Lords Sitting of 8 December 1915

BARONY OF WHARTON.
A witness ordered to attend before the Committee for Privileges on Monday next.
Several witnesses ordered to attend before the Committee for Privileges on Monday next and produce documents.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
Destructive Insects and Pests Acts, 1877 and 1907—Orders declaring areas described in the schedules thereto to be infected areas for the purposes of the Wart Disease of Potatoes (Infected Areas) Order of 1914—

D.I.P. 317, dated 24th November 1915;

D.I.P. 318–321, dated 25th November, 1915:

Factory and Workshop (Notification of Diseases) (Toxic Jaundice)—Order, dated the 27th November 1915, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, applying the provisions of Section 73 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, to cases of toxic jaundice in factories and workshops:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
The Lord BALFOUR appointed to take the Chair in Committee of the Whole House this day.
PORT DUNDAS CHURCH AND PARISH, QUOAD SACRA, GLASGOW ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed.

THE WAR OFFICE AND FARMERS.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, at the request of the British Dairy Farmers' Association, I rise to call attention to the neglect—I might almost say the culpable neglect—of the War Office to pay compensation within reasonable time to farmers for damage done by military operations. Not only have complaints been made to the British Dairy Farmers' Association,
536
but the Central Chamber of Agriculture last month passed a resolution calling the attention of the War Office to complaints of delay in the payment to farmers of agreed claims for compensation. But notwithstanding that resolution and the fact that farmers themselves have been complaining all over the country, the War Office still neglect to pay this compensation when due. Indeed in some cases they have been very niggardly in settling the claims. That is the more surprising as we know that, speaking generally, the War Office during this war have been spending money in an extravagant manner; in fact, money has flowed like water. I only hope that this neglect by the War Office which I am bringing before the House is not typical of the Department, for if they deal with military matters in the same way as with civilian matters, then one is not surprised at the strictures that have been passed on the conduct of the war in certain directions.
I propose to refer briefly to several cases, but I will give at length one particular case which justifies up to the hilt what I have said. This is a letter from Mr. Harry Cox, a farmer at Bishop's Stortford, dated October 26 last. He writes—
"In respect to the military occupation of my farm and non-payment of rent, damage, &c., mentioned by me.
"My fields were first occupied in the middle of August, 1914, by the Staffordshire Yeomanry. They twice stampeded from there, smashing gates, fences, &c. Since that time to now they have been filled with wagons, horses, tents, and drilling grounds. My old established meadows were cut to a sea of mud in the winter, and never will be pastures again until ploughed and resown.
"Some of my wheat, winter oats, and clover hay was destroyed by wagons and guns.
"I did harrow, roll, and resow some of my meadows, and just as the mixture was coming through in they came again and have been on it since, and that's all destroyed.
"One of the fences that was broken down and burnt up by the troops I have had to put up at a cost of £28 10s. by a local builder, as recommended by the War Office land surveyor who called, but no money for it from him. Damage to farm buildings up to Christmas last was assessed by a local builder, by request of the military, at £12 10s.— but again no money.
"My claim up to Christmas last is £259 10s. and the £12 10s. On all the land now occupied I pay £3 rent per acre and urban rates and taxes, and have no entry on it.
"Mr. H. V. Macmaster (now lieutenant), War Office land agent, Colchester area, can answer any questions relating to this, for he has been down many times and tells me I shall get settled with soon. He saw all damage here stated, and said it was the worst he had seen.
"Trusting you will be able to do something for me, for it is absolute ruin if it goes on."

537
Mr. Cox adds this postscript—
"I have over one dozen gates smashed, the corner of a farm-house knocked down, a cow stabbed by a fourtined fork so she died, and a pony cut on one of their broken bottles and had to be killed, so I do not talk without cause."
I think that letter alone will show your Lordships that agriculturists have good ground for complaint at the way in which they have been treated by the War Office. Farmers have had their horses commandeered, they are to have their hay commandeered, and they are to be deprived of the labour on their farms. But farmers are patriotic men and they assented to their horses being taken and to their hay being commandeered. Although the President of the Board of Agriculture is impressing on farmers the necessity of growing more food and maintaining more stock, I have shown the House the way in which they are being treated in this matter of compensation. At the present moment their business is being interfered with in every direction, and when they make claims of this kind, which are admitted, they cannot get payment.
Here is a second case. In July of this year the War Office agreed to pay £202 compensation to Mr. Price, a farmer in Shropshire, and on November 8 they sent him £50, I suppose on account. The third case is that of Mr. Bell, of Buckingham-shire. He wrote to the War Office early in September claiming compensation, but the War Office did not take the trouble to reply. The fourth case is that of Mr. Powell, of Bedfordshire, who had an agreed claim last August of £400. Up to the present time he has received no money, nor even a communication from the War Office. A farmer in Essex has claimed £100 since last June, and has received no compensation at all. He says that the state of his farm was such that he had been obliged to give it up. It seems to me extraordinary that the War Office should not have taken the trouble to investigate these cases. I may be told by my noble friend who will reply that there is an important Commission which deals with this question of damage. There is such a Commission, over which an able lawyer, Mr. Duke, presides; but I imagine that the members are not agriculturists and know nothing about this matter. They deal only with big questions like raids or bombardments. The poor unfortunate agriculturist is neglected by these gentlemen, who know nothing about agriculture and care still less. I suggest
538
to the Paymaster-General whether he might not appeal to the Secretary of State for War to set up a special Committee to deal with agricultural claims, consisting of, say, three members of this House and three members of the other House with himself (Lord Newton) as chairman. I am certain that the noble Lord would be most sympathetic and would very soon see that these claims were dealt with, and we should no longer have this public scandal of unfortunate agriculturists being kept out of their just compensation.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, my noble friend has made a somewhat severe general attack upon the policy of the War Office with regard to this question of compensation, and has founded his case upon five or six instances. Had my noble friend given me notice beforehand that he was going to call attention to these particular cases I would have looked into them.
LORD STRACHIE: I did not give my noble friend notice of these specific cases because I stated them merely as examples of the neglect of the War Office in this matter. But I will gladly hand a list of the cases to my noble friend.
LORD NEWTON: It is obviously impossible for me to deal with these particular cases to-day, but naturally I shall be only too pleased to make full inquiries respecting them if my noble friend will furnish me with the necessary information. But I must demur to the statement made by my noble friend that there is general indignation throughout the country against the War Office in regard to this matter. I should like upon this point to appeal to my noble friend beside me, the President of the Board of Agriculture. Surely if the charges of the noble Lord are well founded, remonstrances must have been made in some form or other by my noble friend Lord Selborne on behalf of the Department over which he presides. The noble Lord opposite has informed the House that this indignation is widespread throughout the country. All I can say is that so far as my limited experience goes I have heard nothing whatever of it myself. The War Office disclaim the idea that there have been many complaints, and, as a matter of fact, I am informed that very few complaints have been received on this account during recent months. I have

539
only once had my attention called to this particular question, and that was some months ago by my noble friend Lord Harris who brought up the subject of the grievances of landowners and farmers in Kent. Upon that occasion I left my noble friend completely satisfied that the War Office were not to blame in the matter.
I do not think anybody will dispute my contention that individuals in this country who have a grievance against the War Office are not in the habit as a rule of concealing it. They are much more apt to proclaim the grievance from the housetops, and to cause every attention to be drawn to it in Parliament and elsewhere. With regard to this question of compensation the complaints which have come to the War Office are mainly of a general character, and arise from the original delay in determining the principles on which compensation was to be awarded and in setting up the machinery to carry them out. All this occurred long before I had any connection with the War Office, and therefore I am unable to say why the delay took place. The machinery since adopted by the Government for dealing with this matter, and which has been so disrespectfully spoken of by the noble Lord opposite, is what is known as the Duke Commission. The noble Lord, in the course of his speech, suggested that this was a very inadequate tribunal and that the members of it knew nothing about agriculture, and he even went so far as to suggest that a more appropriate tribunal could be composed from members of this House and the House of Commons, with myself as chairman. I am gratified at the flattery implied by the noble Lord's suggestion, but I cannot conceive that a tribunal of that character would carry greater confidence throughout the country than the Duke Commission. I believe it is universally recognised that this Commission has performed most valuable work, and has greatly expedited all these transactions—
LORD STRACHIE: Not the agricultural ones.
LORD NEWTON: The noble Lord is referring to what happened before the Duke Commission was appointed. At that time, after a settlement had been arrived at there ensued a long wrangle between the War Office and the Treasury, and naturally considerable time was occupied in arriving at a decision. Now all these questions
540
are dealt with most expeditiously by the Duke Commission. That body has given, so far as I have heard, complete satisfaction—
LORD STRACHIE: I quoted a case where the failure to pay compensation dates back more than a year.
LORD NEWTON: This Commission was appointed on March 31 last. It sits continuously, and is, I am informed, well abreast of its work. Up to now the Commission has dealt with 420 individual claims, each of considerable complexity, and has awarded up to the present date something like £90,000, in lump sum payments and over £36,000 in annual payments. Last week the Commission disposed of over fifty cases, and is expected to dispose of a similar number this week. I hope this will go some way to convince my noble friend that at all events there is no undue delay in dealing with these questions.
There are, of course, a large number of cases still under consideration, but many of these have only recently gone to the Commission. My noble friend must also bear in mind that this Commission has to deal not only with the claims of farmers and landowners in respect of damage, but also with claims for direct and substantial loss incurred and damage sustained by reason of interference with property or business in the United Kingdom through the exercise by the Crown of its rights and duties in defence of the Realm. It is perfectly true, however, that the majority of cases brought before the Commission refer to lands. Of course, all cases do not come before this Commission. As my noble friend is probably aware, cases involving a less amount than £100 or, if it is a question of rent, less than a certain sum per month, do not come before the Duke Commission at all, but are dealt with by the General Officer Commanding the district.
The chief causes of the delay, which I repeat is not so serious as the noble Lord contends, are, first, the difficulty in getting claimants to accept the Commission's forms and present methods of assessment; secondly, the fact that all local agents have been very busy in preparing winter quarters for the troops; and, thirdly, that large schemes of defence works and revisions in existing schemes are in progress in many places. The staff of land agents in the

