munitions, and so on.

The Bolsheviki, it will be admitted, in spite of the very severe blockade, are still fighting hard. The right hon. Gentleman opposite appealed for volunteers, and, of course, he got them—as we know he would —in order to save our troops in Russia. Most of the people in Russia are small peasant farmers, and peasant farmers are, all the world over, conservative. We will get no further by continually pouring in arms, munitions, money, and officer-instructors at great cost to support Messrs. Koltchak and Denikin. You will only bring about further bloodshed in the world—and we have had enough of this—misery, starvation, and the rest of it. It is time most seriously—it is of the utmost importance—to examine ourselves and our policy, and to see whether it is not possible to come to some efficient compromise in Russia so as to stop the civil war without recognising the Government. You do business with a man without asking him to dinner. Let us see whether we cannot bring about an influx of trade and commerce. Russian bankers, traders, and business men, who are the best judges of the situation, hold this view. I have talked with them. They say this will be the cure for Russia. The working classes of this country, those who have class-consciousness, the progressive working classes, are utterly opposed to this crusade. I do ask that we should pause before we go on pouring our wealth, in the shape of munitions, subsidies, and so on, into the abyss.

I should not have arisen to take part in this Debate unless I had thought it was necessary that some of us who are Liberals should dissociate ourselves with what I will not call pacifism, but what I will describe as talk that tends to weaken our powers of fighting.

Whom are you fighting?

Germany at present.

I am as anti-German as the hon. Member who is speaking, and I have proved it.

I never said the contrary. The hon. and gallant Gentleman fought well, but he says things which are injurious to his country, quite unconscious of the fact that he is doing a great deal of harm. It is our business to protest against such things being said. Every- body recognises the hon. and gallant Gentleman's high attitude, his progressive thought, and his progressive principles; but when he says that the Bolshevik government is a strong government I do not agree. There is one thing he does not say —that the Bolshevik atrocities are still strong, are still being carried out! What was said by the Englishmen who got away from the Bolsheviks—out of Russia the other day? They told us how they had been treated. Were they treated fairly like a civilised nation treats its prisoners? Is that the strong government with which we can deal? If it is a strong government surely it ought to deal with these thing.

What about the white atrocities?

I am not talking of those, but of the suggestion that we should make terms with the Bolsheviks. The hon. and gallant Gentleman found fault that, as one possible policy, we did not go in and conquer Russia. Would that have been in accordance with his principles? It certainly would not have been in accordance with mine, and, I hope, not in accordance with the principles of those who represent the Liberal party either on this or that side of the House. We do not mean to go in and interfere with the internal arrangements of other countries, or the government by those countries of their own people. But we have got a duty to perform, and I think it is necessary for our troops to do it. Ought we not to try to protect these people and to put them in a position to defend themselves. That is what our policy should be; and I believe it is that. We ought to put our Allies in such a position that they can defend themselves against the atrocities of the Bolsheviks. I should be very sorry to see this Government going on a conquering expedition—that is so far as I understand it—but I hope, later, we can have it made quite clear what is the policy of our Government, and that all that we are doing is to protect those who have been our friends in days of trouble, against the horrible atrocities that have occurred whenever the Bolsheviks over-run the country. It is, however, not that trouble, that I see. That is not our trouble. There are troubles abroad. But there are troubles at home and in these days of stress we ought all to be working together. There are people who get up in this House, and many of them outside, and write to the Press, and keep on saying how badly we do everything. It is always being pointed out to us how inefficient we are. We were not quite so inefficient as we were supposed to be, even with all our mistakes in the War. The one great cause of inefficiency is, distrust of your leaders. We do not absolutely trust—we may not trust them absolutely—but it is a sin and a crime against our country to stir up distrust all round. I do not think that those who make speeches of the sort to which I have referred quite realise what the effect may be. I do not think the hon. Member opposite realises that he is doing the very thing now, before Peace has been declared, which he agreed himself was the cause of much injury to this country during the War when the Pacifists tried to weaken the action of the Government in their foreign policy. The hon. Member said that was harmful, but he is doing exactly the same thing to-day when he talks about people being injured by the blockade who have no responsibility for the War. Does he mean the German women and children?

Hear, hear!

Does he forget that those women cheered the War?

Not the children.

:No, not the children. The innocent always have to suffer, and, whatever you do, you cannot save the children from suffering. Even now you cannot save the children suffering from the scarcity of milk in this country, and our children are suffering in this country today. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) forgets that our children are suffering.

I do not forget, but I object to kicking my enemy when I have got him down, and that seems to be the policy of the hon. and gallant Member opposite.

The hon. and gallant Member says that these women are the innocent people who are suffering. These are the women who spat in the faces of our wounded, who did everything to torture our wounded whenever they could. These women are the people who praised the Kaiser and everything that he did all through the War until they were beaten.

It is quite true that the women of Cologne are now fawning at the feet of the British soldier now that Germany is beaten, and the men as well; but it was not until they were beaten, and if they got the upper hand again—and the sort of suggestions we have been listening to may in time give them the power again—they will be just as bad as they were in the past unless they learn that people have to suffer who commit atrocities, and unless they learn that there is something to pay for having broken every law of civilised nations. Unless they learn that, the people of the future will see these very people doing the same thing to them.

We shall pay.

The hon. and gallant Member says we shall pay; but I would like to ask what law of civilisation are we breaking when we hold the blockade until the terms of peace are signed?

Making peace on Bismarckian lines.

I really must ask hon. Members not to keep up a running commentary. They make very serious statements themselves, and are not interfered with. They take advantage when they are being answered, and when they get an answer they do not like, to keep up a running fire of comment. I must ask hon. Members whom I am addressing to behave in the usual way.

I do hope, Mr. Speaker, that when we are speaking you will prevent us from being interrupted in the same way. At present it is almost impossible for a minority to speak in this House.

The hon. Member's statement is a reflection on the Chair, which I do not think anybody but himself in this House would support. He knows perfectly well that the minority, which behaves itself, will always be listened to in this House as long as I am here, and it is only when the minority does not be-have itself, and keeps up a running commentary which is totally irregular, that I intervene at all.

Personally, I do not object to being interrupted, although I think there is a good deal too much of it, and I am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for stopping it. I do not want to say anything hard, but I do feel that the pledge I have given to my Constituents: —and I think it is also a pledge which most hon. Members opposite gave—that we would support the Government in carrying on the War and getting a. satisfactory peace is not being carried out in the spirit if it is being carried out in the letter. When such speeches of cavilling and finding fault with the details of our foreign policy are made, and when strong objections are raised to the methods we are using to enable us to hold our own until the sword is really sheathed; when the. Government are being found fault with by hon. Gentlemen opposite in this way it is, for those reasons I want to dissociate myself from such action. I claim to be just as strong in regard to my progressive feelings as hon. Members opposite, but we are not yet out of the-difficulties that this War has brought about, and we shall not be for many months. But those who cause unrest and distrust in our institutions, who back up the Press in calling for more publicity, and who cavil at every little detail the Government is supposed to have done in Paris are weakening the Prime Minister, and they are weakening the hands of our Allies in dealing with this most difficult question.

We are told of the action of the young students at Oxford and of various other people who want more publicity. We are told that in France the trade unions are asking for this, but has the right hon. Gentleman opposite forgotten that when the Prime Minister suggested there should be no publicity it was the French Government and the Allied Governments that objected. I do not think it is fair to raise these small points until they have got into a sounder and stronger position, and until we reach the day when Peace is signed. I have pledged myself to give all the support I can to the men. who are going to bring-about a good and honourable peace, and I am totally opposed to the men, and there are all sorts of them throughout the country, not only in the Labour ranks, who go about talking about peace and who in wartime were ready to make peace because they said we could not win.

I remember early in the War, and I do not know where it comes from, but it was a very apt phrase, and it said, "Pessimism in a civilian is equivalent to cowardice in a soldier." The pessimism which floated about during the War is still going on and increasing. It was the fashion amongst some of the smartest people in this country during the War to say that we could not win the War and we must make peace at once. It is now the fashion of these people to say that we are asking too much from the Germans, and that we are inflicting too hard terms. I have no sympathy with such people. I have lost too much in the War, and I have heard too much about the fighting at the front. I have heard soldiers say these things, but they are not the soldiers who fought in the ranks or in the front line, and who saw the atrocities of the German soldiers in the trenches. We cannot forget the bestiality of the German race in war-time, and we must remember that they are not to be trusted in peace.

I wish to say at the outset that I will not refer to Russia, because, in the first place, I am not qualified by sufficient knowledge of the conditions in Russia to warrant me in referring to that subject. In the second place, on that question I do not think I should be justified in indulging in any prophecy. I want to say a few words with regard to the situation in connection with the offers of peace. I noticed the words of the Leader of the Opposition, and I must confess that I thought there was great force in what he said with regard to the terms of the treaty not being disclosed to this House. In the first place, it is stated by the Government that we have received an accurate summary of the proposed terms. If that is so, what objection can there be to publishing the terms themselves? It may be that there is some cryptic reason why the terms in full are withheld while we are told that we have been given an accurate summary of them.

For my part I must confess, it may be owing to deficiency of understanding, that I cannot comprehend the reason for this decision. Undoubtedly these terms are known to the, Germans and to all our enemies. It is stated publicly in the Press to-day, and during the last few days, that they are well known in the United States. One of the greatest political leaders in the United States says he saw the terms in an office in New York, and that he could have taken them to Washington if he had chosen. Our contention is that the terms should be stated at this stage, and they should have been stated before. I can perfectly well understand that up to the time that our representatives and those representing our other Allies in Paris had arrived at a decision the terms should be kept back, and under those circumstances and up to this point secrecy should be observed. But after our representatives and those of the Allies in Paris came to an agreement on the terms to be presented to the enemy, and put the enemy in possession of them, for the life of me I cannot understand why they should be made a secret afterwards. It has been stated by the Leader of the House that an arrangement had been come to that the terms should not be discussed. I can understand an agreement of that kind being arrived at, but that is not the position at the moment. We are not even in a position to discuss them if we cared to, because we have not the terms before us. Surely there is every reason why we should know with perfect accuracy what the terms are as regards the financial Clauses. I doubt the wisdom of anybody attempting to summarise a written document. If a thing is governed by a written document, it is the rule of the profession to which I belong that the document must speak for itself. I do not want any man's paraphrase of that instrument to tell me what is its meaning. Therefore, surely we should see the document itself.

I must say that the Financial Clauses are by no means clear. I have read the Summary of them over and over again, and I confess that I have some doubt as to what is the actual meaning of the Clauses. I am a supporter of the Government, and, like the last speaker, I have given my pledges. I intend to observe them. But I am not here merely to say that I endorse everything that is done by the Government. I want to endorse what is done in reason, and I want to get the opportunity of understanding it. These financial terms are not clear from the Summary, and it is extremely important, not merely that the people of the United Kingdom, but that the people of the great Dominions overseas, who shared with us in the War, should know what the terms are. It is stated in the Summary that the Germans have undertaken, roughly, to pay the costs of the War. Then they proceed to say that they are to pay damages under certain different heads in the nature of reparation. I should like very much to be able to see what they are to pay under the heading of "Reparation" and what they are to pay under the heading of "Costs of the War," because the Reparation plainly refers to the damages to civilians and to the property of civilians, whereas the Costs of the War are the debt due by the enemy to the Allied nations engaged in the War. It is all-important to this nation that we should see what is to be the apportionment for Reparation and what is to be the apportionment for the Costs of the War, because if the great bulk of what is called the "indemnity" is to go for Reparation, I am afraid that 90 percent will disappear in the repayment for damages caused to our Allies in the immediate neighbourhood of the War itself, and that a very small proportion is likely to come to this country. However, we shall know more of that later.

There is another aspect. Our great Dominions oversea have incurred very large debts in connection with carrying on this War. How are they to be compensated out of the moneys that may be recovered from the enemy? How are they to be compensated for the costs of the War that they have incurred? If the bulk of the money goes for Reparation it will be applicable to the Allies in the immediate neighbourhood of the War, and there will be a very comparatively small sum, if any, to go to the Dominions overseas, because they are not in the neighbourhood of the War, and have not suffered damage in the nature of civilian damage. It may be, therefore, when the final account is adjusted, that the amount that goes to them for the costs of the War will be very small, if any, and that the costs that come to us may, also, be very small. I am not casting any reflection on the negotiators; I am assuming that they have done the best that they could. They are entitled to our confidence, and I have never withdrawn my confidence. All I contend is that we are the principals and they are the agents, and by every rule, Parliamentary, legal, or otherwise, the principal is entitled to know what his agent is doing.

The right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean) who opened the discussion to-day would wish me to answer very briefly two or three of the specific questions which he has asked about the military forces in Russia, and that I will proceed to do, although I do not think that there is any advantage in our embarking to any extent upon a debate upon that subject to-day. Before I do that, I should like to say, in regard to what has fallen from my hon. and learned Friend who has just spoken (Mr. Macmaster), that the House will do well to continue to extend its confidence, generous and sincere confidence, to the representatives of the British nation who are working in Paris at the Peace Conference. These negotiations, long negotiations, are at the present time naturally approaching the climax before the settlement is reached, and those who are representing us have no other interest or idea than to do what is right and to obtain a lasting peace which will secure to the country the great position which it has obtained in the War, and which will also secure the means for all the nations or the world to work together and rebuild the shattered prosperity of Europe. It would be a very great pity if the full conduct of the negotiations by the representatives, not only of this country, but of the other victorious Great Powers, were not left entirely in their hands even if it means the non-publication of this or that document for so many weeks. They are endeavouring to reach a definite goal, and that goal is peace, and speedy peace, for which we all, friend as well as foe, stand in great need. Therefore, I do trust that the hon. and learned Gentleman, having made observations which are perfectly reasonable, will continue to join with the great mass of the House in leaving our delegates utterly untrammelled in all such matters of procedure as the publication of this or that document, and will continue to be patient until the results of their labours have been announced as a whole.

