Lords Sitting of 31 August 1914

NAVAL PRIZE BOUNTIES.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether the Treasury have arrived at a decision as to the grant or bounty which the First Lord of the Admiralty stated when introducing the Naval Estimates was under consideration as a substitute for naval prize money.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the First Lord of the Admiralty informed the House of Commons that the Government intended to abolish prize money. He stated also that a considerable number of naval officers were in favour of that course, and added that the question of issuing some grant or bounty to sailors during the course of a war was under consideration. That was on March 17, and the matter, I suppose, has been under consideration ever since. Now here we are in a war, and the question of prize money is one which is, I hope, very likely soon to arise. Therefore I trust that the Treasury have arrived at a decision with regard to this matter. At the present time the question of prize money is governed by the Order in Council of 1900. Prize money up to the present moment has therefore not been abolished, but I understand that an Order in Council dealing with the question is under consideration. I trust that that Order in Council is very soon to be issued, and I venture to hope also that His Majesty's Government have made up their minds as to the system which it is proposed to substitute for the present system of prize money.
LORD WIMBORNE: My Lords, the Admiralty issued a statement through the Press Bureau on August 29 to this effect—
"Parliament was informed earlier in the year that His Majesty's Government had decided that prize money in respect of captures should not be granted. An Order in Council has been passed cancelling the previous Proclamation of September 17, 1900, in respect of captures from the enemy. In lien of prize money a system of bounties will be established. The exact form that the bounties will take and the manner in which they will be distributed are under consideration, but the intention is that prizes captured during the war should cease to be the perquisite of a limited number of fortunate crews, and that the proceeds of the sales of vessels and cargoes should form a fund out of which the distribution will be made on a basis to be subsequently determined and announced
560
by Proclamation. No alteration will be made in regard to the grant of prize bounties for the capture or destruction of enemy warships as provided for in the Naval Prize Act, 1864, provision for which will be made by Proclamation."
I have further to say that the Treasury have agreed generally with the Admiralty to substitute the system of prize bounty for that of prize money.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I was under the impression that the new Order in Council had not been passed. Apparently I was wrong.
LORD WIMBORNE: Yes.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Is the Order in Council in force?
LORD WIMBORNE: It has been passed.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Do I understand that prize money has been abolished and yet the system which is to be substituted has not yet been determined on? It surely is an extraordinary thing that one system should be done away with and that you should postpone till a future date the decision as to the system to be substituted. I was, as I have said, under the impression that the Order in Council was under consideration, and that when it was issued it would contain a full and complete statement of what was to be substituted for prize money.
LORD WIMBORNE: That matter is still under consideration. The old system has been done away with and a new one set up, but the exact form which it will take will be announced in due course.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Ever since March 17 the new system has been under consideration, but it has not been settled yet!

