Lords Sitting of 2 November 1915

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
Treaty Series (1915)—
No. 9. Exchange of Notes respecting the accession of Japan to the Declaration of 5th September 1914 between the United Kingdom, France, and Russia, engaging not to conclude peace separately during the present European War ("Treaty Series, No. 1 (1915)"), London, 19th October 1915;
No. 10. Treaties, &c. between the United Kingdom and Foreign States. Accessions, Withdrawals, &c (in continuation of "Treaty Series, No. 7 (1914)"):
Factory and Workshop—Annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops for the year 1914:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1914—Order No. 9530, dated the 16th October 1915, postponing the operation of the two Orders described in the Schedule thereto until the 1st November 1915:
Destructive Insects and Pests Acts, 1877 and 1907—Orders declaring certain 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. 266, dated 16th October 1915;

D.I.P. 267, dated 18th October 1915;

D.I.P. 268, dated 16th October 1915;

D.I.P. 269–275, inclusive, dated 21st October 1915:

National Insurance Acts—Provisional Regulations, dated 26th October 1915, entitled the National Health Insurance (Injuries in War Compensation) Regulations, 1915:
Telegraphs (Inland Written Telegrams)—The Telegraph (Inland Written Telegram) Regulations, 1915, dated 30th October 1915:
Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks (Temporary Rules) Act, 1914—Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks (Temporary) Rules, 1915. (Second Set):
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Bridlington Piers and Harbour—Abstract of the Annual General Account for the year ended 26th July 1915: Delivered (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

CLUBS (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 169.)
DUNDEE CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
To be read 3a To-morrow.
VOLUNTEER BILL. [H.L.]
House to be in Committee on Wednesday the 10 th instant.

NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS, &c., BILL.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments and Commons consequential Amendments, and Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, since the main question at issue is raised upon the first Amendment which has to be considered, I think it will be more expedient to postpone to the consideration of that Amendment all observations on the general question. I will therefore now simply make the Motion that stands in my name.
Moved, That the Commons reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments be now considered.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, this Motion raises the whole question of the differences which have occurred between your Lordships' House and the House of Commons with regard to this Bill, and some of my noble friends on this side have asked me to state what in their opinion is the best course for us to take. I think we shall all agree that the position is an unfortunate one. This Bill was much more closely examined in this House in the month of July last than it was in the Lower House. It was again exhaustively considered here in the month of September, and Amendments were inserted carrying out the views held practically unanimously by all private members on both sides of this House. The Bill, as amended by your Lordships, then went down to the House of Commons.

79
I think we have reason to complain of our treatment with regard to this Bill. In July last we were pressed most earnestly to agree at once to the Second Reading on the ground that some benefits probably would not accrue to those whom the Bill was intended to benefit if we did not immediately come to terms and agree to the Bill in the form in which it had been hurriedly passed through the House of Commons. A few days later, when the question was raised in the House of Commons of adjourning Parliament until September, the Prime Minister threw over that contention. He said he had satisfied himself that there was not likely to be any inconvenience from the delay, and the Government left over until September the settlement of the whole question; and I noticed that on the 21st of last month Mr. Goldstone, a Labour Member of Parliament, entirely unrebuked, asserted that what had been said in this respect had no foundation in fact.
There is a clear difference of opinion between ourselves and the Government in this matter. In the first place we held, and still hold, that the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation is an altogether insecure and improper foundation on which to build a business of this magnitude, which must be in the main, if not entirely, a Government business. Secondly, we hold that while this should be a Government undertaking a Committee of nearly thirty is far too large. Shine of us have protested recently, with a good deal of public support, that a Cabinet of twenty-two is likely to be less concentrated and less effective than a much smaller body. We feel the same with regard to this portentous Committee which it is proposed should enter on the business of this Bill, which must involve millions of money. Whoever heard of asking a Committee of twenty-seven or twenty-nine members to control the distribution of many millions of public money? Thirdly, we complained that those who had been doing this work and doing it admirably had been excluded from action under the Bill. That is, I believe, now to be remedied by adding two members to this already unwieldy central body, though I am not sure even now whether those two members are to be selected by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association or nominated by the Government. Fourthly, the Bill was absolutely useless as it stood, for it provided no financial support whatever by the Government. Lastly, it delegated
80
financial responsibility to local bodies. Yet when this House proposed a short time ago to charge these local bodies with the distribution of old-age pensions in the metropolis, where there are the very best organised local bodies, the House of Commons declined to allow that to be done, saying that you should not delegate financial responsibility to local bodies, and insisted on leaving it in the hands of the London County Council. Every one of those arguments has been practically admitted.
It is not now contended, and it was not contended on October 21 by the spokesman of the Government in another place, that this is a good Bill. We say that as it came up to us from the House of Commons it was a bad Bill. The Government say it is a partial Bill, a temporary Bill, and one which ought to be replaced by a more extended Bill which they have not the time now to prepare. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was quoted as saying that he was for a big Bill, but he refused to bring it in. Mr. Hayes Fisher, who speaks with great knowledge of this subject, said he was for one Pension Board and one pension building. Your Lordships have proposed one Pension Board and one pension building, only it is to be a Government Board and Mr. Hayes Fisher prefers that it should be a voluntary Board. Mr. McKenna said—
"The Lords Amendments practically set up another Government Department looking solely to State money."
And Mr. Hayes Fisher added—
"If you set up a body of that kind, you will get not a single penny."
How much will the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation get of private money to carry out this public service? They are to be used as decoy ducks. The one chance you had of getting private money to take the place of public money was by continuing the great organisation of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, which had the confidence of those amongst whom they worked and the financial support of those who have provided the money up to now. Do the Government think that, having cut away that body from administering and distributing the funds, they are going to tap the same resources and save the Chancellor of the Exchequer from making grants? If they do, they will find themselves greatly mistaken.