541
employment of the War Office at the beginning of the war has been largely increased, and there are now sixty-seven whole-time and twenty-one part-time agents in their employment. That is all I have to say on this matter. But, if my noble friend likes, I shall be glad to show him a specimen form of the claims and reports thereon, and I think he will realise that, even when an agreement is arrived at, the process is an extremely complicated one which must occupy considerable time. I would repeat, in conclusion, that I shall be most happy to make inquiry into any particular cases of grievance.
LORD STRACHIE: I am obliged to my noble friend for promising to look into these grievances. The cases to which the noble Lord referred are sub judice, but the cases of which I complain are cases where the compensation has actually been awarded and where the War Office has neglected to pay these unfortunate men.
LORD HAVERSHAM: My Lords, I have been a compensation officer ever since these officials were first appointed, and my district is near to the largest camp in the United Kingdom, and probably a larger number of troops go over that area than any part of the country. All I can say is that month after month I have sent in my reports with "nil" upon them, there having been no claims. Sir Archibald Hunter himself wrote to me saying he was glad that I had been able to keep down the amount of claims. As a matter of fact, the farmers had made no claims. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Strachie) spoke of indignation among agriculturists as a whole. We wish to dissociate ourselves entirely from what he said. The farmers in my district have no complaint whatever against the War Office. The Department has done extremely well by us. The only damage that I can recollect at the moment was done to a park paling, and within a day or two the head compensation officer came over, viewed the damage, assessed it within a quarter of an hour, and the money was paid in two or three days. You could not wish for anything more expeditious than that. We have no sort of complaint. As regards the general complaint which the noble Lord made, I would point out that although it is necessary that farmers should surrender some of their horses, enough horses are left to work the ploughs, and carters are exempt under the scheme of
542
Lord Derby. On the whole, I do not think my noble friend has the slightest right to speak on this account in the name of the whole of the agriculturists of the country. For myself I say, on behalf of my district, that we are greatly indebted to the War Office for the consideration shown in this matter.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF SELBORNE): Your Lordships will expect me to say something on this subject. I must endorse what my noble friend behind me (Lord Newton) has said. We at the Board of Agriculture certainly have not received the numerous complaints of which the noble Lord opposite spoke.
LORD STRACHIE: Did you not receive the resolution of the Central Chamber of Agriculture?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes.
LORD STRACHIE: Was that not enough?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It gave no particulars. In the course of the six months during which I have been at the Board of Agriculture there have been complaints, but I could not possibly call them numerous. And at the meetings that I have addressed throughout the country, at which I have met a great number of farmers and have had every conceivable subject brought to my notice, this particular grievance has never been mentioned. I do not for a moment dispute that these cases exist. I have not the knowledge which would enable me to say that they do not. But I am sure they cannot exist to the extent my noble friend opposite thinks. If this grievance of the nonpayment of just claims extending over many months, and even over a year, had been as common as the noble Lord fears, I am convinced that my attention would have been drawn to it by one or other of my very numerous correspondents. When the resolution of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, to which the noble Lord alluded, was sent to me I communicated at once with the War Office; and I have never omitted to communicate with the War Office on the subject of any complaint made to me. All I am saying to the noble Lord is that the number of specific complaints on this head which have been lodged at the Board of Agriculture have not been numerous.

WAR BORROWINGS.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE rose to ask whether the Treasury will revise their regulations in regard to the issue of Treasury bills so that they can be issued in less than multiples of £1,000; and why the Treasury do not make the issue of Government life annuities better known and more popular by giving a larger return on them.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I desire to draw the attention of the representative of the Treasury, who I understand is my noble friend Lord Hylton, to the question whether it is not desirable that the Treasury should issue bills of a smaller sum than £1,000 or multiples of £1,000. We are constantly being told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is of the utmost importance that more money should be obtained from the people of this country for carrying on the war, but there seems great poverty of enterprise on the part of the Treasury in making more popular the system by which the Government are able to borrow money. It must be obvious that for every one man who is able to take from his bank balance £1,000 or multiples of £1,000, there must be hundreds who would be able temporarily to lend to the Government £100; and the Treasury would probably get the smaller sums at a lower rate of interest than 5 per cent., and thereby save the country some of the enormous sums now paid on Treasury bills. I have been told that the only possible objection might come from bankers, but I have taken the opportunity of questioning a banker on the subject. He said that he had never heard the point raised and that he thought it probably was a Treasury objection, because the Treasury were very fond of saying there was a lion in the path when they did not favour any innovation. We all remember that when it was proposed to have a graduated Income Tax many years ago the Treasury said it was quite impossible, but when it was found to be necessary there was no difficulty in having a graduated Income Tax as well as a Super-Tax following it.
It is also very desirable that the National Debt Office should make better known the new scales—they have lately been revised —for Government life annuities. The new scales are very liberal indeed and would prove tempting to a large number of people, but the Government do not adopt the course which is followed by insurance com-
544
panies of issuing attractive advertisements showing how a man can, with perfect safety, double his income by buying an annuitey. I suggest that it is desirable that the advantages of Government life annuities should be well advertised. It could be done in many ways. It could be done through some of the great approved societies, which are now used by the Government under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and in similar ways. The great advantage to the Government in regard to life annuities is that after an effluxion of time the annuity comes to an end and automatically the debt is reduced.
I took the opportunity the other day, as I intended raising this question, of giving my noble friend private notice that I also proposed to call attention to a curious speech that was made recently by Mr. McKenna in addressing representatives of trade unions, as I thought some explanation of it was required. In addressing the trade unionists Mr. McKenna is reported in The Times to have said—
"Men who before the war were earning perhaps £2 or £3 a week might be now earning twice or three times as much."
He went on to say—
"We [the Government] ask that the wage-earners shall give us 50 per cent. of their excess earnings, and we will borrow it from them, pay them interest on the money, and pay them back after the war."
It would be a good thing if working-men would do that; but I must say that the Government's proposal in regard to the wage-earners is in sharp contrast with the treatment of the excess profits of capitalists. Mr. McKenna proceeded—
"If 50 per cent. of increased earnings had been saved… it would have been possible, perhaps, to consider further increases of wages."
He went on to say—
"Those who demand higher wages must show themselves worthy of higher wages";
namely, by lending 50 per cent. of their increased earnings to the Government. It appears to me that this is a distinct incitement to trade unionists working for the Government to ask for a further increase, though, as Mr. McKenna himself said, their wages have been increased from £2 or £3 a week to £6 or £9 a week. That seems a very vicious principle, and I shall be glad if we can be favoured with some explanation.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I will answer in the first place the Question which my noble friend has placed on the Paper. The first part of it relates to the advisability of issuing Treasury bills in smaller denominations than£1,000. This matter has been carefully considered by the Treasury on several occasions since the adoption in April last of the system of selling Treasury bills over the counter at fixed rates of discount, but in the opinion of the Treasury it is distinctly inadvisable to adopt the course suggested. In considering a proposal of this kind regard must be had not merely to the immediate problem of raising the necessary funds for carrying on the Public Service, but also to the effect which the proposal would be likely to have upon the complicated and delicate mechanism of the Money Market. From the point of view of general financial policy it is felt that, on the whole, it is not desirable that there should be in existence any considerable amount of floating debt held in small denominations. Moreover, after full consideration it is held that Treasury bills are not a suitable form of investment either for temporary or for permanent balances of small amount. There are, as your Lordships are well aware, ample opportunities for small investors at the present moment to buy War Loan or other securities of a less temporary character than Treasury bills. Therefore there is no prospect at the present time, at all events, of the Treasury reconsidering this question and issuing Treasury bills in lower denominations than £1,000. The whole question of catering for the small investor is now receiving further consideration at the hands of the Treasury, and it is probable that a decision in the matter may be arrived at in a comparatively short space of time.
I come to the second part of the noble Lord's Question, with regard to Government life annuities. I am authorised to state that new tables for the granting of life annuities by the National Debt Commissioners and the Post Office were brought into use on October 15 last, and show an appreciable increase in the amount of annuity granted in respect of each £100 of purchase money. These tables are computed at a rate of interest on a basis of 3¾ per cent. as compared with the rate of 3 per cent. on which the superseded tables were calculated. The Post Office annuities are advertised in the various Post Office
546
publications that have been issued for many years past, but I will certainly bring to the attention of the Treasury the suggestion of my noble friend as to whether it might not be a good thing to advertise on some wider scale the advantages of these annuities.
As to the question of which my noble friend gave me private notice regarding the speech which was delivered by the Chancellor or the Exchequer to a meeting of trade unionists a few days ago, I am authorised by the right hon. gentleman to say that he can only refer the noble Lord to the words of his speech, the meaning of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer holds was perfectly plain.

