Lords Sitting of 2 July 1915

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3).

Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4).

Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 5).

Gas and Water Provisional Orders (No. 2).

Gas and Water Provisional Orders (No. 3).

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8).

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1).

Also the Certificates that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:

Land Drainage (Ouse) Provisional Order.

Land Drainage (Raveningham) Provisional Order.

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2).

Land Drainage Provisional Order.

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9).

And also the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Lincoln Corporation.

London County Council (General Powers).

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

LINCOLN CORPORATION BILL.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
  Read 2a.
  Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Grant Act, 1913—First Report of the Highlands and Islands Medical Service Board, being for the period ended 31st December, 1911: Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Report by the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons, under the Act that the Provisional Orders be allowed to proceed, subject to such recommendations as may hereafter be made with respect to the several Orders: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

INDICTMENTS BILL [H.L.]
Message from the Commons that they concur in the Resolution of this House communicated to them on the 30th of June last.
Bill referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXX1X be considered in order to its being suspended for this day's sitting (The Duke of Devonshire); agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
WAR LOAN EXTENSION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

ARMY ACT AMENDMENT (No. 3) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I regret that my noble friend Lord Newton is unable to be here this afternoon, and in his absence I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill, and I trust that your Lordships will not only read it a second time but pass it through its remaining stages to-day. The Bill raises no new principle. It merely deals with a number of details which in the light of experience it has been found advisable to incorporate with the Army Acts.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

PRIZE COURTS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BUGKMASTER): My Lords, in asking your Lordships to grant a Second Reading to this Bill it will not be necessary for me to detain you with a long explanation as to its, details and provisions. The object of the Bill is to enable proceedings in any one Prize Court in our Dominions to be removed to any other Prize Court that is convenient. This object is carried out by an arrangement which provides that the proceedings can be removed by an order of the Court, and that if that order is made the vessel or the cargo, or both, may be moved to the Court to which the proceedings are transferred.
Perhaps a few words of explanation are due to the House to show why it is that this Bill has become necessary. Whenever a vessel is captured at sea it is essential that it should be taken into the nearest port, and the result is that many vessels are taken into a port where the consignees of the cargo do not live and where it is extremely difficult to ascertain the true ownership of the cargo. I may mention that in one instance the number of owners of a particular cargo that was seized amounted to 2,200. All the commercial documents which prove title to the cargo are, of course, at the port of destination of the vessel, and if the vessel is seized, as it frequently is, half way on its journey it follows that the consignees would be bound to transfer the whole of their documents of title to the intermediate Court in order that they might prove their right to the cargo. This has resulted in extreme inconvenience to many owners, and has thrown upon the Prize Courts considering the matter considerable difficulties. The proposal in this Bill is that where proceedings are pending in any Prize Court against any ship or cargo, the Court may at any stage of the proceedings, on application being made by the proper officer of the Crown, and upon being satisfied that the proceedings, or the proceedings so far as they relate to the cargo or any part thereof, would be more conveniently conducted in any other Prize Court, make an order remitting the proceedings, or the proceedings so far as they relate to the cargo or to any part of the cargo, to such other Prize Court.
The only subsidiary provisions in the Bill are these. If a vessel is transferred,
206
it sails under the Merchant Shipping Act and is treated as a registered British vessel. Then there is a provision, which I hope will meet with your Lordships' approval, that it shall be competent to establish payment for the officers of a Prize Court by a lump sum in certain cases in lieu of a fee payable by a percentage. That can only be effected by certain consents, and I think in many cases it will be much more satisfactory than the present remuneration, which often amounts to a very large suns for small services rendered and to a very small sum for large services.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

MUNITIONS OF WAR BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, three weeks ago your Lordships gave your assent to a Bill for the creation of a Minister of Munitions. To-day I ask you to pass with similar rapidity and even with greater necessity a Bill that will enable that Minister to set to work. This is a Mil to empower him to organise the skilled labour of the country for the production of munitions of war. The sole object of the Bill is the rapid and systematic increase in the supply of these munitions under the most favourable conditions of which the circumstances permit—that is, by common agreement between the various parties concerned; by a system of voluntary co-operation between the Government in the first place, the employers of labour in the second place, and the employed in the third—in other words, to further this purpose, upon which the heart of the nation is set, by methods which shall be free from the disconcerting influences of strikes and stoppages of work, and in which there shall be no emulation on the part of those concerned except for the speedy delivery of the munitions referred to.
The case for this Bill is well known to every one in the House. We are now in the twelfth month of a war, the most tremendous that has ever been waged, in the area of ground over which it is

207
spread, in the number of men who are engaged, in the awful misery and ruin that it has caused, in the terrible sacrifice of life which is entailed, and not least, I am sure your Lordships will agree, in the magnitude of the ulterior issues that are involved. We are not anywhere near the end of this war. Probably many of us think that we have not even vet reached tile middle stage. We have not succeeded in throwing back the enemy from the countries which he has occupied and despoiled. On the contrary, he remains now, as he has been for months, in occupation of vast tracts of country belonging to two, at any rate, of the Allied Powers. It is evident, therefore, that great efforts and sacrifices, greater than any that have yet been male, will be required before we can succeed in driving him back from the position that lie has taken up.
The question may not unreasonably be asked, To what is this position of vantage on the part of the enemy due? It has not been brought about, I think, by superior generalship in the direction of his arms, or by greater individual bravery on the part of his soldiers. On the contrary, there scents to be a general concurrence among military commanders that, man for man, the troops of the Allied Forces are more than a match for the individual enemy whom they have to meet. It is due to other causes. Up to the present point in the campaign I imagine it to be true that the enemy has had the numerical advantage, although that is a point in his favour which I think will steadily dwindle as the months go on. But his main advantage has arisen from three things—firstly, from the long and patient preparation which he devoted for years beforehand, not only to war in general, but, so far as our evidence goes, even to this particular war; secondly, from the extraordinarily efficient organisation which has enabled him to turn the whole of the resources of his country—material, scientific, and intellectual—to the invention and completion of munitions of war; and, thirdly, from the commanding superiority which he has developed over the forces of the Allies—and I speak of the Eastern theatre of war as well as the Western—in respect of gulls, rifles, and shells.
Conversely, my Lords, it is true of ourselves that we have been in a position of relative inferiority, and our inferiority
208
has been clue, as I think, to these reasons. In the first place, how few of us, if any, a year ago ever anticipated that we should be at war at all? Secondly, how few ever contemplated the war spreading over so many different theatres of action, no less than seven or eight in different parts of the world? Thirdly, our small Army of six divisions intended for expeditionary purposes, efficient as it was, was not equipped in point of artillery or munitions with anything at all qualified to enable it to meet either the strain of the character of fighting it has had to endure or the expansion which has inevitably been forced upon it. It is also fair to say that nothing in our previous experience of warfare in modern times could have led anybody to anticipate that the war would take this peculiar form of fortress siege both below and above ground, which has been developed to such an extraordinary extent and which has required an expenditure of ammunition almost inconceivable in its dimensions. The result is, therefore, that at a time when many persons in this country were confidently looking forward to thrusting the enemy back from the positions which he had taken in the first six months of the war, we are held up; and as long as that situation lasts, as long as these great issues remain undecided, there is no good in concealing the fact that the situation is one of grave anxiety, and it is not unfair even to speak of this country as being in grave peril.
The inferiority which I have admitted relates in the main to the supply of munitions, with which this Bill is concerned; and, as you all know, it is in respect of high explosive shells, of heavy guns, of machine-guns, and of rifles that that inferiority exists. That is the leeway that we have now to make up, and in doing so I do not think that we can follow a better example than that of our gallant Ally across the Channel, France. France entered upon this war, which, of course, has always in her case been much more imminent than it could be in ours—and be it remembered, too, that she had much larger forces to supply—France entered upon this war with excellent provision in respect of all these munitions. Further, in spite of the fact that the larger part of her chief industrial province has been in the occupation of the enemy for the best part of a year she has continued to keep up that provision; and further—