With regard to what fell from the Leader of the Opposition with reference to Russia, I would strongly deprecate making more of what we are doing in Russia than the facts warrant. One would think, to hear his remarks and to read certain very influential organs of opinion in this country, that we were engaged in large formidable operations in Russia which were absorbing a great portion of our military strength. I have given on several occasions a very clear account of what we are doing. We are endeavouring to wind up our affairs in North Russia, and it is our hope that North Russia will become self-supporting before the end of the summer, and that then we shall be able to come away, having honourably discharged our duty to those people to whom we committed ourselves during the time of the War. That is really not challenged in any part of the House. In the Caucasus our troops are not in contact with the enemy; they are hundreds of miles away from the enemy. They are occupying that country until it has been decided what its future is to be as part of the general Peace settlement. It has, however, already been decided that they are to be withdrawn. Plans for the evacuation have been perfected, and it is expected that before long the actual recall of our troops will begin. So far as Siberia is concerned, we have no troops in Siberia except the two battalions who remain hundreds of miles away from the fighting at the centre of government, where they act as a symbol of British sympathy and support, and as a support and a prop to the Omsk Government. None of our troops have been engaged in any of this fighting which" has taken place on the Siberian front. I warned the House the other day against exaggerated hopes being based on Admiral Koltchak's advance. I pointed out that a considerable set-back had taken place in the southern sector of his advance. That set-back the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Wedgwood) will rejoice to hear has become more pronounced in the interval; but, broadly speaking, of the ground gained since the advance began in March, between one-quarter and one-third had been lost again.

One hundred and twenty miles.

The advance was 250 miles on a front of 750 miles, and there has been a withdrawal of 120 miles on a front of about 200 or 250 miles. The. House will realise that this is an extremely attenuated form of warfare. A few thousand men are spread over twenty miles of front. The railways are few and far between, The rolling stock is limited and defective on both sides. Occasionally local concentrations are arranged which produce these changes. This line sways backwards and forwards. It is often a case of easy come and easy go with accessions of land in this kind of warfare. But, as I say, I have cot at all attempted to encourage extravagant hopes being based upon the advance of Admiral Koltchak, and I very much deprecate the kind of suggestion that I see in some of the newspapers that he is likely to be at the gates of Moscow within a short time. He is hundreds of miles from the gates of Moscow, and no such expecta- tion would be at all reasonable. Our share in these operations, as I say, is nil so far as men are concerned. We have no troops there at all. Our contribution to Admiral Koltchak's operations is limited to the supply of the munitions which we have sent for the equipment of his armies. I would like to ask my right hon. Friend: Were we right in continuing to supply the Omsk Government with munitions? Consider how they came into being. They were called into being by the Allies at the time of the German War, when there was every desire and every need to build up in Russia elements which would tend to prevent the whole country falling into the hands of the Germans as well as the Bolsheviks and all our intervention was based solely with the object of preventing a substantial transference of troops from the Eastern front to fall upon our men in the West. We called this Government into existence, and I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend, or anyone with the slightest sense of responsibility, would repudiate the idea, the War having been won and Germany having been defeated, that we should immediately disinterest ourselves in the fortunes of those who had been called into the field to aid us and who have compromised themselves on our behalf. The hon. and gallant Member (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) said that we had had enough bloodshed. Does he suppose, if the Allies cut off the supply of munitions to the anti-Bolshevik forces and left them to their fate, that the end of bloodshed would have been reached?

The Bolshevik Government offered peace.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman puts more confidence than I do in the promises of the Bolshevik Government. It is very remarkable that a naval officer should be so very trustful of them when we think that, in defiance of every law and of the sanctity of diplomatic agreements, Captain Cromie was foully murdered at the Legation in Petrograd by these very men on whose tender mercies the hon. and gallant Gentleman is now urging that we should rely. I am surprised that the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not express his opinions more circumspectly in matters of this kind.

I was saying to the House, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman, that we are not at all involved in these operations of Admiral Koltchak in any military sense, except to the extent that, if these operations continue to prosper—and on the whole they have prospered greatly since the advance—it will facilitate our with-withdrawal from North Russia and will render it unnecessary for us to enter upon the very elaborate operations of safe-guarding the interests of the civil population in that part of the world. I have been asked also about the cost and scale of these operations that have been taking place in Russia. I exclude the Army in the Caucasus, because that has nothing to do with Russia, and is not engaged in any way with the enemy. There remain the troops in the North and the handful of men in Siberia. Taking these two together, we have scarcely more men there now than the United States of America has. We have a few thousand more men in Siberia and North Russia than the Americans, but that is because fresh relieving troops have just arrived and the evacuation of the tired, weary troops is only now proceeding. Broadly speaking, the numbers are very nearly the same. I do not wish to give the exact numbers. They have been quoted in the French Chamber, but I am glad to say the situation has somewhat altered since then. The numbers vary from time to time, and I see no reason why we should make our antagonists a present of information in regard to the location of our forces. Broadly speaking, the American troops are within a few thousand of our men in those two theatres, and our forces are, as is generally known, not at all large forces. I was asked particularly what the loss of life and other casualties had been. Of course the loss of even one soldier's life is a grave and serious matter, but we must have a sense of proportion. We have had to safeguard the existence of our force in North Russia all through the winter, and if we had not strongly maintained that force it might hare got into very great difficulties. But since the Armistice—more than six months have passed—there have been killed in all parts of the Russian theatre thirteen British officers and 116 rank and file, and there have been wounded fourteen officers and 152 rank and file, while two British officers and twenty-six rank and file were missing. Therefore, our total casualties in Russia in the last six months have been twenty-nine officers and 294 men killed, wounded, and missing.

The proportion of killed to wounded seems rather extraordinary. Has the right hon. Gentleman given the correct figures?

I have certainly given the correct number: I sent up to ascertain exactly what the figures were. I quite agree that the number of killed is out of proportion to the number wounded. It may be that that is owing to the ferocity with which the Bolsheviks are waging the war. At any rate, I think the House, while it deplores loss of life at any time, will see how farcical it is to pretend that operations which over seven months have produced that number of casualties are operations of serious important warfare which are likely to drain away the energies and resources of this country and commit us to vast overseas expeditions and journeys into the heart of Russia. Obviously what is going on is on a very small scale, and more in the nature of police work and skirmishing of a petty description than the operations of a war of a serious character. As far as the cost in money is concerned, I exclude, and, I think, rightly, the cost of the troops maintained in the Caucasus, because they are there as a result of the defeat of the Turks and to expel the Turks and Germans from those regions. They are waiting as a force discharging an international function until the general decisions of the Peace Conference are made known. So far as the troops in North Russia are concerned, they are, of course, an expense, and we have had to feed a large proportion of the population of that region from the sea. One of the greatest reliefs we shall get if a junction is formed between Admiral Koltchak's troops and the troops in North Russia, is the fact that that population will become largely self-supporting, and be able to draw upon the large Siberian granaries instead of being fed from the sea. But you must treat North Russia as part of the German War. The troops got there as an essential operation in the German War, and they have remained there because of the ice in the winter, and also because they are winding up our obligations in an honourable fashion. So far as the rest of the question is concerned, it is practically entirely the supply of munitions to the Armies of Admiral Koltchak and General Denikin. The money value of those munitions is now considerable, but they are all surplus to our prospective requirements.

They are part of the enormous accumulation of munitions which were called into being during the last few months of the War, and which were gathered together for a great campaign in which all our efforts were to be exerted this year. They are there on our hands. No Army we shall ever have in the future will require munitions on this scale. The greatly reduced scale of our military establishments will, of course, require a supply of munitions, but far more munitions exist than we have any use for. What are we to do with them? The market for them is restricted. Where you cannot sell munitions you can sell horses and military vehicles, and so forth. The actual money value of the arms and munitions is very difficult to prove for effective purposes, but when we do give them to the Russian Governments of Denikin and Koltchak we, of course, keep a careful account and credit our- selves with their value. If at any time in | the future Governments in Russia come into being which fulfil the obligations which Russia contracted to her Allies, the cost of those munitions will undoubtedy be refunded to us. Therefore I do not consider that any great charge or burden is placed upon either the life or the wealth of this country by any of the assistance which we are willing to give to the anti-Bolshevik forces throughout Russia.

Can we not have the figure?

If you take as the basis what these munitions cost to make, no doubt the figure would be a considerable one. More than £20,000,000 worth of munitions, on that basis, have been sent. But if we take what we are likely to realise in money value for them, I say you are more likely to get an Appropriation-in-Aid by proceeding along this road —though I admit it is not a very certain or hopeful road—than in any other way which can be conceived. Do not, therefore, let us have a lot of exaggerated talk about pouring out the blood of this country and draining away its treasure on vague and wild Russian expeditions. What we are doing has been most carefully and precisely limited, and has been definitely explained to the House, and the cost, as I have endeavoured to explain, is as limited as the scope of the operations.

If it is such a negligible sum in a comparative sense why not let us know it? If it is not convenient to the right hon. Gentleman now, could he not do it when the House reassembles?

I do not see any insuperable difficulty in that, but, as I have carefully explained, any value that is put on them is perfectly nominal.

Does that include freights and shipping?

If it is decided to lay figures on this subject there will be no difficulty about that. I am certainly not arguing against it, but I am deprecating. the absurd and mischievous exaggeration which is getting currency now with a view to working up a general prejudice against the policy the Government is pursuing. When I say the policy the Government is pursuing, that does not really describe the circumstances, because the Allies are acting in concert in these matters. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), who took us for an excursion into the whole field of Russian politics and psychology, spoke as if the conditional recognition of Admiral Koltchak was a matter which was purely undertaken by the British Government. It is nothing of the sort. We are not taking any isolated action of any kind. We are moving in conjunction with the four other great victorious Powers, the United States, France, Italy, and. Japan. Any action which has been taken, or will be taken, and any policy in regard to Russia, is proceeding by united concerted action between the heads of those great Governments. Surely, if that is so, the right hon. Gentleman may be content, for the time being, at any rate, to allow the settlement of these most complicated and anxious matters to proceed on the combined authority of these great Powers, who are gathered together in Paris, and whose heads are engaged continuously in the study of these matters.

I would like to say, before I begin my speech, that when I spoke on this question over a week ago I was interrupted nine times during the course of that speech. I wish to assure the House that interruptions of that sort are always welcome, I think, to every speaker in the House.

I should certainly stop all such interruptions. I think they are interruptions of the freedom of Debate. The only way we can get freedom of Debate is by allowing hon. Members freely to say what they have to say, and interruptions, whether made by the hon. and gallant Member or by others, are all of them bars to proper freedom of Debate. Accordingly I shall always set my face against them.

That is your view, Mr. Speaker, but from my own point of view as a speaker I welcome any interruptions which are germane to the subject of the Debate. I object, however, to being howled at and prevented from making a speech, and against such interruptions I think the House ought to set its face. The question we are debating to-day is just one of those subjects in connection with which interruptions of the second nature are becoming over-frequent, that is to say, interruptions which prevent the speaker from expressing his views in any way whatever. It is felt very strongly by some hon. Members that any people who resist the recognition of Admiral Koltchak, or future entry of British arms into that struggle in Russia, are not only unpatriotic, but are supporters of the butcheries which are going on in Russia to-day. I very strongly deprecate the idea that we who resent the co-operation between British arms and Admiral Koltchak are thereby guilty either of want of patriotism or of support of or sympathy with the detestable butcheries that are taking place in that country. The reason why we oppose either recognition of Admiral Koltchak or co-operation with him on behalf of His Majesty's Government, is that Admiral Koltchak is evidently desiring to restore the Csarist Government in Russia

That has been made more obvious within recant days. I regret to see that the entire Government, directly their policy in Russia is criticised, absent themselves. Fortunately, it may be possible to extract some reply from them by means of question and answer when they are unable to be away. The point is this: In the Government's own publication, the "Weekly Survey of the Foreign Press," in the number that came out this morning, the Government, if they ever consult their own publication, will find news from Rou-mania corroborating exactly what I have always urged. The Roumanians have 15,000 or 20.000 troops it) Eastern Siberia at the present time. The troops have recently scat resolutions home to Roumania urging that they should be allowed to return, and saying that they would not co-operate in any way with Admiral Koltchak, who was in charge of Western Siberia, who was purely Czarist in his aims, and who could not be supported by democratic troops. The same line was taken by the Czecho-Slovaks, who did excellent work in Siberia in driving back the semi-Bolshevist force. Directly they saw Admiral Koltchak in his new colours and the new Government that he set up, they turned against him, and they say they will not have anything whatever to do with supporting Admiral Koltchak in Russia. They, too, are being kept in Eastern Siberia, thousands of miles from the conflict.