OVERTIME IN MUNITIONS FACTORIES.
LORD SYDENHAM LORD SYDENHAM rose to ask His Majesty's Government what proportion of munitions workers are now on overtime, and whether the medical advisers of the Munitions Department have arrived at any conclusions as to the arrangements necessary to conserve the health and strength of the workers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the debate on the Second Reading of the Munitions Act I ventured to raise the question of the necessity of safeguarding the health of our workmen against overstrain. The noble Earl, Lord Curzon, who then replied to me, said that it was possible for the Minister of Munitions to limit the hours of labour but that this would entail somewhat stretching the powers given to him by the terms of the Act, and he added that the Minister of Munitions had not the least intention of doing so. It has happened that since July 2, when this Act was being discussed in your Lordships' House, the Ministry of Munitions has enormously developed its activities. It has recently eaten up the lean kine, the branch of the Master-General of the Ordnance, the Board of Ordnance, and several other Departments, and it has also taken another and a very wise step in appointing an Advisory Committee of medical and other officers to inspect and report on the conditions of labour in the munitions factories. I have not seen the Report of that body; I do not think it has been laid on the Table of your Lordships' House, but I believe it shows that the hours of work in some of the factories are excessive, and that many

547
men are suffering on that account. I also understand that the proportion of the men on overtime is now very considerable, and if that is the ease evils are certain to arise.
When pressure comes on a factory the natural tendency is to resort at once to overtime as the line of least resistance. The workmen are tempted by higher rates of wages, and the management is spared the trouble and complication of organising shifts, and when there is a shortage of Labour it may not be possible to organise shifts at all. That is my own experience in managing a large factory under war pressure. In February, 1893, the film of Mather & Platt, of the Salford Iron Works, began a most interesting experiment which has had far-reaching results. In full agreement with their workpeople and the trade unions they adopted a forty-eight hour week, and at the same time abolished all overtime and also all work before breakfast. The result of that experiment, after one year's trial, showed that the production was fully maintained, that the profits of the firm did not decrease, that the loss of time on the part of the workmen was greatly diminished, and that there was not a single case of a man being sent back owing to drink, which had often happened before that change was made. The moral of this is plain, and it applies with special force to munition factories to-day. Months of strenuous effort lie before our workers, and if their health suffers from overstrain there will be a loss of production, which in itself will be a serious matter, apart from the possibility of permanent injury to the men themselves, which could only be regarded in the light of a national calamity. Moreover, Women are now employed in large numbers in the factories, and that introduces what may be called a new physiological factor.
It seems to me, therefore, that it is more than ever necessary that we should study carefully the economics of labour, to which far too little attention has been paid in this country. There is a valuable little book recently published called "Motion Study," by an American engineer, which I commend to the attention of the Ministry of Munitions. That book shows how muscular effort can be carefully economised. The author points out that there is a right and a wrong way of carrying on every manual operation, and that if you take the right way you produce the maximum result with
548
the minimum of fatigue. I hope that the Minister of Munitions will, if it is necessary, stretch the great powers conferred upon him by the Act, and that he will as soon as possible give practical effect to any conclusions at which the Advisory Committee to which I have referred may arrive. I believe there are four particularly important conditions which should obtain in a well-managed factory. In the first place, there should be restriction of overtime; secondly, there should be insistence upon one day's rest in seven; thirdly, there should be the abolition of all work before breakfast, which undoubtedly leads to drinking; and, lastly, there should be provision of good and wholesome meals, which I am glad to know is already in a great many places being carried out. If all these conditions can be approximately fulfilled I think we may hope that the supply of munitions for our troops and our Allies will be worthily maintained without injury to the health of our workers.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I regret that I am unable to give my noble friend the figures for which he asks, because I am informed that they cannot be obtained without undue labour. But I may say that the whole question of overtime and Sunday work has for a considerable period occupied the careful attention of the Minister of Munitions, and in September he appointed the Committee to which my noble friend referred, which is presided over by Sir George Newman, M.D. This Committee, which was appointed to inquire into the question of industrial fatigue and hours of labour and other matters affecting the health and physical efficiency of the workers, has already presented an interim Report, and my noble friend does not seem to be aware of the fact that this Report was tabled last week—on December 1.
The Committee were apparently greatly impressed with the urgent need of the provision of an adequate period of rest. Therefore they presented an interim Report dealing specially with the question of Sunday labour. The Report states that while the complete stoppage of Sunday labour is advisable, it is felt to be hardly possible at the present moment to carry that principle thoroughly into effect. But the Committee suggest that the following improvements may be carried out. Firstly, the Committee suggest that improvement can be effected by the rearrangement of shifts; in the second place, by the omission

549
of shifts; and, in the third place, by the employment of relief gangs and the organisation of relief week-end shifts of volunteer labour. This Report was, as I have stated, tabled on December 1; and in order to show my noble friend that no time was lost I may say that a circular letter was sent out from the Ministry of Munitions yesterday containing recommendations to give effect to the proposals in the interim Report. These recommendations apply to all classes of labour, male and female, adult and juvenile, although it is recognised that in certain forms of industry continuous labour—for instance, in the case of furnaces—cannot well be suspended, but even in these cases it has been suggested that the Government should so rearrange matters that every one should have a regular period of rest. Attention has also been drawn to the advisability, as I have stated, of employing week-end voluntary labour, and arrangements will be made with the Labour Exchange Department of the Board of Trade for supplying labour of this particular type.
With regard to the remarks winch fell from the noble Lord, I may say that in this letter the Minister of Munitions has pointed out to the controlled firms that he has under consideration the desirability of making regulations under the Munitions Act compulsorily applying some or all of the suggestions contained in his letter as to Sunday labour, but up to the present it has not been found necessary to take any action of this drastic nature. In addition to that, I understand that the Minister of Munitions has been in constant communication with the Home Office with regard to the employment of women and young persons, and while in some cases it has been found necessary that women and young persons should work for what would be considered unduly long hours under normal conditions, it is hoped that as the output is increased it will be possible to reduce these unduly prolonged hours.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I beg to thank my noble friend for the sympathetic answer he has given. I am quite certain he will find, if those reforms are carried out, that there will be no loss of production. Therefore if the Minister of Munitions will carry out the reforms, I am sure the example he will set will be followed by other employers throughout the country.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD) BUCKMASTER): My Lords, the object of this till is to enable the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to sit in more than one Division at the same time. Although circumstances of war have rendered this Bill urgent, it is not proposed by the Government that its operation should be confined to the period of hostilities. As your Lordships know, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the final appeal for all the Courts in the whole of the Empire, and in addition it has thrown upon it the duty of determining appeals in all cases from the Prize Courts. At the present moment the result of that is that there are twenty-eight appeals from the different parts of our Dominions with regard to Prize Court matters, and although only a few of these are entered for trial at any moment the others might be pressed on and put down for hearing, with the result that the Judicial Committee would have before them for decision a very large volume of extremely important business. The result of that must necessarily be that the other work will be thrown into arrear, and I am sure that your Lordsips, all of whom have some experience of judicial matters, will know that there can be nothing more disadvantageous to the proper administration of justice than the sense that the time for the disposal of any case is limited by the desire to dispose of the case that is to follow. Justice administered in haste is always liable to become unjust, and I am quite satisfied that nothing could be more undesirable for the proper and effectual despatch of the business in the Privy Council than that there should be a heavy list of arrears awaiting disposal.
There is another added disadvantage from which the Judicial Committee suffer in that respect, due to the fact that many of their cases are cases in which the counsel who attend are not English counsel. A great opportunity is afforded for the mixing of counsel from the Bars of all the Dominions, and the opportunity is one which I am pleased to say is very freely used by counsel particularly from the Dominion of Canada. These counsel come over for the purpose of having their cases heard, and it would be a most unfortunate