209
and this is a respect in which most of all, I think, we can copy her—she has developed at a much earlier stage than ourselves a very admirable system for the organisation of labour, skilled and unskilled, throughout her home territories. Therefore I say I think we cannot do better than follow the example of our brave Ally.
May I say at once that, there is one aspect of this question which might, perhaps, not unfairly be raised, but which I will ask your Lordships' leave to refrain lima discussing this afternoon. The question might be asked, Ought not, these wants to have been foreseen at a much earlier stage Ought not this Munitions Bill—to take one illustration—to have been introduced at a notch earlier period? There might he a good deal to be said on both sides of that very controversial issue, but I would ask your Lordships to excuse me from following it up this afternoon, for two reasons. In the first place, it seems to me to be my duty to explain and to endeavour to commend this Bill to your Lordships. It is no part of my duty, as I conceive it, to enter into bygone history or to state a case on behalf of the Government to which at that time many of my hon, friends and myself did not belong, and for whose actions we had, of course, no responsibility. The time may arise when these questions will have to be examined and when those who can speak with authority for that Government will be heard in the statement of their own case. Still more would I urge upon your Lordships that the time is not one now for adopting a critical or censorious attitude, still less for doing anything that might possibly lead to taunts and recriminations between the opposite sides of your Lordships' House; We have only one immediate duty before us, and that is to lose no time in putting matters straight, and whether you think that the late Government acted wisely or unwisely, whether it showed forethought or not in its management of these matters, our object at the present moment is to pass away from those issues and to go ahead with as much rapidity as we can. That, I believe, is the expectation of the country, and the point of view from which those trim follow your Lordships' debates will regard the discussion this afternoon.
Before I pass from that part of the question, may I add another word? We
210
read a good deal in the newspapers about the supposed ignorance of the country with regard to t he reality and the magnitude of the issues with which we are faced. I doubt whether that is any longer the case. The events, the debates, the statements of the last few weeks have, I think, removed the scales from every eye, and. I believe n y self that the country is thoroughly seized of the character of the fight in which it is engaged, that it indulges in no false hopes, and is under no illusions at all. I believe, broadly speaking, that the country knows well crow that, we are fighting for our existence, that the war will be long and arduous, and that it will only be by the concentration of every energy and every resource that we possess, not in respect of munitions alone, that we shall win through to the end we all desire.
And, my Lords, is it not open to us to find two sources of consolation? The first is in the spirit and ardour of our people. I see no indication whatever that there is any lapse in the resolution or fortitude of our people as a whole. On the contrary, I believe the spirit of the country to be unimpaired and undismayed. The second point, which I incidentally made a little earlier, is this—that, whether we look at the supply of men or munitions or at the military or naval power which we are in process, of developing, I believe it can be absolutely demonstrated that those forces on the side of the Allied Powers are waxing, and that the corresponding forces on the side of Germany and Austria on the whole tend to wane. All calculations show that before very long, certainly before the end of the year, the advantage both in men and materials will be transferred to the side of the Allies; and as regards this particular Bill which I am commending to your Lordships, a time will come—it would be wrong for me to predict the moment—a time will come, as we hope, when it will enable us not only to satisfy our own needs in respect of munitions but even to provide for the, in some cases, much greater and more urgent needs of certain of our Allies.
I turn to the text of the Bill. I am conscious that a Bill of this importance and complexity, which only left the House of Commons at an early hour this morning, which raises issues in relation to labour of a most start bog description, is one which I am not entitled to ask your Lordships to pass through all its stages

211
this afternoon without some attempt—I hope I shall not be unduly long—to explain to you its provisions. The object of the Bill is, of course, to obtain skilled labour for the manufacture of munitions. It proposes that skilled labour shall be transferred for this purpose front one place to another, and shall be utilised under those conditions which are most effective to the manufacture of the articles concerned; and it attempts, further, to free the labour thus transferred and employed as far as possible front all the disastrous handicaps of stoppages, labour strikes, lock-outs, and so on. The, Bill is, in fact, like so much of the legislation we have been dealing with in the last year, an emergency measure, produced by and limited to the duration of the war, although I must qualify that by saying that in another place last night an Amendment was introduced which leaves Part I of the Bill—relating to labour differences, lock-outs, strikes, and so on—in operation, for obvious reasons, for a period of twelve months after the termination of the war.
Now, my Lords, what was the situation that we had to deal with in preparing this Bill I have spoken of the shortage of munitions. I pass next to the point of machinery and of men. When the Ministry of Munitions was created we found that there was, indeed there still is, in some of the great establishments which provide us with war material—firms like Vickers, Armstrong, and the like—a great shortage of skilled labour. Many of their machines, in themselves in a high state of efficiency, were lying idle because there was not skilled labour to work them, and there was that frequent delay in the delivery of orders of which your Lordships have heard. Secondly, a great many skilled labourers had been allowed, in the enthusiasm of the early days of the war, to enlist and to go to the Front. I think it is now generally recognised that that was a mistake, and the War Office has endeavoured to rectify it by such measures as lie in its power. Again, we found that men were stolen or tempted away from one workshop to another, or that they left of their own accord, perhaps tempted by higher wages; in other words, there was a complete lack of co-ordination of supply and demand. Again, severe and inconvenient restrictions existed on the output of munitions, arising from many of the rules of the trade unions as to the amount of
212
work that may be performed by an individual artisan, as to the classes of workmen who may be put on to certain work, or as to the line of demarcation between different trades. The first object, therefore, was to ascertain where the skilled labour of the country, not already occupied in Government works, is to be found, and then to divert it into the proper channels: For this purpose the trade union leaders, who have been in close and friendly consultation with the representatives of the Government throughout, asked for seven days, in which they undertook to enrol these men. The artisans who are coming in are, of course, an army of volunteer workers, and they undertake to go anywhere where they may be sent by the Government for the manufacture of munitions.
Let me describe exactly what has taken place. This offer from the trade Onion leaders was accepted by the Government, who set up a department called the Munition Workers Enrolment Department about ten clays ago. Working in conjunction with the National Advisory Committee of Trade Unions, they framed the whole of the machinery for the enrolment of these volunteers. As a first step the co-operation of the local authorities was invited in the establishment of over two hundred Munition Work Bureaux in all the larger cities and centres of industrial work in Great Britain and Ireland. They sat in the town halls or other municipal buildings; and foul hunched more bureaux were set up in the less important towns. At the same time the work in which all these people were invited to take part was freely advertised by posters, leaflets, and otherwise. These bureaux commenced their operations just over a week ago, and they have acted in the different centres as recruiting depots for the various types of skilled labour, such as millwrights, fitters, shipwrights, toolmakers, turners, toolfitters, and boilermakers—in fact, all the trades that are required in the manufacture of munitions. No workman already engaged on Government work was expected to enrol, and all men who had retired or were unemployed are put on a separate register.
In the first week there have been enrolled over 46,000 men. The workman, on presenting himself for enrolment, is given a form of registration and a certificate stating that he has enrolled himself as