THE PRESS AND THE WAR.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, I wish to ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been drawn to the communication professing to come from the seat of war which was published in The Times of yesterday, the contents of which were calculated to cause so much needless distress, and which, apparently, from the official account published by Lord Kitchener this morning, were not justified by the facts.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, the attention of His Majesty's Government has been called to the article to which the noble Viscount refers. It was a very regrettable article and inconsistent with the facts as they have been ascertained. Your Lordships are aware that there is no existing legislation by which Parliament has control over the Press, and, on the whole, it has not been necessary. The Press has acted very loyally in carrying out arrangements which were thought out long before the war, and which have been carried out since, and we have had no cause to complain, with some slight exceptions; but the article in The Times of yesterday was a most regrettable incident. I do not myself believe that it will recur. I think there must be some explanation of it. Sunday editions come out sometimes when those responsible are not on the spot, and I have every hope that the incident referred to by the noble Viscount will not be repeated, and that the loyalty which the Press has shown—a loyalty which has been very great—will be observed in future generally. If it should happen that more of this kind of thing occurs, it might be considered necessary to ask Parliament for exceptional powers to deal with such cases.
Meanwhile, I wish to add that the Government are taking steps to supply as fully as they can, and in a more adequate form than has been possible up to the present, a narrative of events from day to day founded on direct information from the seat of war, which will satisfy the legitimate public desire to know what is going on. The fact that that narrative has not been given up to now has not been the fault of the War Office. The reason is that information has come very carefully from the seat of war at times when fighting was going on, and it is not always possible to send from the Army Headquarters the news until a considerable period has elapsed. Your Lordships will see from telegrams the substance of which was published yesterday that it is now possible to give a narrative in a much more connected form than has hitherto been done, and we hope that that system will be maintained and developed in the future. I can assure your Lordships that we are endeavouring to make arrangements to that effect.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount has made a statement which throws the entire responsibility upon the newspaper which published the article in question, but that newspaper has stated that the document was sent to the Official Censor and passed by him. I know nothing about the matter myself; but if that be true, it seems to me that it ought to have had a place in the statement of explanation given on behalf of the Government. If the Official Censor passed this article, clearly the responsibility does not rest wholly with the journal which printed it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I believe the Official Censor did see the document and that the particular sentences were either passed by him or escaped his notice. They were obviously sentences which should not have been there, but, as I say, I do not think the incident is likely to recur. There have been cases in which things have appeared in the newspapers which have not been before the Censor, but I have every confidence from what I know that the Press will respect the obligation of loyalty which is incumbent at this time, and that we shall not have occasion again to regret such an incident.
LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, for three or four years in succession I have brought before your Lordships' House the subject of the dissemination of news in time of war, requesting the Government to undertake well-considered legislation in time of peace for fear of bringing in bad legislation in a hurry in time of war. The Times is not the only newspaper to be complained of. I read in the Globe an estimate of the number of troops that had been sent abroad. Now it is obvious that that estimate should never have appeared in any newspaper. That is one of the things for the enemy to find out. The writer of that article in the Globe called himself Major Redway. I do not know whether his name is to be found in the Army List. I certainly could not find a major of that name in the Army List through which I looked. I maintain that figures of this kind ought not to have been printed. If legislation on this matter is not undertaken, I am afraid we shall have other and more troublesome cases of information being given to the enemy which he certainly ought not to have.

THE FINANCIAL SITUATION.
*THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I understand that we have to continue the sitting of the House in respect of certain Bills which are due to come up from another place, and during the interval I may, perhaps, call attention to a subject which is being dealt with by a debate in another place this afternoon—namely, the financial position. I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is about to make a statement, so far as he is able to make one at this moment, on that subject, and in particular on the subject of the Moratorium as it is called, which, as the House is aware, would in due course expire in a comparatively few days from now. We have formed the conclusion that it is altogether impossible that that Moratorium should forthwith cease altogether. The confusion which would result in the City of London and also in all commercial circles might be so serious that we could not take the responsibility of doing away with that suspension of liabilities which, as your Lordships will remember, dates from the beginning of the war for a month in respect of all previous liabilities.
There have been various questions asked and suggestions made as to how far it is possible to limit the system of suspension, whether it is possible to apply it only to certain subjects, certain classes of debts, or whether it is necessary to maintain it in its entirety. There are a great number of different issues involved. The issue of finance, strictly so called, has more than one aspect of its own. The aspect concerned with international finance is not in all respects the same as that with which finance and banking at home are concerned. Then there is the entirely separate question of commercial and trading credits and business. Those are on a somewhat different footing, and they, again, are greatly complicated by the existence of liabilities in other parts of the world, or payments due from other parts of the world, as compared with the strictly domestic aspect of trading. I think it is clear that we shall have to proceed to some general continuance of this suspension of payments within limits; the limit, as the House knows, is now a low one. What we have to consider, constituting the great anxiety of those who are responsible, is what steps we can continue to take to start once more the great
564
and intensely complicated machine of credit in this country.
One observes that different people looking at these matters from different points of view assume that the matter is in itself tolerably simple, and that if one set of parties engaged in these transactions could be satisfied, the whole machine would then at once begin to work again. For instance, there are some who assert that if only free play could be given to the discounting of bills trade would immediately recuperate, and that all the countless transactions, commercial as well as financial, which are concerned with bills of exchange would recommence in their full activity. We have done a great deal to assist the discounting of bills. The Bank of England has undertaken a great liability, supported, of course, by the Government, in that respect. But although a great deal has been done, at the same time the discount market is not active and the flow of bills of exchange has not proceeded with anything like the necessary rapidity demanded for a recuperation of trade. Then on the other hand there are persons, looking at the matter from a quite different point of view, who say that if only rates of insurance for freights were made easier and simpler and all war risks were taken over by the Government, then foreign trade would at once begin to flow backwards and forwards as before. There, again, we have done a great deal; and what I think is perhaps not entirely realised by the public is that the ordinary processes of marine insurance at Lloyds are going on for a great number of risks on a large scale, and there are risks of a different kind which are met on a certain payment by His Majesty's Government. But although that has been done it has not brought about the complete ebb and flow of trade backwards and forwards which might have been expected, although war risks at sea, except in a very few places and on an exceedingly small number of routes., cannot be described as in any way serious, thanks to the precautions which the Admiralty have been able to take in safeguarding a vast number of the main arteries of trade.
Then, again, others assert that so long as you go on protecting banks, and in particular joint stock banks, from a run by their customers or their depositors caused by panic, all banking operations will