551
circumstance if it were necessary to send any of them back before their case was properly disposed of. I am sure that your Lordships will feel as I do that it is impossible to attach too much importance to the good that is gained from the practice before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of Colonial counsel. It is not merely the mingling of the two Bars which I think is of great service, but the Judicial Committee have the advantage of having counsel before them who are familiar with the local circumstances out of which the case has arisen.
If these Prize Court cases come on for hearing, as I anticipate, the result will certainly be that the other work will be put on one side. The Prize Court cases are urgent, and must be determined at once. At the same time I am pleased to be able to tell your Lordships that the judicial business before this House, although I can see no signs whatever of its flagging in quantity or importance, has none the less been dealt with so effectually during this term that at the present moment nearly all the cases down for hearing have been despatched. There are two or three still remaining, but it is fair to say that the work before your Lordships' House is well up to date. If, therefore, at the beginning of next term there was no urgent work before your Lordships' House it would be possible to use the members of this House who sit here judicially for the purpose of forming a second Division in the Privy Council, and by this means it would be possible to proceed with the two classes of cases at the same time—the Prize Court cases which require rather a special tribunal, and the ordinary work of the Privy Council—and thus both Divisions of the Privy Council would sit at the highest possible standard of judicial strength. I mention that as I regard it of the greatest possible importance. If the result of passing this Bill was to produce a set of circumstances in which it was thought that there were two Divisions of the Privy Council and that one was not of equal judicial authority to the other, nothing but disaster would follow. But I feel quite satisfied that nothing of the sort need or will ensue under this Bill, because in order to safeguard the possibility of such an event a provision has been introduced that this Bill should only operate with the consent of the Lord Chancellor for the time being and the Lord
552
President of the Council. I feel quite satisfied that any holder of my office would exercise the utmost vigilance in order to secure no weakening of judicial authority in the Privy Council, and I feel equally certain that the Lord President would regard it as his first duty to see that the high standard hitherto maintained in that body is maintained in the two Divisions.
I have only to add that I have placed the Bill for consideration before my noble and learned friends Lord Halsbury, Lord Haldane, and Lord Loreburn. Lord Haldane is an ardent supporter of the Bill. I think I am right in saving that it has the complete approval of Lord Loreburn, although he has some little uncertainty as to whether it is necessary; but the Law Officers are satisfied that it is necessary, and certainly if it is I feel sure it has his support. With regard to Lord Halsbury, I much regret that it was impossible for me to place the Bill before him so as to give him sufficient time for full consideration, but he most considerately spoke to me about the matter, and although I cannot honestly say that the Bill has the advantage of his blessing I think I can safely say that it has not the disadvantage of his ban. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD MUIR-MACKENZIE: My Lords, I should like to be allowed to say a few words upon this Bill. My only excuse for doing so is that it has been my lot to be associated for a great many years with these matters under the direction of successive Lord Chancellors, and in that way I happen to be very familiar with the subject and the way these things are worked. I think that this Bill, though a modest measure, is a very useful one and quite practicable; and there can be no doubt that, assuming it is necessary to pass a Bill of this kind, it ought to be passed at once, because, as the noble and learned Lord has mentioned, there are a great many appeals accruing in the various Prize Courts, and they are matters which ought to be dealt with at once. It is also eminently necessary, as my noble and learned friend has said, that the Colonial appeals should not be delayed. There is, therefore, a very clear case, if it is a possible and proper thing to do, for empowering

553
the Judicial Committee now to sit in two Divisions.
Then comes the question whether there are sufficient persons duly qualified to maintain two adequate Courts. The Lord Chancellor has stated, and I venture to agree with him, that there are sufficient qualified persons, many of whom sit in your Lordships' House as well as in the Privy Council, and there are others who form a sufficient number and certainly a competent tribunal for making up two Courts to deal at the same time with these classes of cases. It happens that the strength of the Court is at the moment diminished by the absence of two very important Lords of Appeal. It is a matter of deep regret that Lord Dunedin just now is suffering from a prolonged illness. As for Lord Moulton, while he is undoubtedly serving his country without stint it is the case that as a legal luminary he may scarcely be said any longer to exist. His services have not for a long time been at the disposal of this House. That being so, it seems that it may be necessary to bear in mind at some future time that when it was thought that an addition might be made to the labours of these tribunals the number of those competent to deal with them was, even under the disadvantageous circumstances that I have mentioned, adequate for the purpose. When economy becomes again a factor in its proper place in the administration of our national affairs, perhaps this will be borne in mind.
Assuming that this Bill is to pass, I hope it does not mean that, it is the last word that we shall hear from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack about the Judicial Committee. On the contrary, I hope it may be an indication that he sees that there is a great future for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and I trust that at a not very distant day a Bill dealing with that very large and very interesting subject will be presented to your Lordships' House. I presume that the Lord Chancellor intends to proceed rapidly with this Bill, and that the Committee stage will be taken very shortly. I therefore venture to mention two or three points which occur to me on reading the Bill and which I would ask him to be kind enough to consider before he deals with the Bill in Committee. The points that I desire to mention arise on subsection (2) of the one main clause of the Bill. I
554
would suggest for the noble and learned Lord's consideration that it might be desirable to give a power under the rule both as to the place of sitting and as to the quorum of each Division of the Court I am not prepared at this moment to offer any arguments upon either of those points, but I have thought sufficiently about them to regard them as worthy of the Lord Chancellor's consideration.
There is one other point which I venture to think is of considerable importance. A very large rule-making power is given in subsection (2), so large as to include—
"such adaptations in the enactments relating to the Judicial Committee as may be necessary for giving effect to this Act."
You will observe that under that, by means of rules, all the Acts of Parliament relating to the Judicial Committee may be modified so as to give effect to this Bill. I have been for thirty-five years without having any opinion of my own upon any legal subject, but having at last an opinion of my own I would venture to say to the House that I have always thought that a rule-making power ought not to go so far as to allow the modification of existing Acts of Parliament except in matters of practice and procedure and things of that nature. Here is one of the strongest instances I have ever seen of that which I have ventured to say I do not think is desirable. I believe I am not going too far in saying that, under the power here given, the number of the Judicial Committee might be increased, and I think there are other large things that might be done under this power on the ground that they would give effect to this Bill.
The noble and learned Lord has said that the number competent to take part in the business of this tribunal is ufficient just now. But supposing he thought at some future time that it was insufficient, would he not be able to make a modification of the Act of William IV which constituted the Judicial Committee and add further members or even alter their qualifications? I think that would be possible under the Bill as it stands, and I do not think it ought to be. I venture to suggest to the Lord Chancellor that he should at least make it quite clear that the rules referred to in this subsection are rules which come in every respect within the provisions of the Rules Publication Act—that is to say, that they cannot become absolute