81
There is this difference in principle between us. The Government want a voluntary body which is not to be under Parliamentary control as the central body; then they want elective bodies to distribute the funds. We stand for a Government body under Parliamentary control, and we ask that they should be allowed to distribute the funds either through the elective bodies or through the voluntary agencies which they can control and which have the sympathy of the people. I ask the Government to remember that it is not only in this House that they find themselves without support on this question. In the House of Commons on October 21 Mr. Goldstone said—
"It must be quite obvious to the whole House of Commons that not a speaker has stood up in his place to say that he approved of the constitution of the statutory body as outlined in the Bill when it left this House; and it is obvious, further, that the whole House if judged by the speeches made, is against the Government in this matter."
That is not contradicted. If the whole House of Commons and the whole House of Lords are at one, surely a great opportunity has been lost of bringing the two Houses together and allowing, by consultation, some arrangement to be made which would be satisfactory not merely to both Houses but to the public, who, through the Press, have left no stone unturned to show their dissatisfaction with the Bill as drafted by the Government.
I do not want to make a personal attack on any member of the Government, but, so far as I can see, in his conception of the present position the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stood alone. He is, of course, an autocrat in this matter. He knows that we cannot get on without public funds, and he says that he will only give public funds if the body set up is not a public body and if he is allowed to go back to the vicious and exploded principle, which successive Chancellors of the Exchequer have denounced of calling on bodies elected by the ratepayers to administer taxes when they are not making any contribution to them from the rates. I take my stand on that. The proposal is absolutely against all democratic principle, and I am not surprised that a member of the House of Commons went out of his way a few days ago to point out that "for the second time since the war broke out the House of Lords has suggested to us that
82
liberty, either personal or Parliamentary, is fully worth retention."
Some people think that the debates in this House are futile. We may very often feel that the Government rely too much on our patriotism not to press difficulties under present conditions. At this moment we are asked to give up all the principles for which we have contended with regard to this important measure. We are asked to sacrifice them, to put them aside, and to allow a Bill which we know cannot work to pass into law. The alternative is that we shall be hold up to the public as having obstructed a reform which can only be made effective by means of Government money, and Government money, we are told, will not be forthcoming if we insist on our Amendments. I think we have every reason to complain that this alternative is put upon us. We are standing for Parliamentary control; we have been standing for retrenchment; yet we have had no support from the Government. We have been standing in this case for organisation. In the three months which have elapsed since July it would have been easily possible for the Government to have drawn up a Bill which would have established to their satisfaction whatever body they desired. We are asked to-day to accept a measure which is faulty and which the Government admit to be partial and incomplete, requiring to be at some future date amended. We are asked to accept that measure and to condone what seems to us the want of organisation and forethought on the part of the Government in not seriously taking this matter up since July last. That, I venture to say, is putting us in a most invidious position.
So far as I am personally concerned, and so far as those of my friends whom I have been able to consult on this question are concerned, we feel that we must leave with the Government the whole responsibility of carrying through the measure in its unamended form. They will have elbowed out a large number of voluntary workers who have deserved well of the country. They will have replaced them by representatives whom successive financial authorities have declared to be improper representatives to administer taxes when they are not supplementing them from the rates. They will have established a central authority with large Government responsibilities and without Parliamentary

83
control. Lastly, they will have acted against the protests and against the arguments, not merely of members of this House, but of nearly the whole of the independent Members of Parliament who have spoken on this subject.
I cannot help feeling that to press us to agree to what is practically the rejection of all the Amendments which we inserted in order to make this a workable Bill is hardly just, and I am certain that this course cannot be agreeable either to the noble Marquess who leads the House or to his colleagues here. But so far as we are concerned, we feel that if the Government, as an alternative to the loss of the Bill, press us to agree to the sacrifice of our Amendments, we have no alternative but to subordinate our views of what would be right, proper, and most useful to the country to the immediate necessities of the case, and to the fear which may be entertained in some quarters that if we insist on our just Amendments those who have deserved well of the country may be sufferers for many months to come.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, I wish to associate myself very fully with the eloquent and, I think, unanswerable protest which has just been delivered by my noble friend behind me. I think the majority of your Lordships will be greatly disappointed at the manner in which our Amendments have been treated by the House of Commons, and I am convinced that this disappointment will be shared by a very large and influential body of public opinion outside Parliament. Especially do I think that, apart from the merits of the Bill, a golden opportunity has, as my noble friend pointed out, been lost to improve the relations between the two Houses of Parliament which have certainly, for the last two or three years, not been all that we could wish. The tension between the two Houses has for a long while past been regarded by many thoughtful people outside Parliament with an ever-growing sense of misgiving and apprehension, and I believe there is a large and influential body of public opinion which would have welcomed any opportunity of putting matters on an improved basis. There could not have been a better opportunity of accomplishing this than that which has recently occurred. The whole country is knit together in the presence of the greatest national crisis
84
through which we have ever had to pass. The Amendments proposed by your Lordships' House were, as has been acknowledged by those who opposed them, dictated purely by regard for the public interest and were not in any case tainted with Party animosity. And, curiously enough, your Lordships' Amendments were supported by that section of the House of Commons which up to the present has been specially credited with hostility to any legislative interference on the part of the House of Lords. There could not, therefore, have been a better opportunity for acting, and I think if the whole question had been regarded in a broader and more statesmanlike spirit a great deal of permanent good might have been done outside the four corners of this Bill. These advantages have, unfortunately, been lost.
Turning to the merits of the Bill itself, I doubt whether of recent years any legislative measure has ever met with such a chorus of reprobation as that which has been showered on this luckless Bill. It has been absolutely riddled with criticisms in this House; it has been criticised also in the House of Commons, and even those members of that House who supported it did so with such evident reluctance and with so many qualifications as to make their support almost equivalent to a qualified condemnation. Further, all those who have been interested in this measure and have taken it up are opposed to the Bill in the form in which it came up to this House, and the Press, I think I may say, are absolutely unanimous, both Liberal and Conservative newspapers having joined in condemning the measure. It may be asked, that being the case, Where has it any friends? I believe it has only one friend, and that is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In fact the whole of this contest has been McKenna contra mundum, and unfortunately the world has been worsted in the contest. In spite of all this I agree with my noble friend that, having done our best to amend the measure, we cannot do more, and that we must now pass it without our Amendments and derive whatever consolation we can from the knowledge that the Government themselves own that it is a bad measure and will shortly have to be superseded by something else; and the sooner that takes place the better.
I should like, before I sit down, to say a few words about the Amendment which