213
a war munilitions volunteer. Yesterday also there was carried in the House of Commons an Amendment which will authorise hint to wear a badge. At the same time a form of notification is sent to his employer informing him of the fact that his workman has enrolled, and giving hint an opportunity, if he desires to take it, of protesting against the deprivation of his services. At the end of three days both forms are forwarded to the Munitions Department, where the employer's protest, if he has made one, is considered by the technical advisers. The volunteers in respect of whom no protest has been made, or in respect of whom the protest, if made, has not been upheld, are then available as a mobile army of skilled labour which can be transferred in larger or smaller detachments to the points where it is most required. The whole problem has been carefully organised on the side of demand, and controlled firms under the Bill will have the sole call on the available supply.
You may say, What happens to the men in the future? A workman who has thus enrolled himself is at the disposal of the Minister of Munitions for a period of six months. During that time he is liable to be called upon at any moment, unless his employer's objection has been upheld, to proceed to any place in the British Isles for employment in the production of munitions of war. He is guaranteed the rate of wages obtaining in the district to which he is transferred, unless he can prove that this is lower than the rate he received in his old employment. If his new work is not within travelling distance of his home, his railway fares are paid for him at the beginning and end of his new job. In addition, he receives a subsistence allowance at the rate of 2s. 6d. a day. If his new work is within daily travelling distance of his home but so far removed as to necessitate a journey of more than half-an-hour each way, his fares are paid, and he receives in addition one hour's travelling allowance per day at the rate of time and a-half. If the man's new job conies to an end before the period of six months expires, he will be transferred as soon as possible to a fresh job of a similar character. Arrangements are being made by which, when the man's services are no longer required, he may as far as possible be taken back into the employment of the employer for whom he was working at the time he enrolled. That is the system.
THE EARL OF CAMP ERDOWN: Do those things appear in the Bill?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: No. The Bill provides the machinery for enrolling labour, and I thought your Lordships would be interested to know what becomes of the men when enrolled.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Hear, hear.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I said just now that 46,000 men had responded to the call, and the figure received with sympathetic murmurs by your Lordships. Let me say a word about it. It is only fair to remember that from that total will have to be deducted a certain number of men who are probably engaged, although in an indirect and secondary way, in doing work for the Government almost without knowing it, and who have enrolled themselves either in ignorance of the actual facts or possibly in the expectation of getting higher wages. You may say to me, Are these figures satisfactory? I do not wish to exaggerate the case. I would prefer to say that they are encouraging. So far as I know, there is no reason why the list should not remain open. I believe it continues to remain open at the present moment, and it is the hope of the Government that many more men will come in. There is certainly mom for a much larger number, and we entertain the belief that that number is somewhere in existence and may be tempted to come in. I spoke just now about the man when enrolled being transferred. You may ask, What happens; how is it done? In a good many cases, already taking advantage of the first week's recruiting, men have been transferred from private to Government work.
LORD MAC DONNELL or SWINFORD: Do the figures which the noble Earl has given exclude men who are engaged already in Government arsenals?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Yes; the numbers are those of skilled labourers not at present employed in Government work. All are liable to transfer, and the idea is to transfer them as quickly as possible to the controlled establishments. It would be a mistake to suppose that men will be tossed about all over the United Kingdom from one corner to another. There will be a

215
natural inclination, if we can do it, to move men to places near their previous habitations, but it is one of the terms of enlistment that all these volunteers shall be sent to the controlled establishments, as they are called in the Bill, and no doubt as many of them as offer themselves will be absorbed.
When I talk about the controlled establishments I am brought to a feature of the Bill upon which I must lay special stress. This Bill is really a kind of tripartite treaty between the Government, the employers, and the employed. Both the workmen and their employers have been called upon to submit to conditions and to accept sacrifices. Both have been willing and prepared to do so. There has been, I think I can truthfully say, absolute reciprocity of good will and sacrifice in this respect. The terms to which the men have been asked to agree and to which they have agreed are these. Firstly, no strikes are to be allowed in any of the trades affected by the agreement. This is an obvious and indispensable preliminary. If you built up this system and then allowed strikes to remain as a possibility, the whole fabric would come with a crash to the ground. Secondly, if and when disputes occur they are to be referred to compulsory arbitration. I need not go into details about that. If your Lordships will look at the Bill you will see that the decision of these cases will be undertaken either by any board of conciliation or arbitration that may already be in existence, or else by one of three tribunals which are specified in Schedule I of the Bill. Thirdly—and this is an important point which will come up more than once—the trade unions have agreed that any rules or practices, of which there were not a few, operating under their system to bring about a restriction of output, to which I referred a little earlier, shall be suspended during the continuance of the war. Fourthly, power is taken to enforce the contract to serve which is entered into by the men. Fifthly, power is taken —of course had to be taken—to enforce discipline, to prevent slackness, or bad time, or drunkenness, or disobedience to orders in the controlled works. And, lastly, a munitions tribunal is set up under a person appointed by the Minister of Munitions sitting with assessors, among whom will be included representatives both of the employers and of the workmen. Those are the terms, the concessions, or
216
whatever is the phrase you like to use, which have been accepted by the workmen.
Now we look at the other side of the shield, and I ask your Lordships to examine the conditions, the restrictions, in seine cases rather stringent restrictions, which the employers have been invited to accept and have accepted. Firstly, they must not proclaim a lock-out, for precisely the seine reasons as the workman is not allowed to take part in a strike. Secondly, in the controlled establishments to which these men are transferred no change in the scale of wages is permitted without the consent of the Minister of Munitions. Thirdly, the employers are not allowed to filch labour from one workshop to another. And, lastly, there is a strict limitation of profits —about which I shall have a word to say presently—in the manner prescribed by Clause 5 of the Bill. Moreover, the workmen are given an assurance—it is placed in the Bill—that the regulations and practices to the suspension of which during the war they have agreed to submit shall be restored at the end of the war, and that those provisions, many of them the result of long labour struggles in the past, shall not be sacrificed or their own conditions rendered worse in consequence of the present measure.
It would, I think, be a great mistake for any of us to attempt to define which of the two parties has gained or lost in this exchange. I submit that such calculations would be invidious and quite out of place. There has been perfect willingness on both sides to accept the conditions which were necessary, and I do not believe anybody who has had anything to do with this transaction has paused for a moment to consider whether one party or the other was getting more out of it. Speaking of the spirit in which these transactions have been entered into, it has been obvious to those who have been at all behind the scenes that the workmen of the country, broadly speaking, are unanimous in their desire to take their part in this war, a part not less important or serious, though, fortunately, much less painful and less perilous, than that of their comrades in the trenches. And similarly as regards the trade union leaders. They seem to me to have spoken frankly and acted sincerely in the whole of these negotiations. Correspondingly, the employers have shown a high-spirited patriotism, and indeed the proposal about private profits emanated

217
from them. Both parties, I think, have shown a similar determination to do everything they can to uphold the honour and sustain the cause of the country.
The question may be asked, and it must be answered, "Why is it, or how is it, that this Bill applies only to trades connected with the supply of munitions? Why do not all these excellent arrangements apply to till trades during the duration of the war?" I suppose there is not one of us in the Government who would not have liked them to apply to all trades, and who does not think it a pity that that could not be done. The inclusion of all trades under the operation of the Bill, the prevention of strikes in all businesses, would not only have made the Bill more symmetrical, but, prima facie, both more expedient and more just. But the answer is that certain very important trades—among whom I may mention the miners, the cotton operatives, and the railway workers—have declined to come into the agreement, and not even the persuasive powers of Mr. Lloyd George or of Mr. Henderson, although they were both directed to this object, availed to change that attitude on their part. The reason is, as we all know, that several of these trades, notably the miners, cherish an inveterate hostility to the principle and practice of compulsory arbitration. Their case—it must in fairness be stated that there is a good deal to be said for it—their case is that they already possess in their arrangements machinery for stopping trade disputes and strikes more effective than that which is provided by the Bill; and if you look at what passed in another place last night you will find that their representatives gave to the Government a most solemn promise—that was the phrase used by one of them, who was speaking for the miners —that there should be no stoppage during this war. In these circumstances the Minister of Munitions introduced an Amendment to Clause 3, which means that, if strikes in those trades can be averted by the already existing machinery to which I have referred, there will be no need for the operation of this Bill. But in the last resort, if the men refuse to obey their leaders, if stoppage of work does occur, then a Proclamation will certainly be issued under the provisions of this Bill—it will be under Clause 3—compulsory arbitration will be applied and the offenders will be brought under the penalties of the Act. That is what happened with the coal
218
miners. I believe that a similar pledge is likely to be given by the cotton operatives. I do not pretend that this is an ideal solution, but it was the best that could be secured in the circumstances; and I am sure your Lordships will agree that it would never have done to inaugurate this great experiment in an atmosphere of friction and discontent, which must have inevitably ensued if we had endeavoured to force these great trades within the four-corners of this Bill. As it is, we must hope for the best and rely upon the guarantees that have been given by those industries, and we must trust in the last resort to the powers which are held in reserve by the Government in the manner that I have described.
Now, one won about the limitation of profits, which suggestion, as I mentioned just now—and it is greatly to their credit —emanated in the first place from the employers. The reasons for limiting the profits of the employers in these controlled establishments are these. As the proprietor is given special privileges and facilities by the Government under this Bill for carrying on his work and making profits, he cannot fairly claim the whole of the profits that were earned in his establishment. Remember that he gets his quid pro quo in the relaxation of the trade union rules and regulations, to which I referred just now, and on the other side be it remembered that the men could not be expected to agree to waive their safeguards in that respect and their see the whole of the profits, very likely large profits, which were made in consequence of this surrender on their part pass into someone else's pocket. These were the general reasons for the limitation of profits. But if you look at what passed in another place last night you will see that it was frankly admitted there that cases of difficulty and delicacy in the adjudication of this matter must arise, and that to meet that provision was made by the Minister of Munitions by the formation of a strong body of referees —a strong Committee—with Sir Henry Babington Smith at its head, who will he empowered to frame rules for special cases.
One other question I will answer before I sit down—it is a question that may very likely be asked. It may be said, "Here you are setting up this machinery, inviting these men, transferring them about from one place to the other, doing your best to expedite the delivery of these necessary