What is the reason why this position is taken up by all these troops with any semblance of democratic spirit among them? There are Roumanians, Czechoslovaks, and also Americans, for although the right hon. Gentleman spoke of there being many American troops in that country; they are all thousands of miles from the scene of the conflict. Our troops are at Omsk. The American troops are thousands of miles east of Omsk, and are taking no part in the conflict. The real reason is that Admiral Koltchak's Government is not the Government that upset Bolshevism in Siberia. The Bolshevist movement in Siberia was defeated, not by Admiral Koltchak but by the members of the All - Russian Constituent Assembly which met at Omsk jointly with the members of the old Siberian Legislative Assembly which was formed in the beginning of 1917. The members for Siberia came together in Omsk and set up a Government, more or less with social revolutionary views; that is to say, they had social revolutionaries of the Right and social revolutionaries of the Left. That Government entered into co-operation with Admiral Koltchak and with the Cadet element in the Russian movement in Siberia. They governed generally from Omsk for several months. At the end of that time Admiral Koltchak executed a skilful coup d'etat. Ho put all his colleagues in prison, arrested the Constituent Assembly or the people who represented the Constituent Assembly, and had nine of them shot. The fact that more were not shot was due to the presence of British officers, who objected to such steps being taken. Then Admiral Koltchak's dictatorship began in Western Siberia. To call that in any sense a democratic form of Government is to anyone who knows anything of Siberia absolutely ridiculous. It was a pure coup d'etat supported and maintained by force. Directly the Allies' support is withdrawn from Admiral Koltchak his regime must fall to the ground. He is attempting to enforce compulsory service in that region. The villagers who do not turn up to join the Army are shot, or flogged, or hanged.

An army which is composed of elements who are forced to join against their wishes, who are driven into battle, even though they have all our weapons, is bound to prove a broken reed when it comes to a determined encounter. In spite of the £20,000,000 worth of stores we have there to support either General Denikin or Admiral Koltchak, in spite of the English weapons with which we are supplying them, directly a force composed of men who do not want to fight, who have been conscripted not only by forcible means but by means involving the shooting of their fathers and relations, gets into battle and comes up against people who do mean business, it breaks to pieces. Thus we have seen the 150 miles' retreat of Admiral Koltchak's Army. It is because Admiral Koltchak is not in any sense an upholder of representative government that he has during the nine months he has been dictator at Omsk not attempted to resummon the Siberian Legislative Assembly which met in 1917 and which he turned out and imprisoned under his coup d'etat of last year. The right hon. Gentleman was very scornful in his criticism of the faith of my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieutenant-Commander Kenworthy) in the Bolshevists' intention to carry out their promises. I am sceptical of any promises of any Russians at the present time. They all make promises of what they will do if we will only do what they ask us to do. It is quite impossible to suppose that the Bolshevists will keep those promises unless those promises are in accordance with their own interests. But it is also quite impossible to have any faith in the promises of Admiral Koltchak, still loss in promises of the sort given by the ex-Russian officers who form his entourage. They have promised that they will have the Constituent Assembly summoned when they get to Moscow, but it will be obviously contrary to their interests to have that Constituent Assembly summoned, because they will go when it is summoned, unless they can so satisfactorily cook the election as to get representation, which will be even more a farce than the Soviet representation. Obviously there is no sort of security we can obtain that Admiral Koltchak will carry out his promise, which he has not made yet and which he may not make, to summon the Constituent Assembly as soon as he gets to Moscow.

When you see that all the people on the spot in Siberia who have any dealings with Admiral Koltchak regard him as being a pure reactionary and merely anxious to re-establish Czarism in Russia, can you wonder that there are still some people in this House who will do their very best, not only here but in the country, where we get very large meetings, to prevent the English name being sullied by association with the restoration of the Rasputin regime that used' to prevail in that country? We believe that we are doing service to our country and' to Russia by preventing or attempting to prevent any such fatal steps in the direction of the restoration of the autocracy in Russia. The right hon. Gentleman said in the earlier part of his speech, in which I heartily concur, that whatever we did in Russia would be in strict conformity with the views of the five Great Powers. That is good news. If we can be assured by an absolutely empty Treasury Bench that there would be no steps taken in Russia with which the Americans do not agree or in which the Americans do not take part, then, indeed, we on these benches may feel some confidence in what we have done. But I would observe that when it comes to supplying munitions of war to General Denikin or Admiral Koltchak, and when it comes to supplying these people with our surplus stock, we are not the only country that has a surplus stock of munitions, and it might be easier to get this surplus stock of munitions to Admiral Koltchak if it were sent from America, and was not sent by sea at exorbitant freights to the Eastern end of Siberia. If there is agreement of aims among the five Allies, we might get the surplus stock nearer to the scene of action, rather than send from here, at the cost of many millions of pounds, munitions which might possibly ultimately come into the hands of the opponents of Admiral Koltchak.

There is another point in this question. If there is this co-operation, can we be assured that we shall not recognise Admiral Koltchak and shall not be in cooperation with him unless warfare in the East is carried on by Admiral Koltchak and General Denikin on civilised lines? It must be notorious now to every Mem- ber of the House that warfare, as carried on in that country, is not civilised warfare. I do not know whether any hon. Member has seen in the "Daily Herald" an account of the death train that has been going up and down Siberia for two months, containing the prisoners taken by Admiral Koltchak at Samara and elsewhere. There were 24,000 prisoners locked up in a train and gradually starved to death as the train moved through Siberia. It is details like these, which are gradually coming to light, which will create a feeling of horror in this country against the atrocities committed by nominal Allies of ours in that country. The Red Terror is horrible, but the White Terror is even more terrible, because it is far more extensive and affects a far larger number of persons than the Red Terror. The sort of operations of war carried on by these rival bands of banditti in Russia is a form of warfare with which we ought not to be associated. If we are associated with it. it behoves us to protect the honour of our country by seeing that these troops, who are nominal Allies, should have with them British officers who will see that the methods of warfare employed are methods of a fairly civilised description. Prisoners are mown down by machine guns in bodies, and the decimation of prisoners is of frequent occurrence. When you have these towns changing hands over and over again, unless there is some firm hand kept on the victorious army, you will have re-enacted the butcheries which characterised the days of Tamerlane and Ghinghaz Khan.

2.0 p.m.

I hope the five Allies will not recognise Koltchak, but I fear the right hon. Gentleman has committed us to a three years war in Russia. It has begun in a small way but before civil government is re-established it will certainly last for years to come. The only way to get out of it is' to change the Minister for War and change the Government which supports him. We have been rushed into it far more than any of the other partners in the Alliance. We have been taking the most prominent part. The French, Greeks and Italians have been withdrawn from the scene of action. We are still there, and it has become obvious that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Churchill) is the principal advocate of this war with Russia. It is not, I believe, the Prime Minister, who tried to get negotiations started at Prinkipo and elsewhere. It is the direct action of the War Office and the Minister in charge which has landed us first of all in the expedition to Archangel, secondly in the panic about the troops at Archangel, a purely imaginary panic, then in a further expedition to support the troops in danger at Archangel, then in an expedition, in combination with the Admiralty, and with the Finns, whose pro-German views are notorious. All these expeditions have been fanned and organised by the right hon. Gentleman. He has been a tool in the hands of the military authorities, and it is not only when we look here, but when we look elsewhere, we see that the military power everywhere, the militarists in every country, instead of accepting the Peace as the end of the War, have determined to turn the Peace of Paris into a lasting, a just and durable war throughout the world. They have made their arrangements in Russia and elsewhere. The Peace which is being made in Paris is not the Peace for which I fought or for which the majority of English people fought in this War. We fought for the Fourteen Points of President Wilson, but we have not got a peace on those lines. It has been changed and twisted by the interests concerned, the military and the diplomatic interests at Paris till we have got reconstructed before our eyes upon the basis of the just. Fourteen Points a peace such as was perpetuated by the great Powers 104 years ago. I will not hold myself responsible in any way for that sort of peace. The Saar Valley is an injustice. The occupation of the left bank of the Rhine is an injustice. The non-self-determination of the border districts of Poland and Prussia is an injustice. The dismemberment of the purely Turkish parts of the Turkish Empire is another injustice. All these are contrary to the terms of the Armistice as they were understood by both sides, and any peace that is formed upon injustice can never be maintained by a League of Nations. It is impossible to have a League of Nations which is a true basis of the international brotherhood of the future if it has to maintain a settlement which is unjust. These people who led us on to fight for the destruction of Imperialism and militarism and injustice have taken advantage of the enthusiasm they aroused. At the end they have tied up the people in the old bonds, and will preserve the opportunity for the wars they need in the future.

I wish to turn to quite another subject. The House has not had an opportunity of discussing the facts in connection with the strike which was threatened by the police. There is no one inside the House, and I hope there are very few outside, who are not very glad, indeed, that that strike was averted, all except that small minority of individuals who prefer revolution to redress. I am extremely thankful that the strike was averted. But the causes of the trouble have not altogether been removed, and the House will be wise if it considers carefully the real causes of the unrest. When one remembers what the record of the police force has been in the past, its record for good nature and for tact, which, indeed, has been commended by the Home Secretary it is incredible that this body, the finest civic body of its kind in the whole world, should suddenly be transformed into a number of revolutionaries by the efforts of a few extremists. You have to look deeper than that, and although it is often said if these men had adequate wages and better hours there would be an end of all the trouble, that is not quite so. Human nature is built in such a way that wages and hours do not count for everything. So long as there is the feeling that the men have been treated unjustly, and that there has been a breach of faith, so long will there be causes of disturbance, however excellent the wages you give them or however short the hours granted to them. I do not think the House fully realises that the police force as a whole has at least some justification for its belief that there has been a breach of faith. First of all, the Home Secretary, only a few weeks ago, assured the House that there was no crisis. We were then within a few weeks of a big crisis. If the right hon. Gentleman was advised correctly, he would have known that already the preparations for a strike were being made. I can only presume that he is badly advised, because certainly many people were fully aware of what was going on. I was, for one.

You have to look right back to the time of the August strike to understand the position of the police at present. For years the police have been trying to get their grievances redressed. They have used all the ordinary channels which were open to them. They have applied to the authorities in the proper way, and they have failed to get redress. That is admitted on all hands. At last they formed a union, and the union organised a strike. All strikes are deplorable, without exception, and I regret that the strike took place, but it is difficult to deny that it was justified, for the Prime Minister himself, almost immediately it was called, went into the questions individually, and with a characteristic oratorical gesture said, "Why was I not told before?" and he immediately made some drastic alterations. No official record was kept of the speeches made at that interview, but I have had access to some who were present, and I want to direct attention to the words which I believe were used, because unless you hear them you will not understand why it is that the police quite sincerely believe they were not treated fairly. I am informed that these words were repeated the same night in many places, and I believe they are correct. The Prime Minister said this to the men:

"You can have representative committees farmed at the different stations or divisions which will forward your grievances to the executive committee and then direct to me."

He was talking to the executive of the union, introduced by the president of the union (Mr. Duncan), and when the Prime Minister used those words you can well understand the men believed he was obviously speaking of their committee. Afterwards those expressions were more or less explained away. I am told the Prime Minister did not intend that at all. He was speaking to the policemen as policemen and not as members of the union. But I ask hon. Members, can they not understand the men believing that phrase was intended to cover their union, and that the representations of the executive of the union would be received and eventually forwarded direct to the Prime Minister? In the Report which was presented by Lord Cave, then the Home Secretary, these words were used:

"He could not in war-time sanction the recognition of the police union."

The Prime Minister used those words in war time. What would that convey to any ordinary body of men but that when the War was over, at least the whole question would be carefully considered? The men have some justification for believing that, not intentionally but in practice, they were misled. I am giving reasons which I think are adequate to understand the mind of the police, and until you understand their mind on this matter you will never deal properly or adequately with their grievances. We are informed there was no objection to their belonging to a union at all. Step by step, the men were led to understand not that it was recognised, but had attained a semi-official recognition, and certainly it cannot be swept away by a single stroke of the pen without inquiry. They feel that strongly.

I will not say a word of exaggeration or a word which will make it more difficult to bring about the harmonious relations I hope to see. These are not men of the lowest form of education—indeed, they have to pass a high examination, and they are not chosen only for their mental or physical capacity, but there is a close inquiry into their moral characters. A candidate for the police has to go through a categorical inspection of his previous character, such as no Member of this House ever has to pass. These are not men who can easily be moved by two or three wild enthusiasts or agitators. I fully admit that many foolish things have been said on their behalf, but that is not sufficient reason for putting on one side the real grounds they have for an inquiry. Unfortunately, with a strange fatality, the authorities pursue a line of policy which could only tend to the aggravation of the position. I will not say a word against General Macready. I have never seen him. I dare say he is a very able gentleman. It was singularly unfortunate that at this particular time he should have been appointed to this post, because not only the police but I believe the civilian population of this country did not want the police force to have any trace of militarism about it, and this appointment gave an impression to the police that somehow or other there was to be a tightening up of the military side of police administration and discipline. I cannot take the House into all the details of the series of small incidents which culminated in the threat of a strike; but take the case of election to the new representative committee. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will say that those committees are representative. They are not really elected by the men, because the men absolutely and flatly refused to vote. In one division of about 900 men not 100 voted, while in one police station with ninety or 100 men only four voted. It may be their fault, but the fact remains that the so-called representative bodies have not the confidence of the police. Somehow or other, rightly or wrongly, the police feel that they are not adequately represented. We have heard in this House about the method by which the police union have conducted their ballot. How was the election to these representative bodies conducted? Instead of its being a voluntary election, orders were actually given for the police to attend at the election. How do you imagine that men who may be inclined, let us say, to look for cases of injustice are going to act when they are ordered to attend at an election, thereby believing that they are being coerced? The scrutineers were also ordered to be scrutineers in this free election. These incidents are small in themselves, but when combined they lead to the feelings of irritation which culminated in the threat of a strike.