85
I myself moved. That Amendment was the insertion of a new clause which enabled the local committees to delegate their powers to the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association or other similar organisation. The Commons have rejected that Amendment on the ground that "they do not think it right that the local committees should have power to delegate to other bodies." That is a very interesting statement of fact, but it is not an argument. We are not told why it is wrong to delegate to other bodies, and are left to conjecture the reasons. The debate which ensued in the other House does, however, throw some light on the reasons which induced the Commons to reject this particular Amendment. Mr. Hayes Fisher, who was in charge of the Bill, said that he approved of the Amendment and thought it would be a great improvement in the Bill; but apparently under the pressure of the omnipotent Chancellor of the Exchequer he voted contrary to what were his convictions. I am not quite sure how far I am in order in quoting what happened in the House of Commons, but if I am out of order I would ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House to tell me so. There was only one voice raised in opposition to my Amendment—I refer to Sir Ryland Adkins. Sir Ryland Adkins said the reason why he objected to this Amendment was that if the powers of the local committees were handed over to any other organisation great opposition would be aroused amongst other sections of the community who were not represented. In other words, here was an association Which it was universally acknowledged had done admirable work but which happened to have aroused a certain amount of somewhat unworthy jealousy on the part of other sections of the community because they thought they belonged to a different social class.
Sir Ryland Adkins went on to say—
"It would not be practicable for them" [the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association] "to be allowed to be the exclusive carriers out of this policy in many parts of England where, through no fault of theirs but owing to the circumstances of the case, they cannot express the views of various sections of the community in the way in which the ordinary local committees can."
The hon. Member appears to have forgotten the optional character of my Amendment. If there had been anything in the way of compulsion, if the local
86
committees had been obliged to hand over their powers to the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, or if that association would have been, as he said, the only carriers out of the policy, I should admit that there was something in his objection. But nothing of the kind was contemplated. It is well known that the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association has met with very varied success in different parts of the country. In some places it has worked in full harmony with the various local bodies, and has inspired confidence; in other places that has not been the case, and there has been a good deal of friction and jealousy. What Sir Ryland Adkins has done—and this is an argument to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has yielded—is this. He has taken the unsuccessful cases and the arguments applicable to those cases and has applied them, without any reason whatever, to all the other cases where the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association has been perfectly successful. That appears to me a most illogical process of reasoning. I do not suggest to your Lordships that we should insist on this Amendment, and I am less inclined to do so because, even without it, it will be possible under the Bill to move in some cases in the same direction. Under the Amendment inserted on the motion of the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, the local committees will have power to appoint sub-committees. Therefore, if I read the provision rightly, the local committees will be able, if they choose, to avail themselves of the services of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association or other bodies to the full extent that they require.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF CROMER: For that reason I do not think it necessary to press this Amendment, though I regret its loss, for it would have been a good finger-post for the local authorities and would have shown them what they might have done. But I quite admit that it is not absolutely necessary. I only wish to add that the whole of the proceedings in connection with this Bill confirm me in the belief, which I expressed the other day in dealing with the Postal and Telegraph Rates (Statutory Limits) Bill, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in dealing with matters of this sort does not look so much to the merits of the case as to the amount of opposition he is likely to incur in Parliament,

87
and the moment he encounters the least opposition he gives way. In this case the opposition has not been by any means strong. We are constantly being told that the Democracy will not stand this or the other. I wonder whether the leaders of the Democracy will ever learn that what the Democracy really want is that they should show a little moral courage. The Democracy cannot be driven, but I am perfectly certain that they can be persuaded if only valid and cogent arguments are brought forward urging them to adopt a particular course. In this case no effort has been made in this direction, and we are asked to put on the Statute Book a measure which represents a feeble compromise between conflicting views and one which I thoroughly believe will not accomplish the object which it is intended to serve.
LORD DEVONPORT: My Lords, the two speeches to which we have just listened have drawn our attention to the fact that we have behind our action the support of public opinion, not only as regards public men themselves but as regards the Press throughout the country. Lord Midleton stated that in your Lordships' House this Bill had been riddled with criticism, and that our Amendments had put it into a shape which made it what it was not when it came here. It came to us from the House of Commons an ill-considered measure, and we succeeded in converting it into a measure which, if the Government would adopt it, would serve a good purpose. In spite of the speeches which we have heard I understand that the recommendation is that we should ground our arms and allow the Bill to go through in its original form; that we should agree to accept it in that form in spite of our criticisms; that we should, in fact, adopt it under protest. The noble Earl said something about moral courage. I am not sure that this course is a good exemplification of moral courage. We are copartners, at all events, in the administration of this country as a Parliament. We have our experience and our judgment, and we have utilised them to the greatest possible public advantage in dealing with this measure. Yet because one man, as the noble Earl described it, places himself in opposition to the action we have taken we are to surrender at discretion! That is the situation. Although I emphatically object to it and protest against it, I know perfectly well that I have no power to alter it. I doubt very much in spite of all that has
88
happened whether, if I were to stand out obstinately and say that I would not be a party to this, I should get two noble Lords to go with me into the Division Lobby. That is a parlous condition of affairs.
The noble Earl mentioned that for the last three years the relations between this House and another place have not been all that they might be. Does anybody suppose that they are likely to be improved by the lack of courage we are displaying on this occasion? Hitherto the House of Lords, whatever may have been its failings or its virtues, has always shown itself independent. But now we are going to take a certain course because the Government threaten. That is what it is; it is a threat. The Government say to the House of Commons—and to us indirectly—"If you support the Lords Amendments we will not finance the Bill." To that threat we are going to surrender. All I can say is that I am profoundly disappointed and surprised. Take the action of this House in relation to this Bill. First of all we realised that to rely on charitable funds to carry out all the important responsibilities contained in the Bill would be folly. We knew perfectly well—in fact, Lord St. Aldwyn pointed it out, and his experience in a matter of this kind is a unique one—that the public purse would have to be behind this Bill in order to give it validity, and that once the public knew that the public purse was behind the measure it would be no use looking to them for charitable contributions. We realised that to the full, in the same way as everybody realised it—the Press and the House of Commons itself—and we stood up for what my noble friend Lord Midleton calls a democratic principle. We were not going to convey the control of vast sums of public money—estimated by Mr. Hayes Fisher to amount to £5,000,000 to give this Bill its proper foundation—to a private organisation. That is a sound position, surely, for us to take up. That is the position we have taken up, and that is the position, I am sorry to say, we are going to abandon.
We have not only the support of the public and the Press behind us, but we have the support of the House of Commons itself. Those noble Lords who have read the debate which took place there the other day must have been struck by the fact, already referred to, that every Member who spoke, without a single exception, applauded the action we had taken