219
articles of war. How soon do you expect that there will be any appreciable improvement in the position, or any great acceleration in the output of munitions?" For manifest reasons I must be exceedingly cautious in the nature of the reply which I give to that question. We do not want to give information to those who might profit by it. But in certain respects, I think, we are entitled to look to a very early and considerable improvement. For instance, in so far as the restrictions about which I have spoken two or three times are hampering production, their removal should bring about an immediate increase in supply. Again, take another ease that I mentioned where the machines have been lying idle because there was no skilled labour to work them. The provision of this labour front the roll which we are forming, if the right men are found and allocated to the right work, should mean an immediate improvement in the position. On the other hand, where new factories have to be created, so to speak, out of nothing, or where new machinery has to be manufactured and supplied, it is obvious that the delay must be very much greater. But once the whole machinery is in operation I do not think it is unfair or rash to look forward to a time in the course of the present year when we shall obtain an output that will in most respects satisfy our own needs and, as I indicated earlier, help us in certain particulars to minister to the even more crying needs of sonic of our Allies.
I hope that I have given a fairly clear explanation of the provisions of this Bill. I quite admit that it is a great experiment which rudely shatters all the accepted canons about the relations of Capital and Labour. You may call it a revolutionary measure if you like. So it is. And to be worked with success it will require the good will and the good faith of all those on either side who are concerned. But in relying upon those, as I think we may do, there are factors in this struggle upon which much more than the mere success of the production of munitions depends. I hope that nobody will think that if you give us this Bill and this machinery is set up we can then, in the familiar habit of this country, forget all about it, sit down, fold our hands, and think we have got everything that is required, that the munitions will pour in, and that we need not trouble ourselves about it in the future. That would
220
be just as unreasonable and just as foolish as the opposite extreme of undue pessimism. The munitions when supplied will fill a great and conspicuous gap in cur resources. But do not let any noble Lord cherish the idea that munitions alone will win this war. For the ultimate victory in this war must depend, as I said before, upon the spirit and endurance and resolution of our people. And it is because I believe, apart from any provision we make for increasing the material factor, that the moral factor in us is sound, and because I see in the attitude of all parties to the agreement that has been arrived at and has resulted in this Bill a continuation of that national spirit and resolution, that I feel confidence in looking to the future and in asking your Lordships this afternoon to give a kindly consideration to this measure.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Earl Curzon of Kedleston.)
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, I suppose it is useless at this late hour to raise again a question which has been already discussed in your Lordships' House once or twice, but I confess I regret to see that in Clause 20 that very ambiguous phrase "the conclusion of the present war" is repeated. It may mean so many things. It may mean the cessation of hostilities, it may mean the conclusion of peace, or it, may mean the signature and ratification of peace. I think myself it means the last named, though perhaps I am not capable of expressing an opinion about it. It would have been certainly better—only I am afraid it is too late to do that now— to put in words showing clearly that what was meant by "the conclusion of the war" was the signature of peace. The particular subjects which are to be allowed to stand over after the Ministry of Munitions ceases to exist are extremely likely to lead to law suits, inasmuch as contracts are involved, and it appears to me a little unfair upon the Judges for them to have to decide, as they may be called upon to decide, what such a phrase as "the conclusion of the present war" means.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I rise with no idea of offering any criticism on this Bill such as was deprecated by my noble friend opposite. I think that any idea of criticism, if it had suggested itself to any noble Lord, has been removed by the extremely interesting, clear, and straightforward statement of the noble Earl. He

221
has been, I think, far more explicit in the information he hays given to your Lordships to-night than has, been observable in some of the speeches that we have heard and read; and I think that it is much to be regretted that other speakers have not been as straightforward and as plain and have not as clearly as he has conveyed the solemn warning which the noble Earl gave to-night to the country.
The noble Earl deprecated criticism, and it is certainly, as I have said, with no idea of criticising this Bill that I rise. But I would like to ask one or two questions, which perhaps, in replying, the noble Earl will deal with. Are those articles mentioned in Clause 3 meant to be in lieu of a definition clause as to the scope of the Bill? This is a Bill entitled Munitions of War Bill, and therefore "munitions" is the most important word in it. What are munitions of war? Are these few lines in Clause 3 meant to be the definition clause? Obviously if they are they pretty nearly cover everything one can conceive as being necessary for any operation in war. I ask with sonic interest, because I received an invitation from the Minister of Munitions to go and see him on Monday with a view of organising my own county for the purpose of producing munitions. I wondered whom I should have to address, but if this is the definition then I might as well address every tradesman in my county.
I think my noble friend opposite was a little too hopeful when he declared that this Bill would prevent strikes. As I read Clause 2, certain things are to be cone and they have to be done within a limited time; they have to be done within twenty-one days after notice of the possibility of a strike has been lodged with the Minister. I should hoe that the operations of the Munitions Department would be so expeditious that there will he no chance of those twenty-one days being over-stepped. I was profoundly glad to hear from the noble Lord that a Commission is to be set up for the purpose of defining what are profits, because there is possibly no more difficult thing to define where your capital property is at the same time depreciating. Any director of a company who has to deal with this question annually knows what I mean. Whilst auditors may say that you have earned profit, you of yourself know perfectly well that what you can do is to return something to the shareholders, but that part of that something is capital; and
222
it is a question whether it is true to say that the whole of what an auditor declares as profit is really profit. Therefore I am glad to hear that a Commission is to be set up which will be seized with the power of deciding in a case of that kind, and which will have at its head a gentleman so distinguished and so experienced.
My noble friend deprecated any criticism of the past. I entirely agree with him, except perhaps upon one point, and upon that I am by no means certain. As an old official myself, I must say that sonic indignation is stirred within me when I see bitter attacks made upon honest and honourable officials to which they cannot respond themselves, and no attempt is made by their chiefs to say anything at all in their defence. I assume that the appeal to refrain from criticism does not extend to cases of that kind, and that it is to be understood that, whilst this is not the appropriate moment, nevertheless the moment will come when every opportunity will be given to officials so attacked to clear themselves.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, as an old manufacturer of munitions on a rather large scale there is one question I should like to ask the noble Earl. Will the Minister of Munitions exercise supervision over the hours of labour? Every one who has had to manage a great manufacturing establishment knows that you cannot keep men on overtime too long. If yon do, you Lind that they get exhausted and lose their physique, and the result is actually a loss of production. Therefore whenever the strain is prolonged it becomes absolutely necessary to organise the work in successive shifts. I should like to know whether the Minister of Munitions will look into that point, because as regards continuous production it is one of some importance.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: My Lords, there are two points which do not arise directly out of the very lucid exposition of the Bill which was given by the noble Earl, but which seem to me to be of so much consequence that it is worth while to say a word about them. The one is with regard to the turning to account of certain productive capacities for manufacturing munitions of war other than those which exist in the great establishments. The Bill, as I understand it, is chiefly directed to the great manufacturing establishments,