555
and effective without first having been published in the London Gazette. I can imagine that the Lord Chancellor would say that that would raise a difficulty in one of the important matters that he desires to deal with at this moment—namely, the making of an Order enabling the Judicial Committee to sit in two Divisions. The answer to that, which no doubt the Lord Chancellor knows as well as I do, is that rules can be made provisional and can be acted upon, but nevertheless the rules are published in the same way as any others and have to be considered in the light of any representations that are made before they are finally adopted. I would ask the Lord Chancellor to be good enough to consider the rule-making power he has here in the light of those three or four amendments which I have ventured to suggest.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down has had a unique experience in these matters, and I think your Lordships must not take too seriously his statement that he has not very often exercised his own authority or had his own way in matters of this kind. On the Bill generally, I agree entirely with what has been said by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. It is not necessary to emphasise that point. But I will say a word or two on the special subject raised by the noble Lord opposite. The concluding words of subsection (2) of Clause 1 are these—
"for making such adaptations in the enactments relating to the Judicial Committee as may be necessary for giving effect to this Act."
The result of these words is to give a rule-making power which may and could override special enactments of the Legislature dealing with the Privy Council. I do not think that is right. I do not think that special legislation ought to be repealed by rules and orders. If special legislation of this kind is intended to be altered, it ought to be altered by the Legislature itself. I agree with what the noble Lord opposite has said, that as regards the constitution and the jurisdiction of tile Judicial Committee of the Privy Council very important matters might arise. In that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the Imperial tribunal, I think it is due not only to this country but to all our Dominions that no alteration should be made in its constitution except by legislative authority and in practically the most solemn and the most direct way that you can deal with a
556
question of this sort. Therefore I object very much that the Committee who formulate these rules should have the power of interfering with specific enactments of the Legislature.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I will say one or two words, in reply to what has been said, which I hope will relieve the anxiety of my noble friend Lord Muir-Mackenzie. In the first place, I do not think it would be possible for the rules to do anything of the character that he suggests. I do not see how you can make rules to enable an existing body to sit in two Divisions in such a manner as to take away the authority or power of either Division or to add to the legislative power under which one Division now sits. The whole point in the Bill is that instead of sitting in one Division the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council may sit in two Divisions, and certainly nothing is done to impair or endanger in the slightest degree the position or power of the Judicial Committee as now constituted. I desire to say that at once, lest it might be thought that this Bill by some obscure and indirect manner attempted to create such a power. It would be most undesirable were such a thing possible. But I should be glad, indeed, to have the assistance of the noble Lord in making any alteration in the last words of subsection (2) of Clause 1 to prevent the possibility of such a thing, not taking place, but being reasonably misapprehended. Certainly there was no intention that anything of the kind should occur. It is difficult to interpose between these rules and their operation the lapse of any long period of time, because it may be that you want them effective at once. It is sometimes difficult to know in advance exactly everything that is required.
With regard to the other amendments mentioned by the noble Lord, I think, if I may say so with respect, both suggestions are undesirable. It is very undesirable to fix by rule the number of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council who should sit, and extremely undesirable to fix the place where they should sit. After all, it is a great Imperial tribunal; and it may be in the future that such a body may sit in any part of the Empire. Therefore I think it would be unwise to limit in any way whatever the place where they may sit. Subject to that I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said with regard to the Bill.
LORD MUIR-MACKENZIE: My Lords, I apologise to my noble and learned friend for my imperfect exposition of my view on this subject. I did not use many words with regard to the place of sitting, but the idea in my own mind was to facilitate where Sit might sit. I do not happen to know at this moment where the second Division may sit, and that is why I asked my noble and learned friend to consider the point.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

EVIDENCE (AMENDMENT) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Bill also arises out of the circumstances connected with the war but is not limited by its duration. There are three distinct matters with which the Rill is designed to deal. The first is this. At the present moment, as your Lordships are aware, if a witness who has given his evidence on oath before a Court of summary jurisdiction is unable, either by death or by illness, to be present at the trial, his evidence—if it were given in the presence of the accused and upon oath and there has been full opportunity for cross-examination, and if the deposition is properly signed and attested—may be used at the hearing against or in favour of an accused person. At the present moment it is obvious that there are a number of people who might be called upon in Courts of summary jurisdiction who, between the preliminary hearing and the trial, would be absent on active naval or military service; and the first part of the first clause of this Bill provides that in such a case their absence on active naval or military service shall put them in the same position as if they had been subject to the disabilities which enable a witness's evidence now to be read. I cannot help thinking that this is essential to the proper administration of justice. If a man has given evidence here in a Court of summary jurisdiction and has been summoned to France it would be impossible to get him back for the trial, and it would be lamentable if it were impossible to use his evidence, which might be in favour of the accused although, as a
558
rule, in a Court of summary jurisdiction the greater part of the evidence is evidence given for the prosecution. Clause 1 of this Bill is to enable a witness in such circumstances to have his deposition read on the hearing, if the Court consents. The Court has power to say that the circumstances are such that the deposition ought not to be read, but, if the Court consents, the evidence may be read just as if the witness were dead or absent through ill-health. I gave your Lordships an illustration of a witness summoned to France on active service, but it is not to be assumed that that is the only case the Bill would cover. It would cover all persons absent on active naval or military service wherever the witness might be. Of course, if the circumstances were such that the Judge before whom the trial ultimately took place thought that the witness could be, and there were sufficient reasons why he should be, brought to the Court, that might be a reason why he would refuse to let the evidence be read. But, subject to that, the evidence is to be read just as if the man were dead. That is the whole of Clause 1.
Clause 2 is a different clause altogether. It provides that where a preliminary investigation has taken place before a military tribunal as a preliminary to trial by Court-Martial and the evidence has been given upon oath the same rules and provisions shall apply to that evidence being read when the Court-Martial or the trial by jury occurs as are applicable where a man after a preliminary investigation by a Court of summary jurisdiction is ultimately tried by Quarter Sessions or Assize. It is to make this procedure apply just as effectively to Courts-Martial as it does now to civil Courts, and the importance of it cannot be over-estimated. Let me assume the case of a man being tried for spying, one of the most obvious cases for trial by Court-Martial. In those cases it would be a disaster if, when the evidence had been given on oath in the preliminary investigation, the man accused should be capable of being acquitted because the person who gave the evidence had died or was unable to travel owing to ill-health or other causes; and it would be equally a disaster if evidence could be given that established an alibi and the witness could not attend the trial and his evidence could not be used. Clause 2, therefore, provides that in those circumstances also the evidence may be used at the hearing. That is

559
safeguarded in the same way that the Court before whom the trial ultimately takes place must consent to the use of the evidence. Clause 3 provides that absence on the ground that a witness is actively engaged in naval or military operations can be proved by a certificate signed by a secretary or assistant secretary of the Admiralty or Army Council.
Clause 4 deals with a different matter altogether. At the present moment, as your Lordships know, under the Documentary Evidence Act there are a number of official documents which are capable of being proved by the production of a certificate signed by the King's Printers. This clause extends that to Orders of the Army Council which had been omitted from the original Statute, and of course it is important that they should be now incorporated, because in the case of obtaining, say, pensions by false pretences or matters of that kind the Army Council might require documents to be proved at once, and unless the same facilities existed for their proof as for other official documents considerable delay, expense, and inconvenience might be incurred. That is the first part of Clause 4. The rest is to extend the Documentary Evidence Acts to Scotland and also to the Local Government Board for Ireland. Those provisions have not been unwelcome to the representatives of Scotland and Ireland in another place, and that may be a sufficient guarantee that neither Scotland nor Ireland objects to them. That is the whole of the Bill, and I ask your Lordships to grant it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I admit that I approach a Bill of this kind with a bias of dislike, because it is one of the emergency Bills which are always supported on the ground that they are necessary for the immediate conditions of the war. So far as this present Bill is concerned, however, subject to what I have to say, I think that the Lord Chancellor has shown that in order to promote the ends of justice it is necessary that there should be some provision as regards the evidence of soldiers or sailors who may be actively engaged on foreign service.
I think the Lord Chancellor was under a misapprehension in stating that this Bill
560
was not to be of a temporary character. It is clearly of a temporary character as regards the first two clauses, which are really the important ones. In the first clause the provision is only to be enforced "during the continuance of the present war," and if it had not been for a limitation of that kind I do not think that anybody cognisant of the real conditions of criminal jurisdiction would for a moment assent to this Bill as a permanent feature of the administration of our Criminal Law in this country. Then Clause 2 deals with Courts-Martial—quite properly; I am not going to call that matter into question—in the case of offences against any regulations made under the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914. I believe I am right when I state that all the Defence of the Realm Acts—and they have appeared in various forms—are in themselves temporary in character; that is to say, offences under those Acts come to an end when the war ends. As your Lordships are aware, the question has been raised in this House more than once what is technically meant by "the end of the war." I want to make it clear that I should not agree to the passing of this Bill, and I do not think it could have passed the House of Commons, if the provisions in Clauses 1 and 2 had been of a permanent character.
It is an essential condition of our Criminal Law that the accused and the witnesses shall be brought face to face and oral evidence given before the tribunal by whom the case is actually tried. Anybody concerned in criminal administration would say without any reservation that this is a most important matter of principle, and there ought to be no interference with it except for temporary purposes and under certain safeguards. Particularly if a trial is before a Judge and jury, the reading of a deposition is essentially a different thing from oral evidence. A tribunal like a jury, which is more or less, of course, an untrained tribunal, although directed by a Judge or Chairman, fairly easily apprehend oral evidence that is given before them, but it is a very different thing in regard to depositions. I should like to ask my noble and learned friend Lord Loreburn, with all his experience, whether he would not corroborate this statement—that in all judicial matters, and especially in criminal matters, it is of the first importance that the Court which has to decide should have the actual oral evidence before it.