I do not think it is wise for us to gloat over the failure of this strike or to be joyful in expressions about smashing the union. We do not want to do anything to engender a strike. We want to see the host way out of the difficulty. We have not settled the problem. I want to see it settled. I have studied the police question long before I was a Member of this House, and I do think the time has come when not only the particular question of recognition should be settled, but other matters as well. Recognition may not be possible—I am not prejudiced on the point —but if possible it must mean a good deal of the ordinary powers of a union. I can conceive nothing more lamentable than a police union which might come out on a sympathetic strike. One does not help one's case by shutting one's eyes to these facts; but we must realise that the time has come for reconsideration of the general administration of the police. The strike in August was practically condoned by the Prime Minister, and the course adopted was fully justified by the facts. We are dealing with a body of men who are quite ready to be reasonable, leaving aside, of course, any extremists who may and do exist. The time has come for this House to take the whole matter in hand, and I feel sure that if a Committee was appointed to inquire into the general administration of the police we should have an end of the trouble. Apart from considerations of pay and hours, it is time the House gave more attention to this question. Knowing the men as I do, and knowing their past history and record, which everyone admits is one almost without parallel in any force in the world—in-deed, they are the envy of the world for their general behaviour—we should be wise in putting aside all personal feelings and trying to examine into all the circumstances which have led to this unrest.

You have two facts to consider. First, that the men had good reason for believing at least the question of the recognition of the union would be considered after the War; and secondly—a fact which cannot be denied, that the present representative body is not representative, that they distrust it, rightly or wrongly; they do not believe in it, they have not voted for it, and until some better method obtains of getting access to the authorities on the questions on which they are agreed we shall not have grappled with the problems that require solution. I cannot conceive any greater disaster than that this body should come out on strike. I do not complain of the Government making due preparations for carrying on the government of the country, but it would be a disaster whether they manage to carry on without the police or with a depleted force of police. It would be a disaster if a great body like this, which has done such wonderful service, should be in a any way demoralised or its power should be in any way weakened. I hope there may still be a way by which the whole question can be considered without in any way pledging myself or anyone else or the public to the recognition of the union. So far as the union is concerned, there has been semi official recognition, because the placards of the union are exhibited on the, premises of practically every police station. Indeed, one of their head officials at one station seeing a notice of the Police Union suggested that such notices should be put on the board with the official notices of the police. In face of these facts it is idle to try to sweep it on one side, and to say that it is a body of whose existence the Government are not aware. The Home Secretary said the other day that there is no Police Union. I do not know what legal frame of mind ho was in when he made that statement. Perhaps he had some meaning which I as a layman do not attach to words. The union exists and has been recognised by practically every police authority in England. Police administration has failed not through any faults of individuals—I am not blaming the right hon. Gentleman—but because of the system, and it is time we took into careful deliberation all those aspects of discipline and administration which I be lieve would maintain and increase the power of the police and its value to the community.

The House and the country are indebted to the hon. Member for raising this important matter and for the temperate and moderate way in which he has put forward his case. There is no doubt that considerable alarm is felt by the public and the police in regard to the circumstances arising out of last Sunday, and which commenced in August last. Before the House rises for the Recess, it would be very helpful both to the public and police if the Home Secretary could see his way to make a statement which would alleviate the anxiety of both the public and the police. Although I do not follow the argument of my hon. Friend in all respects, I do agree that the right way to approach this most interesting and complicated problem is to ascertain the mind of the police, and I do-not think that in my remarks I could do better than to commence by saying things which may be somewhat platitudinous, and, taking a brief survey of what the police are in this country, I do not exaggerate when I say that they are the protectors and the confidants of law-abiding citizens. They are an essential part of the State's safety, security, and convenience, and the phrase "ask a policeman," which is a household word, is very true as expressing in a sentence the way in which we of the public rely upon the police in all the exigencies of the moment. The curious thing is that their status is unique. I do not think that in any community in the world you can find police who have the same relation to the civil population that our police have to us. It is not a military relation, and it is not strictly a civil relation; it is an unique relation. They are the summary arbiters of difficult questions. Whether it may be a man's alcoholic state or a woman's honour, they have to decide, and their decision is very often final. You go into a Court of law and you find a woman branded by the police as a prostitute because the police say so and believe it. The police are the arbiters as to whether a man is in a condition that is known as drunk.

The liberty of the subject is entirely in the hands of the police. They have the right of arrest, and there is no redress to the subject supposing that that right is exercised upon erroneous grounds.

In the question of street difficulties they are the arbiters. The right hand of the policeman held up is almost as potent as the intervention of Mr. Speaker or the Deputy-Speaker in our proceedings. Their own lives are very often in jeopardy. They carry their lives in their hands in many cases where they have to deal with desperate criminals. They are the infallible oracles and friendly despots of our streets. They go into the law courts and present their case to the magistrate, and many magistrates have told me that they very often are compelled to rely upon the verbal accuracy with which the policemen will quote from their note-books or will recount certain facts that have happened in the course of the case. In addition to that—but fortunately in London it does not obtain as much as in the provinces, and it is a great mistake where it does happen— promotion in the police should in no way depend upon securing convictions. I have had great experience in opposition to the police, and since the War began—although I do not want to advertise my War experience—I have been a mere policeman. I have had opportunities as a special constable and as an inspector in the Bow Street division of knowing the police from the inside as well as in the street, and of realising that the functions of the police are of enormous importance to the work of the State. Upon their human discernment may depend the salvation or the damnation of a man or woman. Take the case of some sexual practice charged against some man or women. The policeman makes the charge and gives his opinion, and that man's or woman's future is entirely damned supposing that that opinion be correct. On the other hand, many a man and many a woman has been saved by the friendly attitude of the police. I know of many cases where the superior police officers have intervened and given a man or a woman a chance, and the same is equally true of the ordinary police constable. That is what you ask of the police. You must demand a high standard of honour and integrity from the police, and of discernment and of judgment Very often the policeman's opinion is the thing that guides and will determine whether or not a prosecution is to be promoted. That is a tremendous thing to ask of men.

In these circumstances, making these cogent requirements upon the police, we find it is a fact that until the month of August last year the Metropolitan police constable's pay was 43s. a week, and it took him twenty years to obtain that paltry pittance, having started at 30s. I. know that, in addition, a married man had lodging allowance of 2s. 6d., with 2s. 6d. for every child of school age, and 1s. for boots; but that was the position until August, 1918. Therefore the House welcomes the announcement of the Home Secretary with regard to the attention that he is paying to the increase of the pay of the police and to the Police Provident Association. I am certain he will not only deal with the ordinary police constables, but that he will extend his investigations and those of the Committee that has been appointed to the question of the pay of the higher ranks. It is very-important that the higher ranks, particularly in the Metropolitan Police, should be put on equal pay with chief constables in the various boroughs of the Kingdom, because a superintendent of police in the Metropolis certainly has much more important functions to perform and many more men under his charge than has an ordinary chief constable in the provinces. My right hon. Friend intervened at the right moment, so far as he was concerned. It is no fault of his that it was a mere tardy act of justice. It is one of the-tragedies of our State that this country never intervenes until it is forced to do so. It was only pressure from one source and another that brought this matter (o a head. In the coal miners' dispute you did not intervene until you were; forced; the conductresses of tramways had to threaten a strike before intervention came. It is no fault of the right hon. Gentleman. He was not at the Home Office, but it was largely the fault of the system. We never seem to see an injustice until it is forced upon our notice. I hope my right hon. Friend will tell the House what is his attitude and that of the Government with-regard to the National Union of Police and Prison Officers. Of course, they take all the credit. They say, and not without some justice, that if they had not come along there never would have been a rise in pay, but the credit is not all theirs. They say in the old words— and I am not infringing the Rule of Order—"Codlin's the friend, not Short." In those circumstances they come along, and I was one of those at the election, and there were others of us, who, viewing this matter from the ordinary rules of collective bargaining and believing that it is trade unionism that has largely given the working man. the liberties and the justice that he has obtained, thought, why should not the police union be recognised in the same way as any other union?

But certainly the performances of those who are behind the so-called National Union of Police and Prison Officers have caused, at all events me, and I think many others, to alter their views. The National Union of Prison Officers would be very interesting as far as the convicts are concerned, and I am certain that they would be glad if there was a strike. Take the test case of Police Constable Spackman. We were threatened last Sunday with the whole of the metropolis being plunged into disorder, with no Epsom, no trooping of the Colour, nothing to happen in this week of jubilation, and one of the principal reasons was that Police Constable Spackman had to be reinstated. I have taken the trouble to find out what that constable did. On the 1st of April, an appropriate date of this year, there was a notice posted up by a sub-divisional inspector upon a station noticeboard, and Police Constable Spackman calmly wrote across it and signed his name to it. "No action." What alternative had the Chief Commissioner, or any other man who respects law and order in this country, but to tell Police Constable Spackman that his activities were of more use elsewhere? It is perfectly idle to ask the State to sanction or encourage such gross Bolshevism as that. Then there is the question of affiliation to other associations. The beautiful idea of these gentlemen was that they should have a sort of sympathetic union with other unions and therefore, in combination with the Triple Alliance, that they should simply hold their hand upon the jugular vein of the State and be able to plunge the whole of this country into disorder and anarchy. No State can stand that. Then, of course, in the way in which tyrannical people generally proceed, the way in which they themselves have been resorting to what the trade unions always put their heels down upon, and that is victimisation, is interesting to observe. They have an organ called, "The Police and Prison Officers' Magazine," and on the 23rd January of this year a certain policeman named Patterson wrote this:

"There is one point which must not be lost sight of. That is, that every member of the board must be a union member, and that only union members' complaints will be considered by the board. I know that the authorities will say that this is victimisation, but I will refer them to the very old saying, Self-preservation is the first law of nature. But I am going to suggest that we do in future only represent ranks up to and including inspectors."

That is victimisation, and therefore the proposition was that unless a man came into the union he was not to be allowed to have his complaint heard or his grievances redressed. That might be all very well in ordinary industrial matters. It may be necessary if you are dealing with any ordinary trade, but my point is that the police is not an ordinary trade. The police stand upon an entirely different footing. I believe they are heartily ashamed of their union and that they are heartily ashamed of the threatened strike. What they complain of is the miserable pay that they receive, a pay which was a disgrace to the State that allowed it-, a matter that ought to have been redressed years ago, not because we want to spend money, but because it is true economy. If our lives and our liberties and all that we care for, our safety, our security, and our welfare are bound up, as they are bound up, in the action of the police, it is ordinary economy as well as justice and generosity that these men ought to be properly paid. Now they are ashamed, and they want to come back, and I agree with my hon. Friend that the last thing that any man should do is to say, "The State's truncheon is bigger than your truncheon, and we have beaten you." Give them a golden bridge over which to come, and show them that the State will do everything that it can, although it may be—and I expect my right hon. Friend will say so—that an ordinary union cannot be tolerated in a police force. At the same time, they must have their right of redress, and because of the peculiar constitution of their force they cannot combine in such a way as would lead to strikes and plunge the whole community into panic. For that reason more than adequate opportunities ought to be furnished to the police to ventilate every possible grievance to headquarters.

The experiment of a representative board was tried. The earlier experiment was a representative board irrespective of ranks, and you had inspectors, sergeants, and police constables on one board. That was hopeless, because it undermined discipline. Then you tried, in about April last, the better system of representative boards, one for inspectors, one for sergeants, and a third for police constables. I believe the inspectors' boards and the sergeants' boards are working well, but the police constables' boards are not working as well as they might, because, as my hon. Friend says, they will not vote. I thought the case of the other side was that we were only in a majority here because people would not vote, but if they will not vote it is their fault. The point is, however, that you want confidence, and you want the men to feel, not that they are brought there by the crack of the whip, but that they come there of their own volition, and that they shall have access, whatever their complaint, not only to the Chief Commissioner, but to the Home Secretary himself. If you deny men what will ordinarily be their right of collective bargaining, the right of using the strike weapon in the last, resort, then you must, as compensation for them, give them every adequate provision to make their wants known and to have their grievances come to the very highest quarter and be ventilated, if necessary, in Parliament itself, and there must be no victimisation. We all know that the one thing a man is afraid of is that if he is a prominent man in making complaints he is a marked man and will not get his promotion. I am certain that my right hon. Friend and the Chief Commissioner will take steps to prevent that state of things; but it must not be supposed that Codlin is right, that the trade union is right, in stating that all the grievances have been redressed because if its intervention. It is not true.

We have at the present moment in Sir Nevil Macready a man who is doing his very best in particularly difficult circumstances. I have here a list, which covers three pages of foolscap, of reforms that have been brought about in the service without any intervention by the representative boards or the union or anybody on behalf of the men. There is, for instance, the 2s. 6d. allowance for children per week, the extension of that grant to all officers up to and including superintendents, general increases of clothing allowances, the appointment of two superintendents to the rank of chief constable, the question of promotion considered, accused officer allowed a friend on the discipline board, allowance increased temporarily for funeral expenses, refreshment allowance granted for duty performed on special occasions although not a continuous duty of nine hours, provision against officers losing seniority through service in His Majesty's Forces, sick allowances dealt with, chief inspector's allowance increased. There is also the appointment of Lord Desborough's Committee to consider the police questions generally. All these are matters dealt with without any intervention on the part of the men, and on the initiative either of the Commissioner or the Home Office or the authorities.