223
but there are in some parts of the country, and notably in Birmingham, a very large number of small manufacturers, people who do not run big factories but who, nevertheless, would be able considerably to aid the work of the large factories by turning out particular classes of goods connected with warlike operations. That may be the case in other cities, probably it is; but it certainly is the case in Birmingham. Those smaller works exist on a sufficiently large scale to make it well worth while to consider how far small manufacturers, sometimes employing only one or two men, sometimes employing only half-a-dozen or a dozen men, might be brought in and made part of the system which we are now endeavouring to establish. At a moment like this no opportunity ought to be neglected of putting to account every possible resource the country has in the way of working men and factories, even the small ones, and men should not be drained from the small factories, men who are exceedingly competent workers themselves, into the large factories.
The other point is as to utilising the services of scientific men. This country, above all other countries that have existed, is eminently a country of science. We all know to how great an extent the German Government has turned the resources of its scientific men and its establishments for investigation and research to account for military purposes. We possess in this country a body of scientific men, not, indeed, so numerous, but fully equal in their competence, and fully equal, I need hardly say, in their earnestness and zeal to serve their country. I observe that there has been during past months a certain amount of regret amongst the scientific men of the country that they had not heard a little more from the Government how they could help. I feel perfectly certain, from what I have heard from those men, that every effort the Government makes to give them a chance of coming in, and enabling them to organise themselves and to turn their scientific knowledge, whether it be in the direction of chemistry, or engineering, or mechanics, to the common purpose we all have at heart will be welcomed by them, and that they will be able to give very efficient service. I am certain that there are in our Universities highly talented men who would gladly drop their other work and give their talents and time
224
entirely to the service of the Government if the Government would only tell them in what way they can help.
I need only say further that we all appreciate the extreme importance of taking such measures as are contemplated in this Bill, and perhaps our only regret is that the country was not sooner informed of the very serious position in which we find we stand. After all, as was well said by the noble Earl, it is not merely to the machinery we are creating to which we must look for success; it is to the spirit of the people. And if we can inspire in all these workers the knowledge that every one of them is serving his country just as efficiently in the workshop as he could do in the field, and that it devolves upon every one to put forth his utmost resources in this crisis, then we may, I think, with even more confidence hope for success.
LORD PARMOOR: Lords, there is one question which I should like to put to the noble Earl who introduced this Bill. What is the sanction under the Bill by which a strike can either be prevented or stopped from proceeding further? I think that is a very important point. One might have studied the Bill if it had come up earlier, but I do not think this appears on the face of the Bill. If the noble Earl will look at Clause 2 (2) he will see, "If any person acts in contravention of this section, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act." I understand that a striker who struck before the difference went before the Board of Trade and had been considered by them for twenty-one days, would be a person acting in contravention of this section; and by a subsequent clause—Clause 14—he would be liable to a certain fine for every day in which he was acting in contravention of the terms of the Act. But what I want to ask the noble Earl is this. Is there any other sanction beyond that of a fine? I see in a later part of the Bill that in certain cases imprisonment may be added in addition to the fine, but only in certain cases. To what cases imprisonment would apply, I confess myself unable to understand upon the face of the Bill as it is at the present moment. That is the reason why I have risen to ask the noble Earl what the intention of the Bill is in that respect. If you are to have a system which will make strikes impossible,

225
or substantially impossible, it is obvious that one of the most important points to consider is how you are to enforce that against the striker so as at once to be effective and without introducing too harsh treatment.
May I say a word in reference to what was said by the noble Viscount opposite, Lord Bryee. The noble Earl, in introducing the Bill, pointed to a case which I think wants great consideration—namely, where skilled workmen had in the first instance been taken as recruits whereas now it is found they can do better work at home in the manufacture of munitions, which on all hands are admitted to be much in arrear at the present moment. But what the noble Viscount; (Lord Bryce) said was still more important. I have in mind a man whom I should call "the first young scientist in the country at the present time," who at this moment is serving abroad as a private in the British Bed Cross. That is really a waste of scientific intellect. The reason he went abroad was this. He was head of a well-known scientific establishment ill this country, and for nine months held himself in readiness to serve the Government in a scientific capacity. Well, no employment and no encouragement was given to him, with the result that, as I have said, he is serving at the present time as a private in the British Red Cross. That is a great mistake; and when we talk about mobilisation, one of the most important features of mobilisation is that we should employ ability and scientific knowledge. Therefore I associate myself entirely with what has been said by the noble Viscount, that one of the most important elements at the present moment is the mobilisation of scientific power. We have ample scientific power if it is mobilised and utilised. I suppose like many of your Lordships, have had the advantage when in Germany of going over a large number of their scientific establishments and being acquainted with a large number of German scientists. In numbers, of course, they are altogether out of proportion to the numbers we have here; they have been encouraged, I think properly encouraged, whilst our scientists have received no encouragement here in the past. But I hope it will now be realised that we cannot get abreast of Germany in matters which are really matters of science, such as the best form
226
of modern munitions and the best form of appliances in connection with munitions, unless we do all we can, in mobilising our resources, to utilise the best scientific knowledge that we have in this country.
EARL LOREBURN: My Lords, my noble friend beside me (Lord Bryce) expressed the regret which is shared by every one that the condition of things which has been disclosed quite recently with regard to munitions had nut been placed before the country sooner. Had that been done, I have not the smallest doubt that every, defect or shortcoming would have been rectified long ago. The noble Earl said he hoped that in the course of the year there would be not only sufficient munitions to supply our own needs but also sufficient to furnish our Allies with what they required. If I remember rightly, about four or live mouths ago a Minister—I think it was Mr. Lloyd George, but I am not sure—said that that had been done and secured already. The suggestion I would make to the Government is this, that they should give more information to the country, not only in respect of these but in respect of the other conditions which prevail, than they have done in the past. I have no doubt whatever that the reticence has been well intentioned, but I think it is a complete mistake. I believe that the people of this country air perfectly prepared to meet whatever difficulties there are if they are placed fairly and squarely before them, and that the true way to induce them to do their duty in this critical time is to tell them the whole truth—not, of course, secrets or matters that would be of assistance to the enemy—and not to yield to the temptation, the unconscious temptation, of saving as little as one can about things which may not be pleasant to hear, or of sheltering reticence under the plea that you do not want to give information to the enemy. The enemy knows, it seems to me, a great deal more about our affairs than we do ourselves.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl a question. He said, if I remember rightly, that the miners and, I think, the cotton operatives had been unwilling to come under this Bill. By Clause 3, as far as one sees, it will be possible to bring them under the Bill by Proclamation. I want to know whether that is so. The first half of the clause relates to munitions,

227
which are the proper subject of the Bill. Then the clause runs—
"and also any differences as to rates of wages, hours of work, or otherwise as to terms or conditions of or affecting employment on any other work of any description if this Part of this Act is applied to such a difference by His Majesty by Proclamation on the ground that in the opinion of His Majesty the existence or continuance of the difference is directly or indirectly prejudicial to the manufacture, transport, or supply of munitions of War."
Take the great coal industry. Coal is a very important material in the production of munitions, in fact of everything. Would it be possible by Proclamation to bring that trade under the Bill?
With regard to the Bill itself, I have only one remark to make. Like other noble Lords I agree that it is a most important measure. We are in a crisis; and although on some occasions I have ventured to protest against Bills being rushed through all their stages without our having an opportunity of examining them, on this occasion I do not do so, because I recognise that it is essential that this Bill should be passed without delay, and that the Government should be given every means of carrying out whatever they may think desirable for prosecuting this, war. If I were disposed to make any criticism on the present occasion, I should say that this Bill is not introduced too early; it seems to me to have been introduced too late. If a good many months ago the Government had taken the view of the necessities of the country which they are taking now, I think, indeed I ant almost sure, that a great many valuable lives which have been sacrificed would have been spared. I entirely support the passing of this Bill through all its stages to-day.
LORD GRIMTHORPE: My Lords, the noble Earl deprecated criticism, with very good reason. I do not suppose that any one will want to criticise for the sake of criticising. At all times it is a disagreeable rôle, and it never could be more so than at present. But if we are to close our eyes to all mismanagement, or blunders, or errors, or shortcomings that have occurred in the past, we are also shut out from acquiring the light by which to avoid such errors in the future. Mr. Lloyd George made a very eloquent speech in Manchester a little time ago, and one of the leading men in that city was asked what he thought about it. He said that it was a most valuable speech, but that it ought to have been delivered eight months ago. I think
228
your Lordships are all of the same opinion. Judging from what has been said to-night, it is agreed that it has been an unfortunate thing for the country that an apprehension of the real character and extent of this war did not dawn upon the minds of Ministers some months ago.
The noble Earl in charge of the Bill said that this war offered many quite unprecedented features. That is absolutely true. But any modern warfare of these dimensions is bound to offer unprecedented features. Those unprecedented features were studied and anticipated at all events by the Germans, and to some extent by the French; but the Germans had had no experience of actual warfare to guide them, while we were guided by the experience of the Boer War, for what it was worth. I cannot help thinking that some of the needs and necessities developed by this modern warfare might have been recognised some months ago. We are told that time is on our side. That is one of those sayings that have only a limited application; it may be perfectly true at one moment, and perfectly false at another. So far it cannot be denied that time has brought us many disappointments, and if it is to bring us the fruition of our hopes it must be used and not wasted. There is no question that the Germans have wasted no time. There is no question also that we have wasted many months; and, as the noble and learned Earl below me (Lord Loreburn) said, if those months had been rightly applied we should have had all, or nearly all, we required to-day. However, I think we must all rejoice that the Government have at last appreciated what is wanted by our soldiers in the field, and are determined to supply it in as large a quantity and with as great rapidity as possible.
I was very glad to hear from the Minister of Munitions that lie has determined to associate with himself a Committee of able business men. Offers from business men have been made to the War Office again and again since the beginning of the war and frequently rejected, sometimes with something like contumely and contempt. If those services had been accepted I believe we should stand in a very different position to-day. But I am glad to know that these gentlemen are now to be allowed to give their knowledge and experience to the country instead of being kept waiting in the corridors of the War Office only to be sent away with the comforting assurance