89
here. Sir Ryland Adkins, the Member referred to by Lord Cromer, made a statement which I will quote in support of my assertion that the House of Commons is in favour of the action that was taken by your Lordships' House. This is what Sir Ryland Adkins said—
"Many of us who are sympathetic to the Lords Amendments have to undergo strategical movements of our consciences to-night in entirely agreeing with the Government."
That was practically what every member of the House of Commons did—he under-went a strategical movement of his conscience in supporting the Government. We never were on such firm ground; we never have had such an opportunity. I have been a member of your Lordships' House for only a few years, but I am fully acquainted with the history of its proceedings for a quarter of a century at all events, and I say there never has been such an opportunity as we have at this moment of carrying public opinion with us. That is the way to establish the reputation of this House, not by surrendering our position when it is practically impregnable. Therefore it is that I regret so much the step that is going to be acquiesced in to-night.
The Government hang on tenaciously to the idea that voluntary money, somehow, coming from somewhere, at some time not specified, is going to find the wherewithal to work this Bill. During the recent debate Lord Lansdowne chided me because I gave in an emphatic way my view that this would not prove to be the case. He asked what justification I had for assuming that private funds would not be forthcoming. I abstained from interrupting him during his speech, but if he will allow me I will now give my reasons. In the first place I submit that I am justified on the ground of experience in believing that private money will not be forthcoming; and, in the second place, on the ground of some knowledge of human nature. Let me first take the question of experience, and it is experience in connection with this very body to whom is to be entrusted the control of this organisation. During the year in which the South African War broke out an appeal was made by the Lord Mayor for funds. A considerable sum was collected, and of it about £500,000 was entrusted to the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation for administration. That was the old body. When the new body came into existence in
90
1904 one of the things they did was to consider the amount of money entrusted to them for dealing with claims from widows and orphans arising out of the South African War, and they came to the conclusion that the sum was inadequate in amount to discharge the obligations that would be cast upon them. They held a consultation among their influential men, and decided to make an appeal to the Lord Mayor to reopen the South African War Fund—that was, to reopen it two or three years after the Fund had been originally closed. The Lord Mayor agreed, and the appeal was issued. It had upon it a most influential group of names. In the first place the late King, His Majesty King Edward, wrote a letter with the idea of giving the appeal a good push off, if I may use that term, accompanied by a handsome donation. The other names attached to the appeal included those of the Duke of Connaught, the late Lord Derby, the late Lord Spencer, the late Lord Rothschild, the late Lord Strathcona, the Governor of the Bank of England, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and several others equally as important but whose names I cannot recall at the moment. They appealed for £250,000. What was the result? The public response did not amount to more than £5,000. That is my first reply to the noble Marquess as to my justification for assuming that private funds would not be forthcoming. But there happened to be unexpended balances from several funds that had been collected by counties, by newspapers, and so on, and the bulk of those unexpended balances were contributed; but the total contribution in response to this most influential appeal, including these unexpended balances, amounted to only £12,000.
I said that my second ground for assuming that private money would not be forthcoming was based upon my knowledge of human nature. We know perfectly well that when an event comes along that awakens the sympathy of the people public bounty flows in a strong stream, but when a fund is started that does not appeal very strongly to the sympathies of the people the response is very small. Even in a case like this great and terrible war, where money has been poured out in an almost unending stream up to the present moment, the day will come—it is not very far distant—when that stream of benevolence will dry up. And I am confident that if you were to attempt to appeal to the people for supplementations