There is only one other matter with which I will trouble the House, and that is a matter on which I am certain that the police feel strongly, and that is the question of promotion. I am not going to deal with the ordinary promotion. That is a matter in considering which you have to consider not only a man's ability and seniority but the combination of those things. I am dealing now with what does seem to me to be a matter that ought to be considered by the Home Office, and I beg to draw the Home Secretary's attention to it. you want the policeman to have a career that attracts the better class man. I am not talking about the socially better class, but the man of intellect who desires to get on in his profession. In every other profession you keep the plums and prizes for the people who have succeeded. Even in my own much-abused profession there are plums. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] There are not as many as there ought to be and they are certainly not always allocated to the right people, but there are plums. Supposing you were to put a doctor on the Woolsack, or to make a superintendent of police a general in the field, you would say, "How absurd!" Why should you keep your chief-constableships so largely for men who know nothing whatever about police work? Why should you appoint to such posts a perfectly respectable and useful soldier who is retiring and wants a job and a certain amount of social life in the counties or boroughs, and who knows absolutely nothing about the police? The work wants a bit of knowing, yet you allow your watch committee or other authority to appoint a man who knows nothing about the job. I say without fear of contradiction, and I believe I will carry the House and the country with me, that that ought to be stopped. The policeman moving up from the bottom ought to be just as much entitled to the plums of his profession as a member of the legal or ecclesiastical profession or of any other occupation. I hope that my right hon. Friend, with his passion for reform and the strength he brings to bear on such questions, will deal with this matter and prevent this gross anomaly which places soldiers, incompetent for police work, into positions as chief constables in boroughs and counties.

I conclude, as I began, by expressing the hope that nobody on either side of the House or in the country will try to make this matter of the police into a party matter, or to gain political capital out of it. I am perfectly certain of this, that all of 'them, from the youngest constable right up to the superintendent, are ashamed of the position of affairs that arose in August only for a day, and nearly arose again during this week. We want to forget it. What we want to do is to make the policeman feel that he is the friend of the citizen, one of us, and I am perfectly certain that under the auspices of my right hon. Friend the House may part for the Whitsuntide Recess with a knowledge that past events will be forgotten, and that the police will retain the nation's confidence as our natural friends.

I can assure the House that the Government are most grateful to both my hon. and learned Friends for introducing this subject. Although I stick to the phrase I used the other day, in which I said there was no crisis, and that I have sufficient faith in the honour and loyalty of the police to know that there was not a crisis, none the less the position is such that a statement of some kind is necessary. I agree that there were amongst the police many grievances which ought to have been remedied some time ago. It is true that they came to a head very largely during the period of War, and, of course, it is very difficult in a period of war to give your attention to matters which can be shelved; it is very difficult to take your attention from the more urgent and important matter of fighting and to turn to those which are grievances of a less urgent character, grievances which the persons who bear them are too loyal to broach. Therefore, undoubtedly and unfortunately, the police grievances were not attended to as soon as they ought to have been. Amongst the police, as everywhere else, the main grievance is always financial. The main police grievance was undoubtedly financial. It is true there were other questions that arose. With the main grievance we are taking steps to deal. One of the first things I did when I went to the Home Office was to appoint Lord Desborough's Committee, consisting of experienced and able gentlemen who could be trusted to give a reasoned and sound Report, and one which would be a very useful guide. I have already announced, as far as pay is concerned, that although we do not yet know what the proposals of the Committee will be, the Government are prepared to increase pay—the starting pay—of every constable to not less than 70s. a week. We did not announce the definite figure because the Committee have not yet reported. That will not mean a loss of 6d. ultimately to the police, because equally I have announced that whatever the change may be, whether 70s. or more, it will date back to 1st April. Therefore the police will not be the losers merely by the fact that the Committee does not report at once.

Equally, we are providing for the question of pensions, of allowances, and what is, especially among the London police, a very important question, the question of the housing of the police. The housing of the police in London is a very difficult matter. Men who have to perform their duties in the city or in regions like the centre of London very often have to live very far out and away from their work. It is a matter of great hardship to them. Proper provision will be made to remove that hardship, and I have no doubt, from the evidence that has been put before Lord Desborough's Committee with regard to the question of housing, that we shall have some strong recommendations made upon that point; but, whether there are or not, it is a question which is receiving the close attention of the Commissioner and myself and our advisers, and we hope to put that upon a satisfactory footing. You have the question of the immediate pay that goes on during the men's time of work, and the question of their pensions. There is another question which has also been engaging our attention, and that is the question of what is known as the Police Provident Association. It is rather a misnomer to call it a provident association, and perhaps some Members of the House may not know what it is. There is no fund of money at all now. There are no rights connected with it. What happens is this: If a policeman retires, a collection is made amongst all his colleagues, and a lump sum is raised for him and given to him on his retirement. If he dies, equally a collection is made and a lump sum is handed over to his widow and dependants. But there is no fund, no- regular weekly payment, no right. No man to-day who has been paying on the retirement of his colleagues for fifteen or twenty years has any right to a similar collection for himself. They depend entirely on the good will of one to the other.

That is not a very satisfactory state of things, when you get a body like that which calls itself the National Union of Police and Prison Officers, which, as we have information, has decided that in future no man, no matter how generously he may have subscribed to his friends in the past, is to have a collection made for him unless he is a member of the union. Whether or not that is victimisation or oppression or. what my hon. Friend would call coercion, at any rate it does not seem to be right. Therefore what we have done is this: We have entered into negotiations with one of the foremost insurance companies in the country, and we are now putting the whole thing upon a sound financial basis. We have calculated about how much the average policeman pays in subscriptions for his friends and colleagues in the course of the year, and upon the basis of that we have arranged for a subscription, and from now forward whenever a policeman retires he will receive as a right—there is no question of depending on goodwill—a lump sum in addition to his pension to start him with. If he dies his widow and dependants will receive a lump sum. Of course, that does involve a certain amount of Treasury expenditure. It involves this: You get a man who has been paying for fifteen or twenty years and you cannot expect the insurance company to take a man of such an age with the same payment and give him the same rights as, they would give to a newly-joined constable. Therefore we have had to provide for a certain sum of money which is actually necessary in order to put the older men on the same footing as the younger. It is not a serious sum. It will diminish year by year until it disappears. But the Government and Treasury have- consented, and that has been done.

So that the position with regard to finance is this: We are trying to put the question of housing and allowances upon a more satisfactory footing. Little finicking allowances are irritating things. It is far better to pay a man a proper sum. We intend the sum to be paid to be generous. You ought to pay the men so that they and their wives and families can maintain the position which they ought to occupy as members of a great force. We want to pay them in that way. They ought, if they are to be loyal and to abide by the terms of their contract with the State, to have their future provided for. Therefore what we are trying to get is a generous pension for the future, and a lump sum to start them with when they retire. That, with decent housing accommodation will, we hope, at any rate be a reasonable attempt to meet what we believe to have been genuine grievances in the past.

In regard to insurance may I ask, does it involve a weekly payment by each member of the force, and, if so, what is that payment likely to be?

If my hon. Friend will forgive me I have not yet quite finished with the details.

But will there be a contribution?

It will involve instead of paying a few shillings occasionally as a subscription, the payment of a weekly amount.

Will it be compulsory?

I should be inclined to say not, but that is a matter which the police will decide for themselves through their own bodies. So far as the Government are concerned we should not make it compulsory, although we hope that every policeman will have the sense to join it. With regard to promotion, I have hoard it suggested that an attempt is being made to militarise the police as a force. Nothing is further from the truth. I have met many soldiers. I do not think I have met any soldier who is less of a military martinet than is General Sir Nevil Macready. He is accused of bringing in soldiers from outside. Of the four chief constables in the London police, two are soldiers, and they were appointed before Sir Nevil Macready became Commissioner. He had nothing whatever to do with their appointment. Since he has been Commissioner two have been appointed; both of them worked their way up in the ranks and have got just that kind of promotion which you must have if you are going to make any force a reality. It is true he took General Horwood into the force, but he was a trained policeman; he had had some years' experience in the police and he was chosen for his high position because of his police experience. Another gentleman was brought in because he happened to be singularly adapted for dealing with horses and horsemen, and the was brought in with a view to the reconstruction and development of the horse section. All General Macready's promotions have been from amongst the police themselves. They have been promotions by merit and not by seniority. What we propose to do in the future and what we are aiming at is to have a proper and contented force, to which is held out every inducement for intelligence, industry, capacity and zeal, and we look forward to a force on whose loyalty in the future we can depend as we have done in the past.

What about promotion in the country?

We have not the same control over promotions in the country, but I hope that in future there will be a more unified central system for the police all over the country. There is great diversity at present. The whole thing lacks coordination, and if the educational system in this country were on the same lines we should certainly have a state of educational chaos. Now I come to the question of the work of the National Union of Police and Prison Officers. That union undoubtedly came into existence because of grievances, and any success it may have obtained in securing members has been because there were unremedied grievances. It is a body which undoubtedly has attempted to exercise very great influence over the police forces of the country. The dispute, we all know, culminated in August last year, when the unfortunate strike took place, but at that time an agreement was entered into. There were negotiations, and there were interviews, and I agree with my hon. Friend it is a pity that no official record was kept of those interviews. But if we have no official record of what was said we fortunately have a definite record of what was agreed to, and it is signed by Police Constable Marston, the then spokesman for the police, and now the president of the union. We have a definite document signed by him, and I will tell the House exactly what was agreed to at that time.

In the first place, there was definite agreement as to what was to be the position of the force with regard to the union, and what arrangements were to be made for the force having the power of collective representation of their grievances or their aspirations. They were to have representative bodies to deal with matters connected with conditions of service and their general welfare, other than questions of discipline. That was a definite agreement which Mr. Marston signed. It was to be a representative board to deal with general conditions other than questions of discipline. This was a most important part of the agreement. I will not trouble the House with details, but I want to give another paragraph, also signed by Mr. Marston, which was to the effect that the organisation shall be entirely within the force, and shall be entirely independent of any association and any outside body." There Mr. Marston signed on behalf of the police force, for whom he purported to speak and write what the representative board" was to deal with. It was to be all matters except discipline and it was to be entirely independent of any outside body. When it came to the question of dealing with the union itself, this is what Mr. Marston signed. Referring to General Orders 61 and 62 (these were old orders which had dealt with the question whether constables were to be allowed to join a union or not) it was agreed—,

"It is notified that there will be no objection to a member of the force joining the National Union of Police and Prison Officers so long as such union does not claim or attempt to interfere with the regulations and discipline of the service or to induce members of the force withhold their services ''——

Thus Mr. Marston pledged himself that the union would not either claim or attempt to interfere with the regulations of the service or to induce members of the force to withhold their services. And the paragraph went on—

"but that in the event of a breach of this condition, members of the force may be called upon to sever their connection with such union."

That was what Mr. Marston signed. I do not care what took place at the interviews. This was the result of the interviews— this was the final decision which he signed. The police were to manage their own affairs through their representative body, which was to be free from outside interference, and members of the force were to join the union only on the condition that the union made no attempt to- interfere with the regulations, and if that were done then they were to be liable to be called upon to withdraw from the union. That is what took place. How has that agreement been kept? We knew at the first that the National Union of Police and Prison Officers would be quite likely to call a strike, because in their own rules —in Rule 2, which deals with the objects of the union—these words are contained:

Rule 2 is:

"(a) To use every legitimate and reasonable effort to maintain a just, impartial and efficient public service.

(b)To promote and encourage at all times the due observance of the regulation, and discipline of the services.

(c)To rigidly maintain a. true sense of obligation to the public by permanently guarding against any possibility of members withholding their services, as a means of obtaining redress, and to Issue all differences between the authorities and the members of the union arranged by amicable and conciliatory means."

That was the old rule, and members of the force were induced to join the force on the strength of that rule. But in August the climax came. The circular was sent out, and it was sent to the Home Secretary.

"The executive committee of the National Union of Police and Prison officers hereby gives notice to the London Metropolitan authorities that hon. compliance with the above demands "——

this was their ultimatum—

"by twelve midnight the 29th August, 1918,will necessitate the suspension of Clauses (a), (b), and (c) of the union, Rule 2, enclosed, and furthermore holds the police authorities responsible for any situation that may arise there-from."

So we had a warning that they were quite capable, in spite of that rule, of declaring a strike if it suited their purposes. But we were prepared to accept the definite pledge and signature of the man who was the spokesman of the police and is now president of the so-called union. We thought, at any rate, we might have relied upon his pledge and on his written word. What has taken place? In December last they started a publication which was called the "Police Officers' Magazine," and from the very first it was clear, from what appeared in that magazine—and I am going to prove my case against them out of their own magazine—that from the very beginning they have never kept one single line of the obligations which they undertook to keep and which were signed by Marston. From the very first they determined that they would secure full control of the repre- sentative board. In the issue of the 19th of December the board was described by the secretary of the representative board itself, Police Constable Patterson:

"The representative boards should be the various representative boards of the police or prison services, divisions or districts working under the auspices of the union."

On the 2nd January the same gentleman wrote:

"If the Commissioner or any person holding an equivalent position refuses to given the representative board entire satisfaction of any just-and reasonable requirements, the board immediately places the matter before the executive committee of the union. … The divisional and station representatives of the Metropolitan Police Representative Board are elected annually on the committee of the branch of the union."

This is an absolute breach of the definite pledge:

"My readers will clearly see that the representative boards must of necessity be leading union members, so the name of the representative board is merely camouflage for the National. Union of Police and Prison Officers."

That is from their own magazine. On 23rd January there appeared the passage which was quoted by my hon. and learned Friend:

"There is one point which must not be lost sight of, and that is that every member of the board must be a union member find that only union members' complaints will be considered by the Hoard. I know that the authorities will say that this is victimisation, but I will refer them to the very old saying, 'that self-preservation is the first law of nature.'"