229
that nothing was wanted. It became a byword in the City a little time ago that "the War Office wanted nothing." Yet we know that it stood in urgent need of many things repeatedly offered by many responsible people. Take the ease of rifles. We know that there is an alarming shortage of rifles at the present moment. Even if other things could not have been foreseen, the need of rifles was apparent from the beginning of the war. It was known that all the rifles were required that could be 000ained. Responsible people came forward again and again offering rifles, and they were told that no rifles were required, one gentleman being even informed that the Government had thousands of rifles in store. I could give ninny instances. The subject was brought up the other day in this House. I do not wish to labour the point, but the instances given by Lord Devonport were not isolated instances. I believe that many of your Lordships could supply other cases. It has been the same with machine-guns and shells. Again and again offers have been made only to be rejected, and those who made the offers have been told that nothing was wanted.
This Bill confers enormous, unprecedented, in fact the noble Earl said revolutionary, power upon the Minister of Munitions, which no doubt he will employ with his usual skill and success; but there is an unprecedented and urgent demand, as we all recognise, and the noble Earl pointed out that it might not be possible even with the establishments to be taken over in this country to supply all that is needed. We shall have to place large orders abroad, and I hope in such a case that Canada will have the first claim. It certainly would be inexcusable, I almost night say criminal, if we did not avail ourselves of the vast resources of Canada in order to obtain the munitions we require. There is a quantity of productivity in Canada at the present moment going to waste to an extent hardly realised in this country. Canada is producing now 40,000 shells a day, and if an open order were given to Canada I am given to understand that she could bring up her production to 200,000 shells a day. General Bertram, the Chairman of the Shells Committee, goes even further than this. He says that ten times the quantity could be produced that Canada is producing now, but they cannot get any orders from the War Office. They are hampered by a lack of official appreciation, of which Lord
230
Devonport gave us instances the ether day. According to General Bertram, who ought to know what he is talking about, the shell production of Canada could be brought up to 200,000 a day.
Now, why should not we avail ourselves of this vast source of supply? We stand in urgent need of shells; the need has been admitted, and does not require to be insisted upon by Mr. Lloyd George and by the noble Earl. Mr. Lloyd George used these ominous words. He said that if the country is to be saved—there is the greatest significance in that "if"—we shall have to obtain an enormous number of machine-guns in a few months when the tremendous drive in Galicia might be directed against us; and ho implied that if we could not get the requisite munitions and guns in the next few months we were confronted with the appalling position that the country might not be saved. Therefore we should apply, not only to the United States and to Canada, bat to every other available source to supply the munitions of which this country is in so great a need. One of the reasons why orders have not been given to Canada was, to use the words of Lord Robertson, due to the "bleak shape of an interloper." The "bleak shape of an interloper" may be standing between the Government and the Canadian manufacturers, and it may have taken the shape of Messrs. Morgan's contract. I am not going to say a word against Messrs. Morgan. If it was necessary to employ a firm of American bankers to do our work, no better firm could be employed. At the same time I know it has not escaped the notice of the Government that this arrangement with Messrs. Morgan—what is called the Morgan agreement—has been severely criticised by those who understand such matters.
Lord Curzon said that the Government had full liberty to deal with Canada or with other firms in America if they chose to do so, but that liberty is strictly limbed by the convention with Messrs. Morgan. Only the other day a letter was received from the War Office in which these words occurred—
"Se far as orders in the United States are concerned, no contracts or sub-contracts or orders for plant or material should be placed except through or with the concurrence of Messrs. Morgan and Company."
It seems to me that if no orders can be placed except with the concurrence of Messrs. Morgan, the liberty of the Government