91
of pensions in respect of the wastage and the devastation of war to human beings you would not get a response under any circumstances whatever. The people would tell you that this is a Government responsibility; and I agree.
I would like to say a word on the change of attitude, or change of ground, on the part of the Government in the last few days. First of all it was urged in this House, and repeated in another place, that the reason the Government could not accept the Bill as we had amended it was that their scheme proceeded on the basis of a voluntary organisation. But now we know that they do not believe in their own Bill. In the debate in another place Mr. Hayes Fisher, who was the spokesman of the Government, said—
"This is only a temporary measure; it will be treated as only a temporary measure; it falls far short of the recommendations that I made to the Select Committee."
Mr. Hayes Fisher propounded before the Select Committee a State Pensions Board, with which should be co-ordinated all the various departments of the State—such as Greenwich and Chelsea—which deal with pensions. He admitted that this Bill fell far short of his expectations, but he said that the Government had decided that in the spring of next year they would bring in a new Bill founded on the basis of a State Pensions Board. We are asked to-night to be parties—and we are going to be parties—to passing a Bill which the Government have within the last ten days told us is a temporary expedient and is to be supplemented next spring by quite another thing, eliminating altogether the voluntary element. Therefore in effect we are consenting to the establishment of a machinery and organisation for, and the appointment of individuals to, a body which is going to be scrapped within the next six months.
I say again that I am sorry. I do not think our action will enhance the reputation of the House of Lords, which has had in this regard the best opportunity of putting itself en rapport with public opinion, yet it is throwing away that chance. If it is a satisfaction to us—it is a poor satisfaction in the circumstances—that we have public opinion behind us, we are entitled to take advantage of it for what it is worth. The Government have succeeded in forcing our action by threatening to wash their hands of the whole affair if we persist in our Amendments. This is
92
my first experience of your Lordships' House in this humour. I have stood behind the Bar many a time when great events have been taking place here, and if I did not approve of what was going on I always admired your absolute fearlessness and independence. Now I find myself driven to taking part in this surrender. I regret it profoundly. I think it is a great blunder.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I must offer one word of remonstrance regarding the diatribe which the noble Lord has passed upon the action which we are advised to take to-day. I feel as strongly as the noble Lord does that we have been placed in a position which to me is absolutely incomprehensible. If anybody but the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, was in joint charge of this Bill I should have said it could be nothing but a matter of temper which had induced the Government to disregard every financial principle that has been laid down for years past by Chancellors of the Exchequer. All this has been thrown overboard in the first place simply to suit what seems to be a fancy for a particular body—a very useful body, no doubt; and, in the second place, to suit the whim of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I protest against the criticism which the noble Lord passed on the independence of this House on this particular occasion, because I do not think he completed the story. If we disregard the advice of the two noble Lords sitting on the Front Opposition Bench and insist on our Amendments, what is going to be the result? We have the authoritative statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he will grant no funds except for a Bill that pleases him. We must assume that the Government have approved of that dictum of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Then who is going to suffer if we throw out this Bill? Not we—except in reputation, the noble Lord thinks; not the Government—their consciences are satisfied; not the general public; not these various charitable bodies which are now working so admirably throughout the country. No; the unfortunate people who would suffer are the pensioners, the people whom this Bill was going to help. That is the reason why I am prepared, feeling quite as strongly as the noble Lord does that we have been put in a false position by the Government, to adopt the course suggested. It is

93
because I feel that there is an enormous number of men who will suffer if this Bill, even in its present poor shape, is not passed, that I am ready to run the risk of the reputation of this House suffering in the opinion of the public. I would much rather that the reputation of this House suffered than that these men should have to go without supplementary pensions.
LORD TENTERDEN: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to Lord Devonport for having brought us back to the rock on which the House split with regard to the question of State control. It seems to me somewhat belated to now take up an attitude similar to the one which I myself adopted when the Bill was first introduced into your Lordships' House, when I advocated State control and the supply of public funds only. If it was intended by noble Lords to have debated the measure upon those lines, I fail to understand why so much time has been given to discussing the Bill as produced by His Majesty's Government—a Bill which certainly aroused a great deal of opposition principally on the ground of its apparent financial weakness. But in that respect I may claim to have cleared the air to some extent when I put what the Standard newspaper called, in legal language, a "leading question" to His Majesty's Ministers. I asked whether, in the event of its being necessary, they were prepared to back the Bill financially. On that occasion I was privileged to have the support of the noble Earls, Lord Camperdown and Lord Lichfield, both of whom addressed themselves to the point that if State control was not to be given we should at any rate have an assurance from His Majesty's Government that, in the event of its being necessary, the required money would be forthcoming from public funds for these supplementary allowances. I think it is only just to His Majesty's Government to say that the answer which I received to my question, both from the noble Marquess the Leader of the House and from Lord Lansdowne, made it clear that in the event of the voluntary contributions not being sufficient the Chancellor of the Exchequer would come to the rescue. It seems to me that that should have largely satisfied the House upon the main point at issue, and that His Majesty's Government should not be expected to go further having regard to the composition of the Bill being that of voluntary contributions aided by public funds.
94
It does not seem to me altogether fair to accuse the Government of not having acted rightly by this House. I take a different view. I say that His Majesty's Government have given the fairest answers to the criticisms that have been delivered against this Bill. It is impossible for any one to say now what the allowances will be. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House told us that the scale would necessarily have to be revised on account probably of the increased size of the Army, and everybody understands that that must be so. It is therefore obviously impossible to say what given sum will be required. In my opinion the Bill, drawn as it is for the purpose of combining voluntary contributions with public funds, is a perfectly straightforward and honest Bill. These allowances must necessarily be varied from what they have been in the past, when voluntary contributions in large amounts were flowing in. For noble Lords to say, because they do not know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to give, that they have been badly treated is to my mind unfair; for if that attitude had been adopted in the first place the Bill might have been thrown out right away at the beginning, or might have been discussed on other lines. But the Bill as it stands seems to me a perfectly sound measure if you are going to try and combine private contributions with public funds. Personally I approve of resort to public funds only, in a case of this kind; but that has this disadvantage, that you would then have to set up a new organisation at considerable expense to the country, whereas you already have an existing organisation in the voluntary societies, which are not only prepared to continue, but have hitherto well executed their work. The principal reason for the discord between the two Houses is, I think, State control, and it seems to me that if you have an assurance from the Government that the money will be forthcoming it does not much signify whether there is State control or not. The principal thing is to know that you have financial strength which will carry you through to the end.
LORD SYDEN HAM: My Lords, I think it is conceded on all hands that this Bill has no friends, and that if the principle of majority opinions were to apply in this case the Bill could not be passed. Lord Harris has said that he will vote for this