561
There is another point which we have to consider. Depositions are very unsatisfactory in certain cases; they are badly taken and under conditions where they have not anything like the same trustworthy authority as oral evidence. I think it is a great safeguard that the depositions cannot be read in evidence under the powers of this clause save with the consent of the Court before which the trial takes place. That was a provision put in at the instance of the hon. Member for Cambridge University, Mr. Rawlinson, K.C., in the other House, and I think that, apart from that provision, there would have been a great chance of injustice being done in some particular case. Although I quite agree that a Bill of this kind may be necessary, the Lord Chancellor has not given us any statistics to show that in fact difficulty has arisen up to the present time. All I can say is that I have not heard of any difficulty in the Court with which I am acquainted. I want to say further that when this matter was before the other House the Home Secretary, who is responsible for this Bill, said that he had only heard of one case in which any difficulty had arisen.
Let me now say a word or two as regards the safeguards which I think ought to be introduced into this Bill. I should like to point out to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack—I indicated to him earlier in the evening that I should refer to this—that this is a Bill in which enactment is made by reference, and the reference so far as England is concerned is to the provisions of Section 17 of the Indictable Offences Act, 1818. In the first place I protest against legislation by reference in a matter of this kind. A Bill of this sort ought to be drawn so that the ordinary man could read and understand it; yet nobody could read and understand this Bill who had not the advantage of access to a law library. That in itself is a great mistake in the drafting of a Criminal Bill. But I go further. The Act of 1848 deals only with depositions given on behalf of the prosecution.
THE LORD CHANCELLORindicated dissent.
LORD PARMOOR: The Lord Chancellor shakes his head; but it may show that even people who are acquainted with matters of this kind and have access to law libraries go wrong when you have legislation by
562
reference instead of legislation in clear and understandable words. In my opinion—I stand open to correction—the enactment refers only to depositions made on behalf of the prosecution. There is a subsequent Act—an Amending Act of 1867—which extends the same right to depositions made on behalf of the prisoner, but this Bill refers only to the earlier Act and not to the later Act. In my opinion the Bill as it stands does not give the reciprocal right to the prisoner to use depositions made on his behalf in the event of his not being able to call a witness owing to the latter's absence on foreign service. I am aware that this was discussed in another place. I intend to put down an Amendment upon this point when we come to the Committee stage. I do not want to be too positive in regard to a Bill drafted in the reference form, but I think I am right in saying that the Act of 1848 applies only to depositions on behalf of the prosecution. I am sure your Lordships would be of opinion that at least it ought to be made clear upon the face of the Bill that if depositions are to be read against the prisoner he ought also to have the right, in similar conditions, to have depositions read in his favour.
There is another point as regards the drafting of the Bill to which I should like to call attention. Power is given to the Court to withhold its consent from the reading of depositions under the conditions mentioned in the Bill. That is no doubt true. But in order that the prisoner may have a proper opportunity of having his views stated upon a matter of that kind reasonable notice ought to be given to him if it is proposed to read the deposition in the place of calling the witness before the jury, because unless you give that reasonable notice the prisoner has no chance of making an objection upon a point of this kind. Many of your Lordships have had experience of criminal administration. What does one notice? There are numerous cases in which the prisoner in the dock is really not in a position to look after his own interests. I have seen prisoners again and again in a state of consternation coming into the dock for the first time, and we ought to make certain that if we are going to alter the Criminal Law in this respect reasonable notice should be given to the prisoner in order that he may raise an objection and in order that the Court may give a proper decision upon it.

563
What I am saying is emphasised by this fact. It is not true of some other criminal systems, but it is true of ours by Common Law—subject to special cases to the contrary—that only one witness is necessary; so that you might have a trial under the conditions of this Bill where the only evidence against a prisoner is that which is read from a deposition taken before the committing magistrate. I should hope that in cases of that kind Judges with experience of criminal administration would say, "Well, this is rather strong, without any corroboration." But whatever might be done in a particular instance this Bill would allow a prisoner to be convicted of a most serious charge—such a charge even as murder—upon a written deposition alone, and without any other evidence of his guilt of any sort or kind being called before the trial tribunal. That is another point in reference to which I propose to put down an Amendment, not with a view of stopping this Bill, because I recognise that it has a true value as regards criminal administration, but in order to ensure that so far as our criminal administration is concerned it shall be kept as pure and as free and as fair to the prisoner so far as possible, after this Bill is passed, as it is at the present time.
When this Bill was in the other House numerous hon. Members raised the question that it ought not to be applicable to hearings in camera. I am not going into that question again. On a former occasion I expressed to your Lordships my view on hearings in camera—namely, that although in special cases it may be necessary to so hear cases, yet it should be carefully avoided unless the necessity is urgent. Upon that point I should like to read what the Home Secretary said in the House of Commons on Thursday last, because when I was addressing your Lordships upon this matter I made the suggestion that some responsible Minister ought to consider the question whether or not it was necessary to hear these trials in camera. This is what the Home Secretary said upon this point, and I am bound to admit it seems to me to carry out the views which I endeavoured at one time to express to your Lordships—
"I have actually sent round a circular, in view of questions put to me in this House a short time ago, and called the specific attention of those who preside in these cases to the circumstance that a trial in camera is a wholly exceptional method, and that even when it has to be resorted
564
to for a particular piece of evidence that does not mean that it is to be resorted to for the whole trial; and that it ought always to be regarded as a course only to be adopted, first, where the prosecution solemnly submit that it is necessary in the public interest, and, secondly, where the tribunal is itself satisfied that in its discretion a portion of the evidence should be so taken."
I quote those words because I think it is most important that the matter should be emphasised. Those who feel strongly about the hearing of criminal cases in camera have never denied that it might be necessary under present conditions to hear some cases or to take some portions of the evidence in camera; but I desire to emphasise most strongly what the Home Secretary said, that this is a wholly exceptional method, wholly alien to the spirit of our old traditional criminal administration in this country, and that it ought to be resorted to only where it is solemnly submitted as necessary in the public interest, and that even in those cases it ought to be limited to some exceptional bit of evidence if that is all that is required to be heard in camera as regards the public interest.
I dislike all these forms of emergency legislation. I am afraid I have not the fear in these matters which some people have. I think our old methods are good enough and give us sufficient safeguards, subject to an exceptional point here and there. Although holding that view, I do say that there is proper ground for a Bill of this sort provided that it is quite clear—and I thought it was clear before what was said by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack—that it is temporary only, that is an essential condition; and further that, subject to the essence of the Bill, every possible safeguard should be introduced that exceptional evidence of this kind due to exceptional circumstances should be only taken so as to safeguard the prisoner and to safeguard the administration of Criminal Law in this country.
EARL LOREBURN: My Lords, there are three respects in which this Bill requires notice. They have been adverted to by my noble and learned friend opposite. Therefore it would be superfluous for me to dwell upon them, but I must advert to them. The first is that this Bill takes away what has always been a priceless characteristic of the administration of Criminal Law in this country. I am aware that there are already some Statutes, carefully guarded, which admit of the