That is the way they observed the definite pledge that this body was to be free entirely from any outside control or interference, which was accepted by Marston, while all the time they intended that that pledge was never to be kept. As to the higher ranks, they should be in the same union as the police. Constable Patterson says:

"We must also remember that if the higher ranks of the board were to go against the reasonable wishes of the union whilst they are sitting on the board they render themselves liable to be expelled from the union, and thereby lose all the benefits which arise from the same."

That is a position of things that could not possibly go on. Now we know, in addition to that, who was the power which was' running this union. I am not going to make any reflections upon the views and opinions of any people. That does not arise at this particular time, but I know from themselves and from their own magazines that they are in very close-touch with those gentlemen who are con- cerned with the "Daily Herald" newspaper and all its activities. They may be right or wrong. I am not concerned today to discuss that point, but I am justified in saying that the particular people who are concerned with the "Daily Herald "newspaper and its activities are people who can be fairly called extremists. They hold extreme views. They are out for the social revolution. They are out for what are known everywhere as highly extreme views, and it is with those people that the leaders of this National Union of Police and Prison Officers are closely concerned. They have stated definitely themselves that it is the "Daily Herald," of all the London Press, that represents their views; it is in the "Daily Herald," that they publish their ultimatums, and it is to the "Daily Herald" that they refer anyone who wishes to know what are their intentions and desires. That is the kind of political people with whom they are connected, tout they have measures of their own in dealing with the affairs of their own union.

It was clear at one time that some leakage was taking place, and in the issue of the magazine of the 20th March a certain, gentleman name Mr. Thiel—he is the paid organiser of the union—set out a private letter written by a chief constable, and he said:

"It is strange how these chief constables' confidential memos and letters get into my hands.''

Then he proceeded to quote another which was also private and confidential. But in the same issue there was a certain branch secretary who in his report let in a little light as to the methods, and I cannot do-scribe the methods better than in his own words—

"One of their comrades 'somewhere in England' acted as a naughty boy, and stole a letter which a chief constable had written to the secretary of the Chief Constables' Association,"

and then he proceeded to quote it. That was a description of what had taken place. Those are the methods that they adopted. I am not connecting the "Daily Herald" with methods of that kind, but from the political point of view the "Herald" extremists are the people with whom they are associated, and who help to guide their policy. Now with regard to the question of a strike. I would remind the House again that Police Constable Marston had pledged the union that it was not to attempt to interfere with the regulations or discipline of the service and to induce members of the force to withhold their services. Originally the rules of the union were what I have described. They provided for using "every legitimate and reasonable effort to maintain a just, impartial, and efficient public service," and so on. They began by interfering against their pledge with the Representative Board, as I have shown. They began by interfering with the force, the rules, regulations, and even discipline of the police, and then, when they were allowed latitude—and I think wisely allowed latitude, because it was just as well that the public, and the police even more, should know perfectly well what it was we were up against and who it was with whom we were dealing—when they found all this latitude, they proceeded to change the rules of their union—rules which were originally framed so that a strike would be out of the question, rules framed so as to get into membership the sane, sober members of the force, who would not join any body dependent on a strike. They came out into the open and made alterations in their rules. Originally the rules read as I have stated. Rule 2 read as follows:

"(a) To use every legitimate and reasonable effort to maintain a just, impartial and efficient 'public service.'"

That is gone.

"(b) To promote and encourage at all times the due observance of the regulations and discipline of 'the services.'"

That is also wiped out. That is no longer one of their rules.

"(c) To rigidly maintain a true sense of obligation to the public, by permanently guarding against any possibility of members withholding their services as a means of obtaining redress and to have all differences between authorities and members arranged or decided by amicable and conciliatory means."

The words "by permanently guarding against any possibility of members withholding their services as a means of obtaining redress" are gone, and are replaced by these words

"and that in the event of this failing, a ballot vote of all members of the union be taken, and services be not withdrawn unless a majority of two-thirds declare in favour of such withdrawal."

So that they have now come out into the open before the public as a body one of whose rules is to entitle them to call out the police if a two-thirds majority be obtained in favour of that course. In addition to that, the union is affiliated with the London Trades Council, and I think sonic other bodies, and I presume would be liable, as would any other associated union, to a sympathetic strike. If it is not, what use is it to its fellow-unions? I expect fellow-unions who have taken them into association will expect a quid pro quo for what they give, and what can the police give except what Mr. Marston and others foreshadowed on Sunday last— something the police would never do, but something they would persuade the police to do against their will. That is the position with regard to that union.

What have been their open activities? The case of Spackman has been raised over and over again and mentioned in the Press. My hon. and learned Friend described in the House what he had done. Ho was guilty of a piece of gross insubordination, and I do not care in the least whether it is true or not that he was guilty of that insubordination at the bidding of his union. It makes no difference whether he did it at the bidding of his union ox not. Gross insubordination could' not be tolerated by any police force in the country. Of course, he was dismissed, and if there had been any chance of taking him back the activities of the union have made that impossible. It is absolutely inconceivable that a man should be reinstated who had been guilty of that gross insubordination, and who gloried in it, and said be ought to be reinstated because he did it at the bidding of his union. Merely because a number of men marched to Trafalgar Square and Hyde Park, that man must be reinstated and the Commissioner dismissed, without any trial at all, is absolutely impossible. But there is another case. I am not going to mention names, but a man of some years standing in the force, of very good character, had been guilty of gross disobedience. Despite the Commissioner's order, he obeyed that of the union. He also came before the Disciplinary Board and the question was definitely put to this man, "Do you rank the command of the union above that of the Commissioner?" and his answer was, "I do," and he stuck to it. What could be done? The Disciplinary Board were bound, when they tried him, to decree that he should be dismissed the force. They gave him another chance, but he refused to take it and stuck to what he said, "I am bound to obey my union before I do the Commissioner." Then the Commissioner gave this man, who was really a very decent fellow, another chance, and I do not mention his name because he, like a wise man, took it, withdrew from an impossible position, absolutely repudiated that he was any longer bound by the union, and we have been able to deal with him, I am glad to say, in a much more lenient manner than we otherwise would have been able to do. He fortunately took the wise course and withdrew from an impossible position.

But just consider the position of things where an outside independent body seeks through its members to impose its own orders as being above those and superseding those of the Commissioner and others in authority. The position is absolutely impossible, and, having regard to what has taken place, we have come to a definite conclusion, and that is that this state of things cannot continue as it is. I am not going to suggest that the police are to be left without any means of consultation and collective representation, whether it is of grievances or whether it is of aspirations. I attach as much importance to the collective representation of aspirations as I do to the collective representation of grievances. It is clear that, however well the representative boards may work in individual forces—and they have worked exceedingly well in the London force, in spite of what has been said about them, and exceedingly well in many of the provincial forces—they do not provide for any kind of representation of the police as a whole. That is the great failure about them. They have worked well in London. Of the representations they have made since September last, between sixty and seventy of their representations have been satisfactorily dealt with by the Commissioner. Matters which otherwise would not have been brought to his attention were brought to his attention by the board, and they have been put right, and equally it has been so in the country. What we propose is this, and we propose to put it upon a statutory basis, so that the police shall be entitled to it, and no chief commissioner, no chief constable, no watch committee can say, "We are not going to have any of this sort of nonsense in our force." We intend to make it absolutely a right to the force. We intend to make it an association —call it what you will—to include the police as a whole. It will begin as a union of the various forces. I cannot give full details to-day, but we have been con- sidering it very carefully and Lord Des-borough's Committee has been considering it very carefully, but until we have had the opportunity of considering their representations and then of considering them with our own, it would be improper for me to go into any details. But this I can assure the House. The association will be really representative of the police. Every policeman will have a voice in the election of the delegates. It will be representative, not of any one individual force, but there will be provision for the forces and all their representatives conferring whether in districts or whether over the whole country. There will be provision by which the newest-joined constable can have any grievance which is his taken as a right to the very highest authority in the land, and we hope by that means to have a body amongst the police which will really represent them upon a thoroughly sound democratic basis, elected and controlled by themselves, fully representative of themselves, and with full power to bring any grievances or aspirations they may have to the very highest authority in the land. We feel justified in saying this. When that body is set up and is looking after the interest of the police, we will then say definitely, once and for all, no policeman has to belong to a union of any sort or description in accordance with the terms of the agreement signed by Marston. They will be called out of the National Union of Police and Prison Officers, and they will be prohibited from belonging to any union of any kind at all.

What would be the attitude of the Government, assuming that the members of the union already in existence voted against the establishment of the board that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now describing?

I am not quite sure I followed the question of the hon. Member, but if he means what will be the attitude of the Government if they insist upon belonging to the National Union——

That is so!

they will then cease to be policemen. They cannot be both. This is a free country. They are not obliged to be policemen. If they like to be industrial trade unionists they can be; if they like to be policemen they can be; but they cannot possibly be both. It entirely rests with themselves. I have tried to explain to the House what we propose to do to remedy their real and genuine grievances; what we propose to do to enable them by combination, discussion, and joint action to safguard their own interests in every possible way. Having regard to the fact that they are a disciplined force; that they are not an industrial body, having regard to the duties they owe to the State, we are justified in saying: we have given a full trial for nine months, with every latitude to the arrangement, in allowing them to join an outside body. It has hopelessly failed, and must cease to continue. That is the position taken up by the Government.

I sincerely hope, and, indeed, I am confident in saying, that it will meet with the approval of the very large majority of the men. I am certain of this, that the Police Force of London, after all, and, indeed, the police forces all over the country—will not tolerate such a. position as that which was outlined in Hyde Park last Sunday. They were asked to hold their hands for the time being, and to hold over the head of the authorities the threat of a strike. This strike, which was to be timed so as to take place in the hour of the public's greatest need, when the danger was greatest, when the storm-clouds were blackest; that, I say, was to be the time chosen by the guardians of the public to desert their charge and to be faithless to their vows. That was the time they were going to choose. That is the kind of men that we have to meet; the kind of people in this union. That is the kind of people who want to control the police. The more extreme the views, the more extreme the methods that these people contemplate, the more essential it is for their purpose that they should be able to call out the police when the public are relying upon the fact that the police are on duty. Then it would be seen that the police had failed in their duty to protect the public. We have to guard against that. We intend to guard against that. While we intend, so-far as it is possible, to be just and generous to a force which has won the admiration of everyone in the past—and which, I believe, in the main is a force which is just as loyal as any body of men possibly could be—a force which is the pride of this country, a civil force such as no other country knows—we are satisfied we shall be able to keep and maintain them at that high standard—a contented force, too—that is if they are properly and generously treated.

The hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House has touched the point of the difficulty. If the men have taken rather strong action sometimes, as Spackman, for instance, I think that even in that case justice might be combined with mercy, and might go a long way to allay the feelings of the police forces throughout the country and also to allay the unrest amongst the civil population. Might I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should reconsider the Spackman case. Those of us who read the newspapers at the week-end, and thought that a strike was likely to take place, advised the men not to take any action until they saw the promised report so as to know exactly where the police force stood. I am not in any shape or form going to defend the action of those who signed an agreement and then suggested the breaking of it. I believe that to whatever class of society you belong, that if you agree to sign an agreement that agreement ought to be observed and not treated as a mere scrap of paper. Unfortunately, it seems that there are some agreements that have been signed and have been treated as scraps of paper, and nothing more. I fully recognise that there is a difference between an ordinary trade union in ordinary industry and the police force. But I should like to make an appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to take into the fullest confidence the police force in regard to the proposals suggested to be put into the Act of Parliament, and to consult them in regard to what their views are. He need not accept those views, but consult them.

was understood to assent.

And that would go a long way, in my opinion, towards a satisfactory settlement of the matters in dispute. I should just like one word upon another subject. It is reported that there is to be a certain flat rate of payment proposed—one rate for London and another for the provinces, but that they are being given, in addition, house rent.

That is not settled.

Policemen are much concerned about this, as to whether it is to be given in wages or is to be paid separately from their wages. It is difficult for the policeman to meet his outlay anyhow. They are also concerned as to whether or not this allowance for house rent will be taken into consideration in fixing the amount of the pension. If the amount paid for house rent is to be deducted from the pensionable wage then it seems to me there is injustice going to be done. In the final decision, I hope consideration will be given to that aspect of the matter. I trust the police will have the fullest, right to appoint their own officials in connection with any board or committee. If this is granted I think it would go a long way to remove at least one of the grievances that the men have now. I am not going to criticise the brief outline of what is going to be done by the right hon. Gentleman. I think it will be better for all concerned to wait and see in print the details of the scheme. I was very pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman speak as he did in regard to promotion. This is a matter upon which the men, not only in London, but throughout the country, feel very strongly. Many of them study law, the regulations, and so on, and everything they can in connection with the police force, to qualify themselves for the higher posts. When they see a man put into the position of chief constable who knows nothing about the police force it creates an extremely bad feeling in the force, and amongst the most intelligent members of that force. If we could have some assurance, generally speaking, that in the case of the men who qualified themselves in the force for the higher positions their ability would be recognised and promotion would be given to them, it would go a long way toward establishing greater confidence in the police force.

The subject I have the honour to raise is one which may not be so important as the question of the police, but I think it is one upon which a great amount of feeling exists in the country. Those connected with the Labour movement know that hardly a day passes without we receive some communications from the trades councils and other bodies asking what is going to be the policy of the Government in connection with the food situation, which is serious and important so far as the great mass of the people are concerned. At the present time we are gradually relaxing, if not altogether abolishing, control. Whatever may have been said against Government control in other Departments, I believe all hon. Members will agree that so far as food control is concerned, if it had not been for the amount of control established in connection with our food supplies we should never have won the War, and we certainly would not have been able to maintain civil peace inside our own country.