95
Bill without the Lords Amendments because he feels that if it is not passed the dependants of the men whom the country delights and wishes to honour will not have what is due to them in the way of supplementary pensions. Is that the case? Is it conceivable, supposing this Bill were not passed, that either House of Parliament or the public of this country would permit of the dependants of these men being deprived of the supplementary pensions to which everybody feels they are entitled? It seems to me that neither House of Parliament nor the public would tolerate such a thing. Therefore I cannot see why this Bill in its unamended form should be allowed to pass.
There is one other point. There is nothing very certain about this Bill. Mr. Hayes Fisher said that it was an experimental measure, which means that he did not know—probably nobody knows—how the Bill will operate. It is not right to try an experiment upon the dependants of the men who have fought gallantly for their country. The Bill deals with two quite distinct subjects, the first being the supplementary pensions to the men who have fallen and the second the great question of separation allowances. We have no idea of how many cases would fall into the first category, but we do know from some figures given on July 21 by the noble Lord the Paymaster-General that the men drawing separation allowances at that time numbered 843,000. Therefore at the present time the number will probably amount to something like 1,000,000. If any figures could be given showing how many cases would come under the supplementary pension branch of the Bill it would be found that the number was very small in that connection, and that the great mass of the work under the Bill would be devoted to separation allowances. When the Amendment of the noble Earl which would have enabled the present agencies to continue the work they are carrying on was refused, it to my mind destroyed all hope of the separation allowances being managed as they have been. Therefore it seems to me that one effect when this Bill is passed will be that the whole machinery which for fifteen months has administered these separation allowances, and which, as I say, will touch the interests of something like 1,000,000 people before long, will be broken up, and that a long time must elapse before fresh machinery can be set up. Possibly it can-
96
not be set up before a new Bill has been passed. I think those considerations ought to be borne in mind. If it can be said that the real interests of the dependants of the men we want to honour will not suffer by waiting for the new Bill which is promised in the spring, then I say we ought to pass the present Bill. But if that point is not made quite clear, I think that this House ought to refuse the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS.
[NOTE.—The references are to Bill (141).]
Lords Amendment.
Clause 1, page 1, lines 10 to 12, leave out ("Statutory Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation')") and insert ("Board to be called 'the War Allowances Board' and hereinafter referred to as 'the Board.'")
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:
Because it is intended that the new body shall be a voluntary body and not a Government authority, and therefore it is expedient that it should be closely associated with the voluntary body established by Parliament to deal with kindred matters.
Clause 1, page 1, lines 12 and 14. The Commons propose the following consequential Amendments: Leave out ("twenty-five") and insert ("twenty-seven")
Lords Amendment.
Clause 1, page 1, line 15, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("eighteen")
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:
Because it is inexpedient to take away representatives from the Local Government Board and other bodies and to give them to the Crown.
Lords Amendment.
Clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out:
("one shall be appointed by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee;
one shall be appointed by the Local Government Board;
one shall be appointed by the Local Government Board for Scotland;
one shall be appointed by the Local Government Board for Ireland;")
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:
Because owing to the relations which will exist between the new body and local authorities and approved societies in which disabled men are insured it is expedient that the Local Government Board and the National Health Commissioners should be represented on the body.
Lords Amendments.
Clause 1, page 2, lines 8, 9, 10 to 15, 19, line 20 (the second Amendment), lines 21, 22, 23, line 24 (the second Amendment), lines 26, 29, 31 and 32, 33 to 40, page 3, line 1 (the first Amendment), lines 5 and 6, 10 and 11, 17.
Clause 2, line 2, of new subsection (5) (inserted by the Lords), page 4, lines 6, 18, 27, page 5, lines 6, 9, 12 and 13, 21, 23, 27
Clause 3, line 2, of new subsection (3) (inserted by the Lords), omission of new subsection (4) (inserted by the Lords), page 5, lines 31 to 35, 36, 40, and page 6, lines 5, 7, 10, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 21, 27, 31 and 37.
The Commons disagree to these Amendments for the following reason:
Because they are consequential on the Amendment made by the Lords in page 1, line 10.
Lords Amendment.
After Clause 4 insert the following new clause:
". Notwithstanding anything in this Act contained, if in any area functions similar to those entrusted to a local committee are at the time of the passing of this Act being performed by the Soldiers and Sailors Families Association or other organisation, such association or other organisation may, if the local committee so desire, and so far as the local committee may direct, discharge within such area the functions of the local committee during the continuance of the present war, provided such association or other organisation shall so long continue to perform within such area such functions to the satisfaction of the local committee."
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:
Because they do not think it right that the local committees should have power to delegate to other bodies.
Lords Amendment.
Leave out Clause 5.
The Commons disagree to the omission of Clause 5 for the following reason:
Because it is consequential on the Amendment made by the Lords in page 1, line 10.
Lords Amendment.
Clause 6, page 7, lines 28 and 29, leave out ("Naval and Military") in line 28 and after ("Pensions") in line 29 insert ("Help to Disabled Men")
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:
Because it is more convenient that a Bill dealing mainly with supplementary assistance rather than with primary should be so described.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the first Amendment to which the Commons disagree is the one by which your Lordships struck out of Clause 1 the words "Statutory Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation')" and inserted "Board to be called 'the War Allowances Board'
98
and hereinafter referred to as 'the Board')." The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason: Because it is intended that the new body shall be a voluntary body and not a Government authority, and therefore it is expedient that it should be closely associated with the voluntary body established by Parliament to deal with kindred matters.
As I pointed out when I moved that the Commons Reasons be considered, this Amendment raises the whole subject of controversy between the two Houses; and I therefore postponed until I could make this Motion—namely, that this House do not insist on their Amendment—any reply to the observations which have been made by various noble Lords. The first three speakers devoted themselves to a uniform and unrelieved criticism of the action of His Majesty's Government in another place, and of our general action as regards this Bill. The noble Viscount who opened the proceedings spoke with his usual force and with the skill which he derives from a long career in both Houses of Parliament. I do not know whether the same criticism of the noble Viscount's general tone will have occurred to other noble Lords, but this particular criticism did occur to my mind. The noble Lord, with great ingenuity as with great fervour, spoke of "we," thereby meaning not only the noble Lords who have opposed the Government here but also the critics of the Bill in another place, and he, I have no doubt, desired that it should be understood that that criticism was uniform in character and founded upon similar arguments. That is by no means the case. In this House alone—it was one of the principal difficulties which my noble friend (Lord Lansdowne) and I encountered in dealing with the Bill here—the criticism was founded on a very large and completely different series of original beliefs on the whole question.
The noble Viscount spoke of the extreme unwieldiness of the body which appeared in the Bill as brought up from another place, and he implied that the whole business ought to have been done by a small, compact, and experienced body with a particular eye to the expenditure of as little public money as possible. That was the noble Viscount's form of criticism. We heard it from nobody else. A form of criticism of our Bill advanced