565
reading in a Criminal Court of a deposition instead of the oral evidence, but having had considerable experience in the administration of justice I can say and do say most strongly that the value of a written document when you are trying a question of fact is incomparably inferior to the value of an oral testimony given by a man whose demeanour you can judge of, whose veracity you can form an opinion of from your own knowledge and experience, and who is liable above all things to cross-examination. It is the commonest possible experience in every Court of Justice that one story seems to be excellent and unquestionable until you hear a few questions put in cross-examination which very often result in its complete destruction. To my mind it is a very serious thing, although it may be necessary—and I do not wish to appear to be in any way cavilling at the statement of the Lord Chancellor—it is a very serious thing to make an inroad into that safeguard for freedom and for the, administration of justice. I think my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will acknowledge that that is so. It is particularly so in the Courts in which I have chiefly had experience—namely, in the Common Law Courts, which include the Criminal Courts. I hope that Amendments will be put down in respect of that.
The second point is in respect of hearings in camera. That interferes with a characteristic feature of our Jurisprudence from time immemorial which has distinguished the hearing of cases in this country from the hearing of cases in many other civilised countries of whose history we have knowledge. The fact that justice has been administered in secret in foreign countries has done more than anything else to create distrust among tine people who dwell in those countries of its open and fair administration. Therefore I feel very anxious in regard to this. This is not necessarily a fatal objection, nor is the other a fatal objection; but these things ought to be considered, and I hope that clauses may be suggested which will indicate the anxiety of this House—which, after all, should always remember that it is the highest Court of Justice in the kingdom—not without real necessity to depart from our old-established custom.
My noble and learned friend opposite has referred to the clause which consists of legislation by reference. Legislation by
566
reference is to me always odious and distasteful. I remember the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, once taking hold of a Bill relating to distraint, and, notwithstanding my not very strongly felt criticism, turning it inside out by introducing a series of fresh clauses. Those clauses had the same effect but consisted of the real words, stating what was meant so that anybody who read the Bill might be able to understand it. I do not know whether he is disposed to repeat the same experiment in connection with this Bill, but somebody ought to. To have legislation by reference in regard to a criminal Statute is a deplorable mistake. It could be perfectly easily set out at the end of the Bill itself, especially as it is a temporary Bill; and then those who are affected by the Bill would know exactly what it meant. I trust that Amendments will be placed on the Paper. But I hope that my anxiety, which I cannot help suspecting is shared by others, will not be misunderstood by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack as actuated by any wish to prevent fair play and justice with regard to charges of the kind to which the Bill adverts.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I can assure the noble and learned Earl, Lord Loreburn, that I shall not misunderstand anything he says, or think for a moment that he is prompted by anything but a sincere desire for the highest purpose to which we can devote our energies—the proper and pure administration of justice. But I think that this Bill has been subject to criticism for faults which cannot justly be laid at its door. In the first place it is suggested that it ought not to contain any reference to previous Statutes which it desires to incorporate. Though I object myself to legislation by reference, this is surely the mildest form of the offence that could be imagined. What is provided is that Section 17 of the Indictable Offences Act, 1848, and sections of certain Acts in Ireland which are also referred to—the clause goes on to state what they are—which enable the depositions of witnesses in certain circumstances to be read as evidence at the trial shall, during the continuance of the present war, apply to depositions of witnesses who are proved to be unable to attend, having regard to the necessities of the public service, by reason of being actively engaged on naval or military duties. I do not

567
think anybody could for a moment be under any confusion or doubt about it. A person who knows—we must assume he does know—what are the conditions under which depositions may be now read is told that added to those is the circumstance where a man is away on naval or military duties. I quite accept what has been suggested as to the desirability of saying that this Bill applies equally to depositions in favour of the prisoner as well as to those against him. But I cannot share Lord Parmoor's views about the Statute, because the Statute says in plain words that the justice before whom the first charge is brought shall "take on oath or affirmation the statements of those who shall know the facts and circumstances of the case," and shall put the same into writing. The persons who know the facts and circumstances of the case are not merely witnesses for the prosecution.
LORD PARMOOR: The Lord Chancellor will find that depositions on behalf of the prisoner were not taken until the 1867 Act was passed, and special powers were given to do it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I cannot accept the noble and learned Lord's view, because the truth is that this Statute bound the justice to take on oath the statements of "all who know the facts and circumstances of the case." How anybody could say that the persons who knew the facts and circumstances of the case were only those who knew what was charged against the prisoner and not those who knew what was to be said in his defence is a thing which passes all wit. At the same time I am perfectly willing to accept any Amendment which will not confuse the Bill or destroy its efficacy and will enable this point to be made plain, as it should be. Neither the noble Lord nor I want to tire your Lordships with the construction of Statutes at this moment. The next thing the noble and learned Lord referred to was this—and again I cannot see why he lays this to the charge of this Bill. He says that the Bill will enable a man to be convicted on the written evidence of one person. I do not See that this Bill does anything of the kind, and I should be glad if the noble and learned Lord would tell us how it does.
LORD PARMOOR: By the Common Law of this country, except under special Statutes, one witness is sufficient. It might well happen that the one witness not being able to be present, his deposition would be read. In that case the deposition of one witness would be sufficient according to the Criminal Law of this country.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid I do not understand the noble and learned Lord. The reason why one deposition is read is not by reason of this Bill; it is by reason of a Statute passed many years ago. Indeed the noble and learned Lord's complaint is that the Bill incorporates what has already been passed by Act of Parliament. I fail to understand it.
LORD PARMOOR: The noble and learned Lord says he fails to understand my point. At the present time certain depositions cannot be read which under this Bill could be read. One of the depositions which, if this Bill is passed, could be read and now cannot be read will be sufficient to convict a prisoner of the most serious possible crime.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That has nothing to do with the point. What this Bill does is to add a new form of deposition to those which can be read now at the hearing. If that is the only point against it, then I think the Bill is free from reproach. Reference has been made to trials in camera. I am not satisfied that that is strictly relevant to this Bill, and I do not know that the two noble and learned Lords really suggested that it was, except in so far as the circumstance that in a certain case a trial might be heard in camera. There the contention is that the power of reading depositions should not be extended. Otherwise, of course, this Bill has nothing at all to do with cases tried in camera.
LORD PARMOOR: Amendments were suggested in the other House that hearings in camera should be excluded. That is how it arose.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is another consideration. But speaking with some knowledge of what transpires in these cases and knowing full well the grave danger to which this country is exposed through the unguarded publication of matters that ought to be kept secret, anxious as I am to preserve in all respects the old traditions

569
of our Courts, I say that at this moment the ordinary considerations do not apply. We are in face of a national peril and personal liberty must go by the board.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

MIDWIVES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, this Bill has passed through all its stages in another place. Its purpose is to secure the better training of midwives in Scotland and to regulate their practice. The last two Bills that have been considered by your Lordships were described by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack as war measures. That claim in one sense cannot be advanced for this Bill, as indeed its title sufficiently indicates, and also because it is in fact an identical Bill to that which my noble friend opposite (Lord Balfour) introduced into the House last year. My noble friend's Bill went through this House and passed several of its stages in another place, but it was not found possible to proceed with it.
In one sense, however, this Bill may be regarded as a war measure in the present circumstances. It clearly would not be right to say that the terrible wastage of life which is taking place in the war is a reason for conserving to the utmost all the new lives that come into the world. That is always a duty, and nothing has been more shocking than the excess of infantile mortality throughout the country for many years past. But it is reasonable to say that the loss of life among the citizens of the United Kingdom due to the war has brought home to many who might not before have considered the subject deeply the need of the full preservation of the new lives that come into the world. And, more than that, there is this close connection with the circumstances of the war, that those circumstances have brought about the absence from their duties of a large number of medical men who in ordinary times supervise the birth of children in Scotland as in other parts of
570
the kingdom, and even more there is a special application of this fact to Scotland in that in the remoter and less populous districts in the Highlands and in the Islands, where the population is exceedingly scattered, the diminution in the number of available doctors causes a special and excessive difficulty in this particular respect. Therefore we are entitled, I think, to claim that this is in its essence an urgent and, even if you like to call it so, a war measure; and in that respect, and also in the respect that it is altogether in its essence uncontroversial, it is one which I may properly ask your Lordships to read a second time.
A similar measure, the passage of which through this House I have no doubt many of your Lordships will remember, has applied to England for now close on thirteen years, and its operations have been by common consent exceedingly successful. A great deal has been done to relieve the lot of many poor women in their confinement, and the standard of midwifery has been sensibly raised throughout England during that period. It is therefore very natural, as I am quite sure my noble friend opposite will agree, that a similar demand should exist in Scotland for a like measure.
The only respects in which this Bill differs from the English Act are in certain modifications due to the different conditions which obtain in Scotland. I do not know whether there is likely to be a desire to propose any minor changes or amendments in the Bill as it now stands. The Bill, as the English Act did, gives a moratorium—if that is the proper word—of seven years during winch women who have been performing these duties hitherto, some no doubt well skilled, others less skilled, may continue without incurring any penalty to perform those duties. It clearly would be hard on those who live in poor districts if an abrupt change were made forbidding the employment of women who have been practising for many years past. But after this period those who have not obtained the certificate will be subject to a penalty, as they are in England. There is a provision in the second subsection of the first clause which reads thus—
"From and after the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two—