Throughout the length and breadth of the country thousands of people gave splendid voluntary service in the direction of carrying out the Regulations laid down by the Food Minister, and as soon as ever the Armistice was signed an agitation began in the country—I do not know where it started—for the immediate abolition of all forms of control, including food control. We of the Labour party are generally being charged by those opposed to us with being supporters of bureaucracy, and with being out for collectivism, but nothing can be further from the truth. We object to the control of men in the interest of things, and we want to see the control of things in the interest of men. When we are dealing with the food problem we are bound to recognise that in a country such as ours, dependent upon foreign sources for our food supply, it is absolutely essential in the public interest that we should have some means of controlling the position with which we are likely to be brought face to face. At the present moment we are informed on very good authority that some of the wholesale suppliers of food are rationing their customers in the amount of supplies they allow them to have, the idea being that there is a fear that as soon as ever the final Peace terms are signed the scramble for food will mean the possibility of getting greater prices. Consequently those who have control of supplies are taking time by the fore-look and organising for the future in that respect. I am not blaming those people. They are in business, not for the good of our health, but they are in business for profit, and nothing else matters to them. Consequently, whatever they may do in their own interests only makes it all the more justifiable that we should do something in our own interests.

At the present moment, according to a Report presented by the Committee appointed by the Minister of Reconstruction, we have, practically speaking, a very important section of the food supply, not merely of this country, but of the world, dominated by the American Meat Trust. That trust, during the four and a half years the War lasted, made £39,500,000 extra profits over and above the amount of profits made in a similar period previous to the War. They have practically been able, by the exercise of their power, and through their control of the meat supplies of the civilised world, to exact this extortion. So far as this country is concerned, and other countries have been dependent upon them, they have paid practically nothing towards the taxation consequent upon the War. If I were inclined to be facetious, I could make some fun out of the names connected with this trust. Evidently we have not defeated all the Germans yet, because an inspection of the names shows that some of the gentlemen who control this trust are special representatives of German-America. Now that America has decided to separate herself from the international buying of supplies for the Allies, this German influence might be exercised in a direction which might be to our disadvantage when Peace is finally signed.

We not merely have the fact that we have this monopoly, but practically in all our important industries, including food, we have in our own country the same system developing by means of trade combines and syndicates dealing with most of our material means of existence. Whilst we are not anxious to have the State become a policeman merely to interfere with everybody's rights and liberties, we claim in the essential matter of food supplies that there ought to be maintained such a system of control as will enable us to exercise the power as a nation to protect the people against exactions upon an extortionate scale. During the past week in Scotland no less that five boatloads of fish have had to be thrown into the sea; and why? The fishermen have been demanding that, in return for the great risks they run of coming across derelict mines and risking their lives, they shall be paid sufficient to enable them to live decently. One would imagine from the reports that it would hardly pay the men to go out to sea and catch the fish, and yet we know that fish is four times as dear as it was before the War, and that almost in every shop ordinary cheap fish, which used to be one of our cheapest foods, is now entering into competition with the dearest. What system can we adopt of seeing that people have the advantage of any harvest of the sea, or any means of production or distributing food economically, if we have no system which will stop the possibility of people taking advantage of our national necessity. I agree with the Home Secretary when lie said that it was not the right of a policeman to hold the State to ransom. The policemen are not the only people who hold the State to ransom, and, although their services are very desirable in the interests of the community, there are other people who also do a great service to the community and whose duties are equally essential for the maintenance of all civilised life.

I might point out that at the present moment, the workers, so far as food is concerned, are placed in a very difficult position. Unfortunately, since the Armistice was signed, things have slackened off not merely in those trades where munition workers were engaged but also in the trades dependent upon them. People have not had the same amount of money to spend, and consequently there has not i been the same demand for the commodities which were essential for their use or enjoyment. Although their earning power has declined and there are over 1,000,000 people living upon the donation benefit, the prices of food practically remain at the same level as when, the Armistice was signed. Promises were made to us. if control were removed and if the State did not keep its paralysing hand upon those who were anxious to supply us with food, that we should be able to enjoy cheap food and that plenty would exist throughout the land. We know by bitter experience that such has not been the case. we know that the Ministry of Food has been the most successful of any Department of the State since it was established. We know what the queues meant in 1915–16. Consequently, those of us who belong to the Labour party are anxious, if we cannot have a complete system of food control—we do not desire the people to be rationed, and to be put to inconvenience—that in the main essential articles of food there should be some relationship between the cost of production and distribution and the price charged to the people. We ought not to allow monopolist concerns, whether home or foreign, to take advantage of the needs of the people, and to exploit them to the extent that they are doing to-day.

What is happening now, for instance, with regard to margarine and feeding-stuffs for cattle, which constitute to a great extent the raw materials for the production of margarine? We were promised reductions almost immediately. To begin with reductions did take place. The prices now, however, are beginning to go up again. During the past week the prices of these raw materials have jumped to-double that which they were before. Consequently, we have a right to know if the Government have any intention of protecting the interests of the community and of seeing that the prices which we have to pay for foodstuffs are not forced up to a famine extent merely because of the shortage which is bound to occur when the world comes into competition once more for supplies. We ask that in this particular case Labour should be consulted, and that in any machinery that may be necessary—I believe that machinery will be necessary—if we cannot have the old Consumers' Council and the local food control committees, we should at least have committees representing the big areas, so that the people in the localities can be taken into consultation

High prices of food exist side by side with less chances of earning money. Overtime is practically stopped in most of our trades Large numbers of workers have been thrown out of employment. All these things mean that, if something is not done to protect the interests of the people of this country, you will have a greater amount of industrial unrest after Peace has been signed than you have had before. The workers are certainly determined not to go back to the old conditions. At present we are receiving from employers' organisations applications that we should submit to arbitration requests for reductions in wages. If arbitration takes place and wages are reduced, and if prices do not materially go down, then the industrial troubles that we have had in the past will sink into insignificance compared with the industrial troubles that we may have in the future. We therefore ask the Government to give us some assurance that we can take to our members in the great organisations we represent, and also to the great mass of the people outside, that in this great scramble that is bound to take place—the whole of Eastern and Central Europe has been devastated, and there is bound to be a food shortage—some international steps will be taken to protect the community against these trusts and combines which have already extended their tentacles beyond the limits of the civilised world, and to prevent this game of beggar-my-neighbour.

We hope that the Government will give us some assurance, apart from that given by the Food Controller the other day, that the interests of the people are going to be protected. The right hon. Gentleman then said that tonnage was the solution of the problem. As a matter of fact, the shipping of the United Kingdom is almost as much a trust as the American Meat Trust, and the demand for shipping will be so great when the blockade is removed that there will be a great possibility of charging even higher freights, and, as a consequence, a chance of food prices going up even higher. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that the interests of the people should be protected, and I hope. the Minister of Food will be able to give us some assurance that the interests of the people are going to be protected and that, he will be able to announce the definite steps that he is taking in that direction.

I have listened with great interest to the speech that has just been made, and I wish to put in a plea for the consumers of a very valuable form of food, namely, malt extract, commonly known by the name of beer. I have had very strong representations, not only from my own Constituents but from all parts of the world, with regard to the removal of the restrictions on the sale of beer. The working man considers, and I quite sympathise with him, that his beer is a very valuable portion of his food, and he wants, not only cheap beer, but beer of a good quality. At the present time he is asked a high price, he is restricted in the beer that he can consume, and he is sold beer of a very low quality. We all know that one most valuable tonic—I do not call it medicine—that is recommended by doctors to invalids who are run down is malt extract. Good Queen Bess used to consume, I believe, a glass of beer every morning, and it was considered very wholesome for her, and it was certainly largely consumed, and very beneficially consumed, by her subjects. There can be no excuse for a continuation of these restrictions.

4.0 P.M

During the War, when there was a shortage of barley, there was a good excuse for saying that it should not be used for brewing instead of for food in other forms. But that necessity now exists no longer, and there is an immense demand throughout this country for beer of good quality and in sufficient quantity, and to be consumed at a time when the worker wants it, and not at a time when somebody else lays down that he ought to want it. There are only one or two reasons given why these restrictions are not removed. One is the plea of the revenue to the Government, but I think it will be generally agreed that that is a distinct case of profiteering, and that clearly the restriction ought, to be removed as soon as possible. The other plea is that these restrictions are continued in response to the demands of a certain small section of the community. As the hon. Member (Mr. J. Jones) said, the whole nation should not be controlled by one small section; it is the great body of the public that ought to be considered. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is an immense feeling throughout the country that these restrictions ought now to be removed, and that the workman has a perfect right to demand really good sound beer, at a reasonable price, and at the hours when he wishes to consume it.

And the temperate people feel it most of all.

The temperate people feel it most of all, I quite agree. They are forced very often into drinking beer or spirits at a time when they do not require it, because they cannot obtain it when it is most beneficial to them. At the same time I would urge that the restriction on spirits should be removed. What happens now? I have had these cases brought before me over and over again. I have here a letter from one of my Constituents, pointing out a case in which an old man has been accustomed to take every day a small quantity of spirits, ordered by his doctor. He is now ill and feeble, and without a medical certificate he cannot get the spirits be needs, and it is exceedingly difficult for him to obtain them even if be does get a medical certificate. The Government now allow whisky of inferior quality, adulterated and watered down to be sold at an enormous profiteering price, and have also limited the quantity very much, so that often those people who urgently require it are quite unable to obtain it. I should be very glad to hear what are the reasons for keeping these restrictions on: I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see that they are removed immediately. The summer is now coming on, and people have a perfect right to demand that they shall be able to quench their thirst with a wholesome beverage at the time when they feel it to be necessary. Arising out of that there is the question of housing. We want to remove all restrictions on trade. Everything that tends to annoy and interfere with the comfort of out traders should be removed as soon as possible. The great hotels have been closed all this time owing to their occupation by Government Departments. The reasons for that no longer exist, and they could be at once set free, so that trading people can come up here and find decent lodging and decent food and drink and carry on their business so as to restore the trade of the country as soon as possible. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not merely give me an answer which he hopes will satisfy me, but will really direct his serious attention to the removal of those restrictions at the earliest possible moment.

I wish to express my full agreement with my hon. Friend who introduced this subject. I am not quite sure that I agree with his ideas about the reimposition of control, but it is quite clear that matters cannot be allowed to remain as they are at present. I noticed in a London paper this morning that in an interview the Parliamentary Secretary to the. Ministry of Food stated that a big gamble in linseed oil had begun. I happen to have been closely associated with the linseed oil position for some years, and his statement does not exaggerate the present position of the question. A big gamble is taking place, and, as he says, it not only affects linseed oil, but it will have a very serious effect on the price of margarine. Linseed oil was decontrolled on the 31st March of this year, and, according to information which I received personally from the Director of the Oils and Fats Section of the Ministry of Food, the Government stock at that time, delivered and undelivered, of linseed and linseed oil amounted to 100,000 tons, which was rather more than a full year's supply. Very properly the Oils and Fats Section of the Ministry of Food offered this stock first of all to manufacturers who used linseed oil, and after their wants had been supplied, the remainder, I understand, was sold to the seed crushers and oil refiners. When linseed oil was decontrolled as at the 31st March, the price was £58 per ton. and that price was charged by the Oils and Fats Section of the Ministry of Food both to the manufacturers who used the oil and, as I understand, to the seed crushers and oil refiners. That was about three months ago. The price of linseed oil in this morning's "Times," is £106 per ton. It has gone up £48 per ton in three months. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give the explanation of his Department for this abnormal and, to my mind, unjustifiable rise in the price of this commodity. I happen to be connected with an industry which consumes linseed oil very largely. There are similar industries in Scotland, and also very largely in England. A month or two ago our position was that we thought that the tendency of prices for raw materials was downward, and we, arranged to reduce at an early date the price of our commodity to the consumer. But the rise in linseed oil has made that absolutely impossible, and has made an advance in the price much more likely than a reduction. We as manufacturers are absolutely satisfied that deliberate profiteering is taking place somewhere and, while I do not favour the adoption of any kind of Government restrictions on business, we must remember that we are passing through a very difficult transition period, and it is for the Minister of Food to say whether, within some well-defined limit of time, the reimposition of some method of control is not desirable. I am quite aware that bound up with this question is that of shipping tonnage, and I hope that the Minister of Food will use his great influence to get as much tonnage for linseed and other edible oils as he possibly can, because I think that that is one of the factors which possibly will ease the situation. The hon. Member who introduced this subject touched upon the question of food. A gamble in linseed oil means also a gamble with the food of the people, and that is a gamble which a famous statesman at one time very strongly deprecated in this House. I hope the Ministry of Food will take some definite action, and take it soon, because, if not, I am afraid that the prophecy of the Prime Minister regarding a reduction of 4s. a week in the price of the working-man's food will not be realised. It is much more likely that there will be a rise, possibly of more than 4s. a week. If that be the case, I am afraid we cannot look forward to the coming winter without the gravest misgivings and apprehension. I trust that this matter will be taken seriously by my right hon. Friend and that he will give me here his own explanation of this extraordinary rise in the price of linseed oil, having regard to the price on the 31st March.