565
proceed in their ordinary course. Well, banks are so protected. No run on any bank is possible; and it is quite evident that that particular kind of suspension must continue, at any rate for some time to come. But in spite of that fact, and although I think in the main—I carefully limit the statement—the banks have done what they can to assist the trading community, the machine does not yet work with its proper regularity and with absence of friction. We therefore have to consider very carefully what further steps may be necessary in the riot distant future for the lubrication and the restarting of this intensely complicated machine.
The problem that confronts us here in England is quite a different one from that which any other country has to encounter. The City of London, as we all know, is the great centre of credit of the world, and a great many of those operations requiring credit are conducted under limitations of actual capital which in ordinary times would be sufficient, because it is not possible in the average conditions of commercial life that heavy immediate demands can be made upon an individual or a firm, and that fact, of course, adds vastly to the delicacy and difficulty of our present position. The whole conduct of financial business, for instance in Paris or in Berlin, is of an entirely different kind and on a totally different scale from that which obtains in the City of London. There is no precedent in the world's history for the present position, and there is no very useful example to be obtained from other countries. Therefore we have to consider with the utmost care, and with the recognition of the necessity sometimes of being exceedingly bold as well as exceedingly cautious, that steps may have to be taken in the future of a much more far-reaching kind for sustaining, as we believe in reality it is quite safe to do, this vast fabric of international credit of which the City of London is the centre.

DEATH DUTIES (KILLED IN WAR) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.
*THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I may remind the House that we have already had a discussion on this subject on a Question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown. He, I think, quite clearly, from his Question and the speech which accompanied it, desired, in the case of persons losing their lives in war, that the Death Duties should be remitted altogether. The Government have not felt it possible to go so far as that. I told the House on Wednesday last that the existing law stands on a basis which was framed by Lord St. Aldwyn when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the year 1900. In this Bill we have gone somewhat further than he did.
The Bill provides in its first clause that Section 14 of the Finance Act of 1900—which makes provision, in case of persons killed in war, for the remission of Death Duties on estates up to £5,000—shall have effect as respects the present war as if it applied to property passing to ancestors as well as to property passing to the widow or lineal descendants. There are some cases in which a man is killed and the property goes to his mother, in which case it seems certainly right that the same privilege should be enjoyed as in those other cases where the property passes to a widow or to a son. The present limit stands at £5,000. Clause 1 of this Bill provides that where the value for the purpose of Estate Duty of the property passing to the widow, lineal descendants, or lineal ancestors does not exceed £5,000, the whole of the Death Duties leviable in respect of that property shall be remitted. Where the said value exceeds £5,000, in respect of the first £5.000 the whole of the Death Duties are remitted. The effect of that, as the House will see, is more far-reaching than the mere excusing of the payment in respect of the first £5,000, because the abstraction of the sum of £5,000 from the corpus of the estate in many cases may bring it into a different classification permitting a lower scale of duty. The Bill further provides that where the said value exceeds £5,000 there shall also be remitted so much of the duties leviable in respect of the remainder as exceeds the sum which, if accumulated at compound interest at 3 per cent. per annum from the date of death with half-yearly rests, would, at the expiration of the period of the normal expectation of life of a person of the age of the deceased