99
by other noble Lords was that we did not pay nearly enough attention to the voluntary societies. My noble friend behind me (Lord Devonport) founded his criticism again on entirely different lines. His criticism was that the whole business was not to be done by a purely public authority dealing with public money. It may be quite true that our measure is open to criticism from various standpoints, but that fact does not entitle the noble Viscount or anybody else to speak of "our" objections, as though they were entertained by the whole body of those who, for quite different reasons and holding altogether divergent opinions on the subject, have not approved of certain features in our Bill. The noble Viscount was exceedingly proud of the support which his opposition to the Bill had received from certain members of the Labour Party in another place. That is undoubtedly an important and a most interesting fact. But does the noble Viscount or does anybody here suppose that their criticism is of the same character as that which the noble Marquess and I had to listen to here? We all know that the governing idea of the criticism from those Members of Parliament and of those who agree with them on this measure is that so far as possible, even though it may not be possible to carry it out in its entirety, all these various pensions and allowances should be paid on a flat-rate. That, I take it, is altogether different from the view held by most noble Lords in this House. Yet the noble Viscount cheerfully prays in aid that criticism as though it were the same as his own. When people speak of the possibility of losing the Bill and of the dilemma in which this House is placed by the action of His Majesty's Government I am compelled to point out that the possibility of losing the Bill, supposing the loss to be brought about by that great variety of criticism founded on entirely different grounds of which I have spoken, is by no means the same thing as would be the loss of the measure owing to a solid body of criticism aimed at its general principle.
Now as regards this particular Amendment. The noble Viscount alluded to what was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place. My right hon. friend was made by more than one speaker the subject of a personal attack of no little acerbity, and, I venture to think, of no great fairness. What is the
100
Chancellor of the Exchequer's position in this matter? Noble Lords have said that he, so to speak, holds this House and those who sympathise with the needs of those who would be assisted under the Bill in a cleft stick, because he is able to deprive all these poor people of the benefits by refusing to grant any public money for them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the guardian of the public funds, and he has to see that if public money is provided on this large scale it is administered on behalf of the public by responsible persons. This Bill as it left your Lordships' House does not create a real public authority to which the expenditure of great sums of public money could be entrusted. If you look through the Bill you will see that the true responsibility to Parliament for the expenditure of public funds in the Bill as amended in this House cannot be shown to be substantially greater than that in the Bill as it came up from another place. And that being so, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he would not be a party to the setting up of what he described as intended to be an official Court of appeal from Chelsea and Greenwich, and one which was not strictly responsible in the sense which the kind of pensions body the future creation of which was indicated in more than one speech would undoubtedly be. The control of public money, in his view, is not sufficiently secured by the Bill as it stood when it left this House and went down to the House of Commons. Or as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in words which I think the noble Viscount opposite quoted—
"You cannot set up a new Government Department by amending a Bill which was framed on the voluntary basis."
And that is a statement to which this afternoon I have certainly heard no answer.
May I once more quote from what the chancellor of the Excheques said? He said the desire was—
"to establish what is primarily a voluntary organisation assisted by Government Grant, and when we have got experience of its work to look forward at a later date to a new big Bill, when we have more leisure and opportunity, which will absorb all the functions of the pensions bodies."
As regards that future Bill, I do not think that my noble friend Lord Devonport was quite accurate in his recollection when he spoke of that measure having been promised

101
by the Government for next spring. In these times it is not wise to make promises in regard to future Government action, the possibility of which must to some extent depend upon the circumstances that then exist. The idea of the larger Bill, explained at some length in another place, as has been pointed out, by Mr. Hayes Fisher, is one which appeals to many people. Its preparation, if as an Act it is to include a code for the administration of pensions of all kinds for a great number of years to come, must involve considerable thought and labour. So far as His Majesty's Ministers are concerned I do not doubt that we could find time, or make time, for the consideration of such a measure. The practical difficulty surely lies in the amount of labour which its preparation would be bound to throw upon a great number of officials already worked day and night to the utmost limit of their power, a burden which we should be unwilling to impose upon them so long as their labours are so overpowering as they are at this moment. That is the reason both for the postponement of the consideration of such a measure and, as my noble friend would well understand, for our unwillingness to make anything in the nature of a promise of its introduction at or before any particular date.
But assuming the Bill now before us to be in one sense a temporary or an experimental measure, it is necessary to state once more that in the opinion of the Government the lines on which our Bill is drawn are more suitable for that purpose than those of the measure as amended by your Lordships. The feeling of the Treasury and of the Government generally—because this view was expressed, I may remind the House, quite as strongly by Mr. Hayes Fisher as it was by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his preliminary observations—is that it is not wise to attempt to set up for this purpose what wears the guise of being a public authority fully qualified to expend public money to any amount, that body being only in an indirect sense responsible to Parliament, only responsible through having to make a report, with no provision in the Bill for the regular conduct of the affairs of the Board by any Minister, and altogether falling short of the necessary qualities which belong to a body entitled to expend public money to a large amount. Altogether apart from the hopes that were founded upon the
102
body contemplated in our Bill, of its being able through its local connections and by local agency to go on collecting a substantial amount from private benevolence, our intention has been rather to found a Committee which in its receipt of the Government grant would be scarcely analogous to but somewhat like the great educational institutions which receive large grants of public money, and which are in a certain sense subject to Parliamentary control because questions can be asked about them and their action called in question upon the Vote for the Board of Education in another place, but which are in no sense managed or conducted by public authorities and are practically independent in their action. That being so, I sincerely hope that your Lordships will not insist upon this particular Amendment.
I was glad to hear what fell from the two noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite—that, in spite of what I have called their unrelieved criticism and of the fact that they are in no way convinced by the arguments addressed to them and their friends either here or in another place, they do not desire to press those views further in the sense of asking the House to continue to insist upon its Amendments. It is clearly our duty as a Government to thank the noble Lords for taking that course, and we are willing to believe that they take it with some reluctance. That reluctance was even more strongly expressed by my noble friend Lord Devonport and also by the noble Lord on the Cross Benches (Lord Sydenham), but I am convinced that further reflection will cause all noble Lords who have shown that reluctance to conclude that they are right in the action which they are taking. I hold strongly the view, which was expressed by more than one of my colleagues, that there is a great deal on this subject of which so little is known by experience that all action upon it is bound to be regarded as somewhat experimental; and I sincerely hope, when the whole business comes to be put on a permanent footing for the great number of years during which the operation of these pensions and allowances will have to last, that use will be made of the experience gained not only by the purely official people who have to administer the Act but also by the great body of voluntary workers to whose assistance, as we have agreed all through, we are all so deeply indebted. Their experience, when accumulated