231
is very limited indeed. Lord Curzon said that under this arrangement the country had saved millions of money. That is, I know, the opinion of the Government, but according to business men in the City the result of this arrangement is that we have spent millions of money unproductively. We have paid more for articles in America than we should have paid if this arrangement had not been in force with Messrs. Morgan. Mr. D. A. Thomas has been appointed by Mr. Lloyd George to go out to America to see to our purchases on that side of the Atlantic, and I hope he will be able to put matters right. No abler man could have been chosen. If he goes out not to whitewash what has been done in the past but to find out any detects in the system and to suggest alterations in our way of obtaining munitions from America, I am sure lie will do a great deal of good and his mission will be a success.
There is a further point. If we are to obtain shells, and if we are to wage war with the utmost efficiency and effect, we shall have to change our policy in another respect. There is no doubt about it that we have been placed under great disadvantage by the tenderness with which we have treated the Germans, and in this connection I may bring up the case of spelter. This is a point to which I would invite the noble Earl to give his close attention. Spelter, which is a product of zinc, is largely used in the manufacture of brass, and brass is indispensable in the manufacture of rifles and guns. There is a great shortage of spelter at the present moment. The source of supply in Sardinia is closed; the source of supply in Germany is, of course, closed; the supplies of America are almost exhausted, and there only remains Australia. In Australia there are thousands of tons of spelter, but it is not available. Why? Because the supply has been taken over by German firms. It remains for the Government to say whether it shall remain there or be taken over by this country. Mr. Hughes said it was intolerable—and it is so if we are suffering from a lack of spelter—that we should allow these thousands of tons to remain Australia because it has been bought by the Germans and we do not choose to lay hands upon it ourselves. In time of war such leniency is mistaken.
The subject of cotton also has come up again and again, and I cannot understand the attitude of the Government in this
232
connection. Cotton has been allowed to go into Germany in great quantities, and cotton is necessary for the manufacture of ammunition. I read an article recently in a German newspaper in which serious apprehension was expressed that there might be a shortage of cotton. The fact that cotton has been allowed to go into Germany has assisted them in producing ammunition and has prolonged the war. If I might use an expression from Shakespeare, I say that in these methods of leniency which we have shown to Germany we are reminded of a remark of Mark Antony's before the corpse of Cæsar— I am thinking of the number of our gallant soldiers who have been sacrificed to this leniency. England will have to say—
"O, pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth,
That I am meek and gentle with these butchers!"
I hope that mistaken leniency will be abandoned and that we shall treat the Germans in a different spirit. They have shown the maximum of "frightfulness" and we have shown the maximum of forbearance, with the most unfortunate results to the lives of our soldiers. I think that we fully appreciate at last the serious position in which we stand, but at the same time I think that noble Lords and others would be falling short of their duty if they did not from time to time point out such facts and considerations as might serve to arouse their fellow-countrymen to the great peril in which they stand, and to the ever-increasing exertions and sacrifices they will have to make if we are to win this war.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will expect me to give some reply to the various questions that have been addressed to me. I am much obliged to noble Lords for the favourable reception they have given to the Bill, and for the appositeness of the criticisms, small as they have been, that they have directed to it. Lord Cromer commenced by drawing attention to what I admit to be a rather vague phrase in the Bill—namely, "the termination of the present war." Of course, the phrase is subject to that criticism, and yet for the purposes of a Bill of this description, even if I had asked the noble Earl to draw it himself and if I had relied implicitly upon his great command of legal and diplomatic terminology—
THE EARL or OROMER: I should have asked a lawyer.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: No doubt without expert legal assistance he could not have helped us very much. Noble Lords have seen in this Bill, and in various other emergency Bills that have passed this House, that reference has frequently been made to the "termination of the war." I do not think the same phraseology has been used in all cases, but it is equally vague wherever used, and it is quite likely that we shall have to pass a special Act defining precisely the meaning of the phrase and dissolving the doubts which are in the noble Eairl's mind.
Then Lord Harris asked me a question about Clause 3 of the Bill. He inquired whether the various types of munitions and articles there referred to are really meant to take the place of a definition clause. I do not see the noble Lord in his place, but the answer to his question is in the affirmative; it does practically amount to a definition clause for the purposes of this Bill. The noble Lord made a further point which I am sure attracted the warm sympathy of the House. He alluded to the unfair attacks in the other House of Parliament upon officials who cannot defend themselves. I think he was alluding to a debate last evening, when a rather sudden and unexpected attack was made upon the Ordnance Department. The official representative of the War Office was absent at the moment, but if the noble Lord reads that debate he will see that there was no general inclination on the part of the House of Commons to pass judgment upon a case late other side of which had not been hearth The general principle laid down by the noble Lord is one which we all accept, and I think the Minister of Munitions himself deprecated the discussion upon that occasion and suggested that if it were renewed it should take place in circumstances which would admit of the defence being heard.
The noble Lord on the Cross Benches, Lord Sydenham, asked the question, "Will the Minister of Munitions exercise supervision over the hours of labour?" The answer to that is that he could do it by somewhat stretching the powers given to him by the terms of the Bill, but he has not the slightest intention of doing so, and the noble Lord may accept the disclaimer which I give him on behalf of the Minister.
234
The noble Viscount, Lord Bryce, raised a point that has been very much in the mind of the Government with regard to small factories at Birmingham and elsewhere, many of whom have offered their services, their plant, and indeed everything they have got, with the utmost patriotism to the Government; and he said, Cannot a place be found for these small institutions which may be capable in a humble way of doing a great deal of useful work and which ought not to be discouraged? That is exactly the view taken in the Ministry of Munitions, and in some of those towns groups of these smaller factories are being induced to operate together, sometimes executing different parts of the work, we will say, in connection with a shell, in their individual workshops and then sending the products to a central establishment where they are put together by the Government; although they sometimes perform that service themselves. Anyhow, the noble Viscount may take it that the case, of the smaller factories is being borne in mind, and I have the greatest hope that they will be employed to the fullest extent their noble patriotism suggests.
Then the noble Viscount raised a plea, which was endorsed by Lord Parmoor, for the utilisation of the services of scientific men. I suppose it has struck us all with some surprise throughout the war, considering the great reserves of scientific ability we have in the country and the willingness demonstrated by letters to the newspapers and otherwise on the part of these men to serve, that more use has not been made of their services. I myself more than once put the question. I fancy that there has been a great deal more advantage taken of these services and abilities than we know. For instance, there has been a committee of the Royal Society which has rendered valuable service in the matter; and if you go to the Admiralty or the War Office and put to them this question, they will give you numbers of cases in which these offers have been made and thankfully accepted and from which advantage has ensued. But it may well be that we ought to go beyond that, and certainly the case mentioned by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Parmoor) to-night is one that makes one pause and think. I know that this question is under the immediate and personal consideration at the present moment of the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Prime Minister, and I think it quite likely

235
that, just as we are here organising and co-ordinating the services of our workmen in all parts of the country, so it may be possible to make some larger use of the great scientific abilities we have in our midst. Lord Parmoor asked another question. He said, In the event of a strike not being settled, how can the striker be prevented from going further? The answer as it is found in the Bill is that the striker can be fined £5 for every day that he is out, and if he does not pay his fine, like every one else who similarly defies the law, he can be put in prison. More than that the Bill does not say; but that is the nature of the penalty provided.
The noble and learned Earl, Lord Loreburn, used language similar to that which many of us have employed on previous occasions when we sat upon that Bench [indicating the Front Opposition Bench] pleading for no undue reticence and for greater expansiveness on the part of the Government. It is not for me, to say that some of my present colleagues when we were sitting over there and they were sitting here did not give sufficient information to the House. But I do not think that any one can accuse us of being reticent now. Take the Minister of Munitions. He has made within the last few weeks speeches in the country and in the House of Commons which have produced an immense impression on public opinion and against which the last charge that could be made was that there was any unnecessary reticence. I also think that the remarks I made tonight were not subject to any such charge.
EARL LOREBURN: And in the future?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: The noble and learned Earl asks whether we may expect similar things in the future. I hope the leaven that has been introduced into the Government—about which I must speak with caution—may have the effect the noble and learned Earl desires. Lord Camperdown asks a question arising out of Clause 3 of the Bill with reference to coal miners, cotton operatives, and others, and he wanted to know whether they could be brought under the Proclamation which is provided for in the latter part of that clause. I thought that I had made the matter clear in my opening remarks; and if the noble Earl will read what fell from the Minister of Munitions in another place last night he will derive the exact
236
reply to his question. The coal miners do not come directly under that clause—that is to say, they are going to trust, for the prevention of strikes and the like, to the provisions they already have with regard to arbitration, and so on; and only in the last resort, in the event of those efforts failing, would the Government bring into operation that clause of the Bill. But that power they must reserve to themselves. It was stated with exemplary frankness by the Minister of Munitions himself that he would not hesitate, if it came to the worst, to apply the Proclamation to the industries to which I refer.
Finally I come to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Grimthorpe. We allow ourselves considerable latitude in this House, but I must confess that I think some of the observations of my noble friend travelled a little outside the scope of this Bill. He really endeavoured to revive a debate that we had on a Question put by Lord Devonport ten days ago. The noble Lord was very much dissatisfied with my reply on that subject, and I think he vented his dissatisfaction this afternoon. I will reply to the two parts of the speech of the noble Lord with regard to the placing of orders for munitions in Canada and America. The noble Lord is very much mistaken if he thinks there is the slightest reluctance on the part of the Government to employ to the full the greatest of our Dominions. I can give him that absolute assurance. And as regards America, I would beg the noble Lord to be a little more cautious before he condemns in such very strong language the arrangements which have been made with Messrs. Morgan. I believe when I spoke ten days ago, in replying to Lord Devonport, I rather over-stated the terms we had arranged with them. I stated that they received 2 per cent. commission; I believe it should be 1 per cent.; I had been misinformed on that point. As for the utility of the arrangement that has been made, I think it is only fair that I should tell the House that within the last few hours we have received the highest testimony from America that, owing to the arrangement made with Messrs. Morgan, efficiency and economy in a remarkable degree have been assured, and the arrangement has been in every way most beneficial to the Government and to the country. From the same authority I have heard that the kind of remarks