567
at the time of death (calculated in accordance with the Tables of Mortality of Government Life Annuitants, 1912) amount to the whole of the duties so leviable. That, as I stated in answering the noble Earl's Question the other day, is calculated to amount, roughly, to something like a remission of 50 per cent. of the duties taking average lives. I think those are all the points that I need call attention to in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, which I now do.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I am bound to say, as regards the observations made by the noble Marquess who leads the House, that the Government have considerably improved the position in this matter of a person who loses his life in the service of his country and leaves property. By this Bill, where a man leaves, we will say, £8,000, on the first £5,000 no Death Duties will be leviable. The result is that the remaining £3,000, as the noble Marquess said, will fall under a lower category. That is a very important concession, because I imagine that there are a good many men in the public service whose property does not amount to more than £8,000 or £10,000. I am afraid I am not sufficient an actuary to be able to calculate what the words of the Bill, if reduced to figures, would mean; but taking the concession to be, as the noble Marquess says, 50 per cent. or thereabouts of the duty, the Bill represents a considerable alleviation of the burden which would fall upon such an estate.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Before my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack puts the Question, I might add that Clause 2 of the Bill deals with the subject of rapid succession. It states that where the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are satisfied that Estate Duty has become payable on any property passing on the death of any person to whom Clause 1 of this Bill applies, and that subsequently Estate Duty has again become payable on the same property or any part thereof passing on the death of some other person to whom Clause 1 applies, the whole of the Estate Duty payable on such subsequent death in respect of the property so passing shall be remitted, or, in case the duty has been paid, repaid, and the property shall not be aggregated with any other property passing on such subsequent death for the purpose of
568
determining the rate of Estate Duty. That would affect the case of two brothers or some other case which might occur in the course of the war.
On Question (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 2ª: Committee negatived: Bill read 3ª, and passed. (No. 280.)

INTOXICATING LIQUOR (TEMPORARY RESTRICTIONS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª. and to be printed.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, this Bill, as the title indicates, is an emergency Bill intended to deal only with the exceptional state of affairs produced by the war. The Government received strong representations both from the Military and from the Police authorities as to the need for wider powers dealing with the liquor trade during the war, especially in districts where there are training camps. The Bill, as presented to the House of Commons, proposed to give the licensing justices power to make Orders restricting the sale or consumption of intoxicating liquor on licensed premises or clubs, with the proviso that if any Order was passed fixing an earlier closing hour than 9 p.m. the Order should not remain in force for more than fourteen days without the approval of the Secretary of State. On the Second Reading in the House of Commons there was some criticism directed against the Bill as being too severe, and Amendments were accepted in Committee by the Home Secretary so as to provide safeguards against any unfair use of the powers. The Bill, as amended by the Commons, provides that the licensing justices can only make an Order on the recommendation of the Chief Officer of Police that it is desirable to do so for the maintenance of order or the suppression of drunkenness. Any Order fixing an hour earlier than 9 p.m. must be approved by the Secretary of State. An appeal is given to Quarter Sessions against convictions for contravention of the Order. These and other minor Amendments having been made, the Bill was agreed to by all parties in the House of Commons and passed.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Stanmore.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, this Bill is a very extreme case of an emergency measure, for it interferes with the liberty of the subject to a great extent. I suppose that in the circumstances it cannot be avoided, but I am glad to see that in dealing with Scotland an important Amendment has been made. In the first place, the Sheriff, who is responsible in Scotland for the peace of the county, was not in any way mentioned in the Bill originally. But as the Bill now stands the Licensing Court—in Scotland it is the Licensing Court—must have t he approval of the Sheriff before it acts. Once the approval of the Sheriff has been obtained, the particular regulations as to hours, &c., which the Licensing Court may make will absolutely depend upon the Licensing Court. But the important thing is that the Sheriff is introduced. The Sheriff's approval is required in Scotland instead of, as in England, the approval of the Chief Officer of Police. In Scotland we attach great value to the Sheriff. I wish that the Sheriff had been more frequently made use of in legislation of late, but I think that the Amendment on this point which has been introduced into this Bill in the other House is a very great improvement.
On Question (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 2ª: Committee negatived: Bill read 3ª, and passed. (No. 281.)

SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Courts (Emergency Powers) Bill has not yet passed through the House of Commons, but perhaps it may be convenient if I take the course which was adopted the other day and state to your Lordships by way of anticipation what is in that Bill which we expect to receive here shortly. The general purpose of the Bill is to prevent anybody being what is popularly called "sold up" when the circumstances are such that the position is not due to his own fault, but due entirely to causes arising out of the war. The Bill embodies four principles. The first is that the Bill is only temporary. It will operate during the continuance of the war and for six
570
months after, with the power by Order in Council to put an end to its provisions. It is obviously not a Bill which the Legislature would desire to continue in normal times. The second principle is that it is operative only if the causes which prevent the debt being paid are causes due to the war. The third principle is that a discretion is given to the Court to look in each case into the circumstances of the person who desires relief, because it is obvious that there is considerable risk of a number of people who do not deserve consideration attempting to make out a case for relief under the Bill. The fourth principle is this, that the mode in which the Code is to act is to be governed by rules made, by a Judicial authority cognisant of and experienced in these matters. That is the general scheme of the Bill. It applies not to the taking of proceedings and to the issuing of the writ, but to execution, including, by way of example, execution in distress for rent, ejectment proceedings, forfeiture of penalties under boads, and matters of that kind. The Bill applies only to contracts made before August 4, the date of the outbreak of war, but with one exception—namely, that of rent; cases in connection with rent may be very hard cases. But the general principle is not to relieve any person from the consequences of contracts which he has made with his eyes open after the outbreak of war. As I have said, it will be open to anybody to issue the writ and to take proceedings, but he cannot proceed to execution to enforce his judgment without the leave of the Judge or of the Court. And by analogy the same thing will apply to ejectments. There are certain things saved—such as pawnbrokers' pledges, which it is impossible to interfere with, and certain things in connection with insurance companies. The Bill has been the subject of long examination by a Committee of experience in these matters, and we have hid the advantage of the advice of the Judges, including that of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice. The Bill is framed so that it will as far as possible meet cases which are required to be provided for, while not meeting the cases of persons not deserving of assistance. I do not suppose that it will be possible to keep out altogether people who are trying to take an undue advantage of the situation, but we have inserted stringent provisions for finding out such people and preventing them getting the benefits of the Bill.

JUDICIAL BUSINESS.
Ordered, That all periods of time limited by Standing Orders Nos. III, IV, V and VI be extended to the third sitting day of the House for Judicial Business in October next.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Marquess who leads the House is disposed to take advantage of this interval in order to give us some idea of the intentions of His Majesty's Government with regard to the course of business during the next few days.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I understand that in another place the Prime Minister is about to propose an adjournment of that House until Wednesday week, September 9, and, if it should be agreeable to your Lordships' House, when we are in a position to move the adjournment to-day we will make a similar Motion. Then, I hope, when we meet again that after such time as may be necessary to conclude business we may be in a position to advise the Prorogation of Parliament. Of course, the question will then arise as to the position, in the altered circumstances which now exist, of the various Bills which are under the Parliament Act. The House will remember that I put down the Government of Ireland Bill for Second Reading on June 30 last. It was not taken on that day because the Amending Bill was then in process of being considered, and we proceeded instead with the Council of India Bill. When we return I shall again place the Government of Ireland Bill on the Paper for Second Reading, that being done in the ordinary course of business. Both Houses will then have to consider, after discussion in the House of Commons and here, what further measure is necessary to ensure that so far as possible the situation is not radically altered by the events which are taking place in Europe. We shall be prepared then to produce our proposals with that object.
572
I wish we could have produced them now, but the House will understand that the pressure of business upon us all has been so heavy of late that it has not been possible to produce them so far, but we shall do so after this short interval. I have no doubt, also, that noble Lords opposite and the Opposition generally will reflect on the whole position and the various possibilities which exist for carrying out the object I have indicated. My noble friend Lord Beauchamp is not able to be here to-day, but what I have said applies mutatis mutandis also to the Welsh Church Bill. I am afraid that that is all the information I can give to your Lordships to-day, but it shows, I think, with sufficient clearness what the course of business is likely to be when we resume our deliberations on Wednesday week.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª, and to be printed: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 2ª (The Lord Chancellor): Committee negatived: Bill read 3ª, and passed. (No. 282.)

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following four Bills received the Royal Assent—

Slaughter of Animals.

Intoxicating Liquor (Temporary Restriction).

Courts (Emergency Powers).

Death Duties (Killed in War).

House adjourned at twenty minutes past Six o'clock, to Wednesday, the 9th of September next, a quarter past Four o'clock.