I certainly agree that no more important question could be discussed than that of food, and I make no complaint of the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) has raised it this afternoon. We have to remember that we are passing through a transition stage, and that there must necessarily be a good deal of unsettlement before we are able to get back to anything like normal conditions. While I am not going to argue against the continuation of control, I venture to point out to my hon. Friend that control, now Peace is near, is not so easily possible as it was during the War. During the War a system of inter-Allied purchase was carried on, but as soon as the Armistice was signed the Powers who were parties to the arrangement naturally desired that the trade conditions of their respective countries should be freed as soon as possible. It is not suggested that we possess the power or that we should seek to coerce them into doing what they do not desire. Moreover, during the War the operation of the blockade and the fact that the Allies controlled the major portion of the shipping of the world placed us in a favoured position to buy. Since the Armistice was declared, at the desire of the other countries, the system of inter-Allied purchase has ceased. America is very keen that trade should be free, and my hon. Friends are aware that America is our chief market at the present time. These considerations point to the fact that control is not so easy now as it was during the War. Moreover, as the blockade is relaxed, and of course in greater measure when Peace is signed, there is certain to be an accentuation of competition, a scramble as my hon. Friend has designated it. The Ministry I represent and those associated with me appreciate all these facts. We are anxious to do all we can and all that is possible to secure that supplies shall be forthcoming and that prices shall be kept down as far as practicable. Of course it is very difficult to influence prices in foreign markets. The mere fact that we are compelled to go into foreign markets, make us dependent on those sources and puts us very largely at the mercy of those who control them. The question of bacon has been instanced this afternoon. We were advised, both in America find by experts in this country, that decontrol would result in a fall in price. When we decontrolled, the tendency was downward for a short while, but then very soon neutral countries entered into the markets and prices steadied and then moved upwards. Parenthetically, it is an extraordinarily interesting fact in connection with the question of bacon—I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Silvertown had been here to have heard this—that since decontrol the consumption of bacon in this country has substantially increased. If consumption had remained at anything like the normal we are of opinion that the situation would be much easier in respect of price. But the fact that consumption has increased exhausted our supplies more rapidly. That is apparent to those, who control the supplies in other countries and it has had the effect of producing the rise with which we are faced.

Is "that the result of the bacon being much inferior to pre-war bacon?

No. I am talking of pre-war normal consumption. I appreciate that for some time the quality was not at all desirable; in fact, I believe when we were unloading it almost involved us in some international complication. I am aware that the improvement in quality may have contributed to the increased consumption, but we are trying to compare, as far as may be, with normal prewar consumption, and our estimates, based on that principle, have been upset so largely that our supplies have been exhausted much more rapidly than we had anticipated, and the necessity of going into other markets has, in fact, contributed in some measure to the enhancement in price. I am going to ask the people of this country to help the Ministry in this matter. If they would for a time exercise economy in consumption. I believe we should be able to get over the next four weeks, which are the most difficult, with a minimum of trouble. After all, we have to work very largely on estimates. I can assure my hon. Friend that, even if we call in experts, we get the most diversified advice. I have consulted one set of experts, who tell me that if we get over the next few weeks then there must be a considerable fall in. price. Others tell me that we cannot contemplate any reduction in price until the winter. We have to form the best estimate we possibly can in this regard. I can only say that I share most thoroughly the apprehensions 'which afflict the mind of my hon. Friend, therefore we are watching the situation very closely. We have not entirely decontrolled bacon. The control is simply suspended, and if it appears necessary, when we are able to see the situation with greater clarity in the course of the next few weeks, to reimpose control in the interests of the consumers, then we shall not hesitate to do it. I am further advised that when we go into the market, the fact that we have to buy as a Government also helps to harden prices and to keep them up. These are facts it is necessary we should ask hon. Members when criticising us to bear in mind.

I appreciate what the hon. Member for Silvertown said with respect to the operation of great trusts. Those, of course, are one of the great trials of any Food Controller, but here again, so long as we are compelled to go into a single market, we are certainly at the mercy of those who control that market. As I have stated in previous Debates, this country is now suffering for its sins of omission in the past. We neglected home production to such an extent that when the war came upon us, our dependence on over seas supplies certainly did cause the people of this country not only to be confronted with probable scarcity, but with the fact that prices would rise considerably. We are now investigating the possibility of other sources of supply within the Empire, and I am at least hopeful that we shall be able to effect something in that direction, for I believe, at any rate, there is a very strong sentiment of attachment as between the Overseas Dominions and our country, and I am sure they would be willing to help us to the utmost in this regard.

Is it correct that accumulated supplies spreading over two years are now lying in Australia, awaiting shipment, and if arrangements were made for freight would not that relieve the situation very considerably?

It is quite true there are supplies lying in Australia. Our great difficulty has been to lift those supplies. We have done a good deal since the Armistice was signed, but it is true that the tonnage problem is one of the most important in relation to the food question, and we are endeavouring to secure that as much shipping as possible shall be used for the purpose of bringing in food and such essential things as are referred to by the hon. Member (Mr. Wallace)—linseed and other oils. In fact, I believe it-is the most practical contribution which can be made to the problem at the moment, and it is receiving our very serious consideration. It appears to me that the only way to relieve ourselves of dependence on a great trust in another country is the opening up of now avenues of supply, and that is the form of inquiry that we are prosecuting; but, of course, it all takes time. Just as we have to suffer because of our neglect of home production, we are bound to suffer because of our neglect of proper understanding and arrangement in respect of foods within the Empire.

My hon. Friend, in introducing the discussion, referred to the allegation that catches of fish have been dumped into the sea. The illustration he gave, I believe, was from Scotland. We have caused inquiries to be made into all these allegations, and I have to admit that there is some substance in them, but I am not convinced on the evidence so far submitted to me that it has been done for the purpose of keeping up prices. We have power, and we intend to retain and exercise it, to take proceedings against any person or firm who destroys food for the purpose of the easier manipulation of markets. The catches of fish of late have been so heavy, and of course our transport system has not yet got back to full efficiency, and it has been impossible to bring those large supplies into the inland markets as rapidly us is necessary, because fish has to be transported very rapidly, especially during the hot weather with which we have recently been favoured. But I want to make it clear on behalf of the Ministry that if any cases are brought to our notice of any parties destroying food, whether fish, milk or anything else, we shall certainly with great promptitude take action against them because there is no greater wrong that can be done to the community to-day than to destroy that which is essential, and in respect of which there is a shortage.

My hon. Friend (Mr. Jones) made no secret of his desire. It is that control shall be permanent in character and thoroughly comprehensive. I agree with him to this extent, that control in days of peace, to be effective, must be complete. You have to control the whole system. That, of course, opens up a great question of political and public policy. It is not one for me to determine. The Ministry of Food, of course, was established under a special Act of Parliament with a restricted duration. We can keep in existence, I believe, for twelve months after the signing of peace, and we shall determine our existence accordingly as the food problem makes it desirable. I have now come to the conclusion that we must not expedite the closing down of the Department. I share all the apprehensions respecting the coming winter. I am advised that there will not be a shortage of supplies except in the case of fats. In any other matters the situation will be quite satisfactory. Our problem will be mainly that of prices. I realise how dangerous it would be to the State if queues again came into existence, if there was grave shortage throughout j the land, and if prices were inflated. I understand as clearly as my hon. Friends that the very existence of the State might be menaced if these things occur, and, therefore, we shall keep sufficient organisation in existence capable of rapid expansion in the event of such contingencies arising as to make it necessary that we should renew control in any direction. I am glad my hon. Friend admits that we cannot impose many restrictions upon the people. He is opposed to rationing. He wants people to have perfect liberty of purchasing where they will. Therefore, we are not in very wide difference in respect to the immediate phases of the problem. We are watching it closely. I have suspended control, but if the circumstances render it necessary I shall have no hesitation in resuming control. In respect of bacon, I have some evidence that there has been undue speculation in the trade. I feel that those who have operated in that fashion are rendering their own j trade the greatest possible disservice, but if I am compelled to resume control I will make it perfectly well known to them that the markets, both wholesale and retail, will be more strictly regulated than under the previous form of control. I should prefer that the trade itself should appreciate the difficulties of -the situation and would accept the necessity of co-operating with the Government in this matter, and would so organise as to make it impossible for anyone asso- ciated with the trade to be charged with profiteering in this very critical stage of our history.

I do not know that it is necessary or desirable that I should go into great detail, because we had a discussion quite recently. Moreover, I am ready day by day to give particulars on any matter in which anyone is interested. But the question directly addressed to me by the hon. Member (Mr. Wallace) requires a word or two of observation. Undoubtedly there has been a good deal of speculation going on. We are concerned with these commodities only from the point of view of food, and when he represents to us that a number of manufacturers have been affected by this, that rather leads me into a sphere which is not exclusively my own. Nevertheless I feel the prices have been unduly manipulated and that it may be necessary for us again to resume control. I hope not, because it is an extraordinarily heavy task to control oils and fats. Moreover, the Ministry is very largely maimed by experts from outside. I have on previous occasions paid the highest tribute I could with the language I can command to these men who have worked so splendidly, even to the detriment of their own interests, and certainly to the detriment of their personal well-being, in the interests of the Ministry and the country as a whole. These men are naturally anxious to get back to their own businesses, and they are constantly pressing me to allow them to be released. A number of them are only remaining at the urgent request I have made to them in the name of the Government. Therefore, it is difficult to keep together the staff requisite to carry on control. My hon. Friend is aware that this particular question is so highly technical in character that it would be extremely difficult for it to be dealt with by the ordinary Civil servant. It is not exclusively a question of food, but it enters into so many of the trades of the country, and those trades are anxious. that they should be free as far as possible We are watching the situation very closely. My hon. Friend is right in this, that this matter is very largely depending upon shipping. We are told that there are supplies available in the world, and if we were able to provide the tonnage and bring them over here it would have the effect of reducing prices.

The hon. Member for the Handsworth Division (Lieut.-Colonel Meysey-Thomp- son) introduced the very interesting question of beer and spirits. I can assure him that for the past few weeks there has been no question which has caused us more concern than that of beer and spirits; but here again the responbility and power of the Food Ministry is very limited. I am only concerned with the question of beer from the standpoint of cereals. So long as there was a shortage of cereals we naturally restricted the manufacture of beer. So far as I am concerned, and the Ministry generally, when we were able to ascertain early in the year that cereals were in adequate supply, we had no longer reason for imposing restrictions on the manufacture of beer, and I represented that to the Government and stated my views. But this again is a question of policy, and is not one for my Department. I cannot blind myself to the depth of feelings that exist throughout the country in regard to the restriction on bear, and whatever may be our speculative opinions on temperance and allied questions, nobody of responsibility could ignore the very profound feeling that exercises the minds of our people in respect to this matter. I found it out when I was at the Ministry of Labour, and I have found it even more acutely at the Ministry of Food. Therefore, I have represented to the Government the desirability of increasing the production of beer. Sanction has been given and it will be remembered that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in introducing his Budget, announced the intention of sanctioning an increase from 20,000,000 to 26,000,000 barrels of beer. We have done our best to deal with the complaint respecting quantity. I think my hon. Friend knows that the prewar production was 36,000,000 barrels a year. For considerations of policy the Government has restricted the average gravity of beer allowed to be produced, and the barrelage which has now been sanctioned, and which are not to exceed an average gravity of 10.40, gives, approximately, 37,000,000 barrels. Therefore, in actual liquid, if they have the labour and material, there is nothing to prevent the brewers brewing even a greater bulk of beer than before the War. The hon. Member has referred to the question of quality. There is considerable feeling on this point, and we are taking steps to induce the brewers to improve the quality. There are certain technical matters which have to be considered. When you change the gravity it means that those who brew high quality beers have, in order to keep within the average, to brew a large quantity of inferior beer at the other end. We are now engaged in discussing this with the parties concerned in the hope and anticipation of being able to give the public a better and more drinkable beer.

What about the extension of hours?

I am not at all responsible for those restrictions. It is a matter of Government policy operated throughout the Liquor Control Board, and as I have said repeatedly in this House, I am not responsible for and have no power over the Liquor Control Board. It appears to be a widespread feeling outside that the-Minister of Food controls this matter completely. Our concern with beer is simply in relation to food. It is true that the existence of the Ministry has been made use of as a vehicle for issuing Orders, but apart from that we have no control whatever. My hon. Friend also directed attention to the question of whisky. I am painfully aware of the complaints that are made respecting the quantity and quality of whisky. I am advised that it we took the restrictions off entirely no largo supplies would come on the market. Supplies must be short, because for two years distilling was suspended entirely. Moreover, under Act of Parliament whisky cannot be put on the market until it is three years' old. Therefore, apart from control, there would of necessity be some stringency in the market. I have no authority beyond that which I have stated, but I can represent to the Government the dissatisfaction which is conveyed to me. I think the better plan would be to free the distilling trade altogether, and then put the onus upon those in the trade; whereas to-day the Government have to carry it, and it is not a very popular thing to carry. We are always glad of discussions in this House which reveal to the Government the feelings of Members who desire to represent their constituents in these matters. My hon. Friends may accept the assurance that we are not going to be rushed out of business, and on the other hand that we are not going to keep on control simply for the gratification of keeping in existence a large and expensive. Department. with its administrative staff. We cannot defend the retention of bodies throughout the country involving a great deal of expenditure, but we intend to keep in existence such an amount of machinery as will allow us to operate rapidly and we hope efficiently. We are watching the problem with very keen interest, and it is my view that the Ministry ought to be kept in existence at least through the coming winter, and I am planning accordingly. I trust that will give sufficient assurance that we are watching matters, and we should like to co-operate with my hon. and right hon. Friends in order to safeguard the interests of the consumer, and to keep our people content as far as practicable.

I will not stand long in the way of those who wish to bring for ward other subjects—