571
that is when the Act comes into full operation—
"no woman shall habitually and for gain attend women in child-birth otherwise than under the direction of a registered medical practitioner unless she be certified under this Act."
I understand that strong objection has been taken in quarters which it is impossible not to respect to the words "habitually and for gain," it being held that the use of those words might lead to doubt and confusion on questions of fact and that the Bill would read better without them. If I find that any noble Lord desires to suggest the deletion of those four words, we should be prepared favourably to consider such an Amendment. I do not think that the House would desire that I should go into any close examination of the terms of the Bill, because in all essential respects it resembles the Act now in existence for England. I will therefore, without further preface, ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a— (The Marquess of Crewe).
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I desire to give a very cordial welcome to this Bill, and I am glad to find that it is now under the œgis and has the full co-operation of the Government. The noble Marquess has stated quite accurately that this Bill is almost verbally the same as the Bill which your Lordships passed with unanimity last year, and which would have become law in the last session of Parliament but for a slight, and as I think an unfortunate, misunderstanding in another place. This Bill has the ardent support of all the Medical Faculties of the Universities of Scotland, of the Royal Medical Corporation, and of all the medical officers of the Maternity Hospitals in Scotland. Those officers got up a memorial to the Government after the failure of the Bill last session urging that legislation should be undertaken, and they asked my advice as to whether it would not be wise to reintroduce the Bill in this House. The advice I gave was that as this House had passed the previous Bill with unanimity last session it should be introduced in another place. That course has been taken, and I believe the Bill was passed there practically with unanimity, and I sincerely hope that it will be passed without delay by your Lordships' House.
572
Beyond all question a situation of some urgency has arisen, as the noble Marquess has stated, out of the conditions under which we are living at the present time. A large number of the medical practitioners have been called away for war service, and a large amount of midwifery practice will, but for this Bill, be liable to get into the hands of unqualified persons. I do not think I need say anything more in support of the Bill, but with regard to one remark which the noble Marquess made at the end of his speech as to whether the words he quoted from the end of the second subsection of Clause 1 of the Bill should be omitted, I should like to say this. Personally I think the Bill would be better without those words, but I do not think it is a matter of first-rate importance and I would sooner have the Bill passed with those words in than run any risk of any misunderstanding similar to what happened last year by their omission in this House. It was around those words that a good deal of misconception and misunderstanding occurred in the other House last year, and I think it would be better to pass the Bill with those words in unless their deletion is agreed to with the unanimous concurrence of every one.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

STREET COLLECTIONS REGULATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.

ARMY ECONOMY.
LORD HAVERSHAM LORD HAVERSHAM rose to ask the Paymaster-General—

1. Whether he can state the amount of saving, weekly, monthly and yearly, effected by the reduction of the ration to the troops in the field.

2. Whether he can state the monthly saving effected by the reduction of the pay for motor lorry drivers from 6s. to 1s. 2d. per day.

3. Whether he is not of opinion that the introduction of two business men from the large provision stores in London into the Quartermaster-General's Department would result in many savings similar to the foregoing.

573

4. Whether any part Of the separation allowance, now bringing the family income above the breadwinner's former earnings, might not be saved for him and issued on his return to civil employ.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask my noble friend the Paymaster-General the Questions standing in my name. With regard to the first Question I do not think he will have any difficulty whatever in replying because the information sought has already been given in substance in another place. Therefore although my Question asks for the figures a little more in detail, I apprehend that they are all in the War Office.
My second Question refers to motor lorry drivers. They are the subject of the most extraordinary contract which to my mind ever was made. These men do not go into the firing line. They operate behind in perfect safety, and they require very little mechanical skill to be able to drive these motor lorries. They have been engaged at a rate of pay which is six or seven times more than that of the men in the firing line. The leading man with the lorry gets 7s. 6d. a day and the other two men 6s. The result of that has been that in the first place—and I have this on good authority—it has entirely disorganised the industry at home. Only the other day I heard that a man was taken for service abroad at three guineas a week for driving a motor. The opinion of the Department of the Quartermaster-General upon the matter is obvious, because they have reduced the 7s. 6d.and 6s a day to 1s. 2d. I know it is a very great difficulty with the Quartermaster-General's Department because they engage these men, and the only way out of the difficulty that I can see is this. My noble friend might call upon the Quartermaster-General for a Return of the many motor lorry drivers now employed, and then those who are working at this absurd rate of pay could be struck off and there should be taken on only those at the 1s. 2d. a day rate. The loss to the public as matters stand now is enormous.
That brings me to my third Question, in which I ask my noble friend whether he is not of opinion that the introduction of two business men from the large provision stores in London into the Quartermaster General's Department would result in many savings. I am assured that there
574
is an enormous loss, and it is obvious there is, with regard to one part of the rations. For many years the whole of the meat and bread for the soldiers at home and abroad has been found direct by the Government and is delivered to them by the Army Service Corps. That is not so with regard to the grocery ration. The grocery ration includes everything—tobacco, and everything a man wants, Here there is introduced the contractor, and that is what causes the cost to be as high as it is. I am told that if the contractor is got rid of the cost of the grocery ration would be very appreciably lowered. I believe that if my noble friend took up this matter he could save at least £1,000,000 and perhaps more, and the men would not suffer in the least.
My fourth Question relates to separation allowances. There are none of us who do not know the extraordinary effect that these enormous separation allowances have been having in the East-end of London. All I ask is that they should not be wasted now. I have had something to do with these allowances, and in most cases the woman, who has not now to feed her husband, gets 5s. or 6s. a week more than she did when her husband was at home. We cannot doubt what the result of that is. The small shops in the East-end and the public-houses are benefiting considerably, but I doubt very much whether the women are benefiting. I want my noble friend to see whether he cannot set apart say 2.s. 6d. of the separation allowance—not to be taken away from the man, but put in the Public Savings Bank so that he may receive it when he comes back from the Front. Whether we like it or not, we are perfectly certain to have to support these men until they get into civil employment again. Here we have an opportunity of saving something for them, so that they can begin with a small capital. Half-a-crown a week with a small rate of interest would mount up to something appreciable for the man when he came home. If my noble friend could see his way to do this it would be of great benefit to the families and to the soldiers also when they return home.
LORD NEWTON: my Lords, the answer to the first part of my noble friend's Question is that the saving effected by the reduction of the meat ration may be estimated roughly at £3,500 a day. The second

575
part of the noble Lord's Question refers to motor drivers. On a previous occasion I explained that this high rate was fixed before the war in conjunction with the Treasury, and that therefore it appeared to me that there would be considerable difficulty in now altering it. My noble friend is not correct in assuming, as he apparently does, that the pay of these drivers has been reduced to 1s. 2d. a day. The point is this, that the 6s. men who were engaged in virtue of the arrangement I mentioned with the Treasury were looked upon and engaged as expert drivers. The present practice, I am informed, is to engage untrained men at the rate of 1s. 2d. a day and to train them to the level of the expert, and I believe it is a fact that at the present moment it is possible to find motor drivers who are ready to accept the lower pay. Whether that is in consequence of the present effort with regard to recruiting I am unable to say, but I have heard that there is much less difficulty now in obtaining men at the lower rate. My noble friend suggests that I should go to the Quartermaster-General and ask for a Return of these motor drivers, and he appears to think there will be no difficulty about it. I can assure my noble friend that he greatly over-rates my power or influence at the War Office. I strongly surmise that if I went to the Quartermaster-General or any other high official there with a request of this character I should meet with a very discouraging reception. I would suggest to my noble friend, therefore, that if he wants information on the subject he had better move for a Return himself.
With regard to the third part of the Question—the introduction of two business men from the large provision stores in London into the Quartermaster-General's Department—this matter of the introducticn of civilians has been frequently dealt with both in this House and in another place, and if I am not mistaken my noble friend
576
the Leader of the House made a speech only a few days ago in regard to this particular question. I take it that Lord Haversham had in mind when he framed this particular inquiry the Ministry of Munitions, where civilians are employed inside the Office; but I may point out that the Ministry of Munitions is a completely new institution, and it was formed for the purpose of organising and co-ordinating the various industries in the country. The War Office stands on a perfectly different footing. Its administration is entirely different from the administration of the Ministry of Munitions, and in the opinion of the War Office authorities it has been found preferable to take the opinion and advice of civilians outside the Office than to employ them within the Office itself.
As to the fourth portion of my noble friend's Question regarding separation allowances, I am prepared to admit that his suggestion is theoretically admirable. At the same time I see considerable difficulty in putting it into practice. It is open to anybody receiving a separation allowance to practise economy and to save, but I must remind my noble friend that these separation allowances were not awarded for the purpose of inculcating or encouraging thrift but for the purpose of enabling these people to meet their current expenditure. The view of the War Office is—it is not, I know, a view which is shared by everybody here—that in the average case the separation allowance is not more than sufficient for the purpose. As the latter portion of the Question appears to suggest a comparison between the earnings of the breadwinner before the war and the amount at present being drawn in separation allowance, I am instructed to remind the noble Lord that this comparison does not take account of the rise in the cost of food, fuel, and other necessaries.
House adjourned at ten minutes before Seven o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.