237
sometimes made in this House—I am not certain that the noble Lord has not been guilty of a few to-night—are prejudicial to our interests in the United States of America and can do no good to the cause we have at heart. I say that without intending to convey any personal reproach to the noble Lord.
LORD GRIMTHORPE: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Earl has thought fit to make this reply to me, because I was merely voicing the opinion that largely prevails in this country; and if the remarks which he has just delivered will allay that feeling all I can say is that I have done a great deal of good by raising the question.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I do not think there was anything else in the speech of the noble Lord to which I need refer. A good many of his remarks in reply to me left my withers unwrung; and as regards his admonitions in general, I can assure him that they will be regarded by His Majesty's advisers with all the attention they deserve.
LORD WEARDALE: My Lords, the noble Earl has given us an analysis of the Bill and has replied with great force to the questions that were raised. But there is one remark which I think ought to be allowed to be made by sonic one, and it is this. There is no man in this House, and I believe there is no man in this country, who is not cognisant of and does not deeply deplore the fearful misfortunes which have occurred owing to the remissness of the late Administration in the matter of munitions. I do not want to criticise. I am exceedingly sorry to be obliged to make any criticism whatever upon a Government representing the Party of which I am a member, but when I think of the time which has been lost and the number of lives which have consequently been sacrificed, it is impossible for me to keep silent.
The noble Earl spoke of the leaven which had been introduced into the Government. That was an amusing remark to me. I am not a friend of Coalition Governments; I am not so much enamoured of any leaven introduced into any Government; but I cannot but remember this, that the head of the late Government is the. Prime Minister of the present Government, and if there is one responsibility in the Government or in this country
238
which I think must be proclaimed and acknowledged it is the responsibility of the head of the Government for what passed in the domestic concerns of the late Government. I ask that we should be clearly informed that, although the head of the Government remains the same, a new spirit has been introduced into the Ministry, and that we are going to have a Government which will regulate the Departments for the interests of the State, and see that the munitions and everything else necessary for the successful prosecution of the campaign shall be procured with all possible despatch.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I had not intended to take any part in this debate, but the appearance of my noble friend behind me (Lord Weardale) in the not unfamiliar character of the candid friend, in which he shines quite at his best, impels me to say one or two words, not in reply to him, or, indeed, in deprecation of the particular tone which he, has thought fit to introduce into a debate which up to the time he rose was practical and businesslike, but because having had the honour of sitting on this Bench now for nearly ten years, not merely in the time of the Government which has just come to an end but in the time of that which preceded it, I feel that it might seem strange if I took no notice whatever—which I should have been naturally disposed to do, I confess—of the observations made by my noble friend behind me. I am not quite certain whether the main purpose of my noble friend was or was not to make a personal attack on the Prime Minister, but his speech appeared to convey more of that sentiment than of any other.
LORD WEARDALE: I have no desire whatever to make a personal attack on the Prime Minister, but I do desire to call public attention to what I conceive to be the responsibility of the Prime Minister during the last twelve months since the beginning of the war.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I do not see very much difference between the two things, as defined by my noble friend. I can only say that I am fully convinced that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister has deserved, and still retains, the complete confidence of the country in the great office that he holds. His action in

239
desiring to widen the scope and strengthen the personnel of his Government by the admixture of the "leaven" of which my noble friend behind me (Lord Curzon) has spoken, has, I believe, received the practically unanimous approval of the country. That such an addition will add to our force and to our moral weight I ant most fully convinced; but that it will have any effect in changing the spirit of desiring to do our best for the country according to our lights, which was entertained by the Administration that preceded it, I certainly cannot admit for a moment.
The complaints which have been made and to which, I suppose, the noble Lord was partly alluding, of undue reticence on the part of the late Government and its spokesmen, are, of course, quite familiar. I am not prepared to say whether we did or did not take an absolutely correct view of the degree of silence imposed upon us by the military needs of the case, but I do say with absolute confidence that on all the occasions on which we decided that information ought to be withheld from the country, whether in part or by imposing restrictions on the Press, our sole reason was what we were told by the most competent authorities, and what we ourselves believed, to be the military or the naval needs of the case. We certainly never had any desire to keep the country in the dark on any subject for the sake of keeping it in the dark. We never believed that the spirit of the country was such that it ought to be soothed and pampered by the distribution of inaccurate news or by the excitement of false hopes. On particular occasions I dare say we may have been mistaken. I have more than once said in this House that the need of reticence on a particular subject did not appear to me as a civilian to be proved, but in all such matters one is, of course, bound by the opinion of those who speak with technical knowledge. I have no wish to pursue this subject any further, but as my noble friend behind me (Lord Weardale) thought that the speech he made ought to be made by some one, and also thought that he was the right person to make it, I thought it due to him and I ant bound to say also to myself to make these few observations.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DOXOUDUMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
LORD ELLENBOROUGH LORD ELLENBOROUGH had the following Amendment on the Paper—
Clause 2, page 2, line 19, at end of clause insert ("and in addition to any other penalty he shall be incapable thereafter of being registered as a Parliamentary elector").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is now such a late hour, and the Royal Commission has been fixed for 5 o'clock, that there is no time for the discussion of my Amendment. My Amendment was to the effect of depriving of the Parliamentary franchise any person connected with strikes or lock-outs should strikes or lock-outs take place. After this Bill is passed I shall bring the question before the House in some other manner. In the meantime I do not propose to move the Amendment.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, the whole of the Amendments that I shall move, which are very few in number, are drafting Amendments and nothing more, so that I can submit them without any words.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 5, leave out ("the first schedule"), and insert ("this Part").—(Earl Curzon of Kedleston.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 29, leave out ("notice"), and insert ("submission").—(Earl Curzon of Kedleston.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 40, after ("that"), insert ("employer or").—(Earl Curzon of Kedleston.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Amendment moved—
Page 5, lines 31 and 32, leave out ("in accordance with the representation").—.(Earl Curzon of Kedleston.)
On Quest ion, Amendment agreed to.
Chase 5, as amendment agreed to.
Clauses to 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 26, after ("offences"), insert ("and matter").—(Earl Curzon of Kedleston.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 26, after ("jurisdiction"), insert ("so far as offences are concerned").—(Earl Curzon of Kedleston.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Chasse 15, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Amendments reported: Bill read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

WAR LOAN (TRUSTEES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
Loup HYLTON: My Lords, this is a Bill to enable trustees of Two-and-a-half per cent. Consols, or of Government Annuities, or of the old War Loan, to borrow money to enable them to take advantage of one of the options mentioned in the prospectus of the New War Loan. It has come to the knowledge of His Majesty's Government that there are a great number of trustees in the country holding an appreciable amount of these old Government Stocks who are anxious, for the sake of the trust estate, to take advantage of this option, but it is obviously impossible, without some legislation such as is promoted in this Bill, for trustees who have no ready money in hand to provide the funds to take up that amount of the new War Stock which it would he necessary for them to do in order to avail themselves of the option of converting their old holdings.
The power of borrowing that is given to trustees under the Bill is, of course, to some
242
extent a rather unusual power, but the Government consider that the circumstances of the time are unusual, and that it will be to the advantage of the State to enable larger liquid funds to flow into the New War Loan, and it will also be to the advantage of the trust estates. The power which it is proposed to give to trustees under the Bill is a purely optional power. If trustees think it not for the benefit of the trust estate that they should convert the old Stocks, into the new War Stock there is no obligation upon them to do so. But if they decide that it will be for the benefit of the estate to convert, the Bill enables them to borrow on the security both of the old Stock and of the new amount which they will necessarily be obliged to apply for in the New Loan.
Under Clause 2 of the Bill it is proposed that—
"Any sum paid into any Court or otherwise under the control of any Court., may, without prejudice to any other mode of investment, be invested in securities created under the War Loan Act, 1915; and any sums paid into Court or otherwise under the control of the Court before the passing of this Act may, in pursuance of any order of the Court, or in accordance with Rules of Court, be realised and reinvested in those securities."
That clause was, I understand, placed in the Bill in consequence of there being large sums of money held in or antler the control of the Court. The only other clause to which I think I need call your Lordships' attention is Clause 3, under which a trustee is indemnified from any loss that may be sustained from borrowing under the Act or from any subscription to or investment in the New War Stock.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

MUNITIONS OF WAR BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
The following twenty-one Bills received the Royal Assent—

War Loan Extension.

Milk and Dairies Acts Postponement.

Prize Courts.

Army Act Amendment (No. 3).

Munitions of War.

War Loan (Trustees).

Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4).

Local Government Provisional Order (No. 7).

Conway Fisheries Provisional Order.

Sea Fisheries (Cardigan Bay) Provisional Order.

Sea Fisheries (Poole) Provisional Order.

244

Tramways Provisional Orders.

Altrincham Gas.

Warwick Gas.

Ammanford Urban District Council.

Friends' Provident Institution.

Methodist Church in Ireland.

Sunderland Corporation (Wearmouth Bridge).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF CHESTERFIELD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn, except for Judicial business, until Tuesday next, July 6.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.