103
as it will be, can be used both in another place and here for the construction of a permanent and watertight measure. Noble Lords, I think, would be themselves prepared to agree that this measure as it stands could not be the code of law for the administration of pensions for all time; and that being so I hope that for the actual purposes which have to be carried out under the Bill complete harmony will reign not only in Parliament but throughout the country.
Moved, That the House do not insist on the said Amendment.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: Can the noble Marquess tell us whether the new Bill that is contemplated will include the provision for disabled soldiers and sailors? That point has not been alluded to. It has been called a Consolidated Pensions Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My noble friend will understand that I cannot give a pledge a long time beforehand as to any of the actual contents of a measure the uncertainty belonging to which I have already explained. But I think my noble friend may be confident that when a Bill of that character is introduced it will cover all questions relating to the care of disabled soldiers and of their dependants. As the noble Earl knows, there are some who would desire a measure of that kind to go even further and to concern itself with the provision of employment for time-expired soldiers who are not disabled. But, as he will understand, upon that point I can say nothing at this moment.
LORD DEVONPORT: I understood the noble Marquess to say that no promise to introduce a Bill next spring had been given.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: That is so. Although hopes were held out, no specific promise was actually made for the introduction of a Bill in the spring.
LORD DEVONPORT: Perhaps the noble Marquess will excuse me if I quote my authority for suggesting that a promise was given. It is quite possible to say that it was not absolutely definite, but there is a very broad indication not only that the Bill is to be introduced but that it is to be introduced in the immediate future—within
104
six months. I quote from the speech of Mr. Hayes Fisher. He speaks with the responsibility of a Minister and was in charge of the Bill. Referring to the alternatives that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had put before the House when they were considering our Amendments, Mr. Hayes Fisher said—
"My right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said there were three alternatives, the first thing being to drop this Bill and bring in a new Bill. He gave his reasons why we cannot do that. He said the Government were too busy, the Cabinet had not the time to give it proper consideration, the Departments were too busy, and that we must wait for a little time, probably the spring of next year, for that measure."
That is not definite, but I will quote a later extract from the remarks of Mr. Hayes Fisher—
"… Therefore I say we cannot expect a Bill, at all events till the spring of next year."
Then he went on to say—
"In these circumstances is it not advisable that we should take this Bill as an experiment and work it to the best of our ability during the next six months?"
And he finished his speech by saying this—
"Then we may look forward next year to a more substantial treatment of this question with a view of dealing with it in a more drastic and proper way."
What are plain men to understand by those words? They appear to me to convey a definite promise. Perhaps I fixed it a little too closely when I suggested six months, but does the noble Marquess now contend that there was not a very strong indication of a promise conveyed in the House of Commons that the Government intend to deal with this matter next year? I will withdraw the limitation of six months, but if words mean anything when uttered by a Minister of responsibility I assert without hesitation that the promise was made. If it is going to be withdrawn now, let us have it withdrawn; we shall then know where we are.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that there is no desire on our part to recede from anything that has been said on behalf of His Majesty's Government in either House of Parliament. We all recognise that this Bill cannot be regarded as a final or complete measure calculated to deal with the whole of the great problems which certainly will arise when this war

105
comes to an end. We believe it to be the best solution of the difficulty which is possible at this moment. But when the noble Lord on the Back Bench asks us to say that a larger and more comprehensive measure will certainly be introduced within six months or within twelve months, he must know, from his Parliamentary experience, that those are the kind of pledges which must be given subject to certain limitations and with certain reservations. A Bill of such a kind would be a colossal measure. It would be very controversial and would obviously give rise to a great deal of discussion. At the present time, as my noble friend who leads the House has truly said, it would be impossible to inflict upon the Departments concerned the immense task of framing a measure of that kind in the middle of all the strain and stress of a great war. But we certainly adhere to the pledges that have been given on our behalf, and we mean to fulfil them in good faith and as soon as the circumstances permit.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The next Amendment is in Clause 1, page 1, lines 12 and 14. The Commons propose the following consequential Amendments—namely, to leave out "twenty-five" and insert "twenty-seven." This is owing to the addition of the two members of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association; it is, in fact, an acceptance by the House of Commons of one of your Lordships' Amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Although the next two are Amendments rejected by the House of Commons with reasons, the whole of the remaining Amendments down to the end of Clause 3 can be regarded as consequential from the point of view from which we are considering the question. I will therefore venture to move that your Lordships do not insist on any of these Amendments in Clauses 1, 2, and 3.
Moved, That, the House do not insist on the said Amendments.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Now we come to the new clause inserted on the motion of my noble friend Lord Cromer with regard to the delegation of their functions by local committees. I entirely admit, as was stated by one of my colleagues in another place, that there is much to be said for this Amendment, and even the principal critic of it whom the noble Earl quoted pointed out that his objection was not at all framed with the idea of doing away with such devolution or making it more difficult. But as the Bill stands there is, I think, as full power as could be required for this devolution, and I will therefore move that your Lordships do not insist upon the insertion of the new clause after Clause 4.
Moved, That the House do not insist on the said Amendment—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The leaving out of Clause 5 was a consequential Amendment. I therefore move that this Amendment be not insisted upon.
Moved, That the House do not insist on the said Amendment.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The only remaining Amendment to which the Commons disagree is in Clause 6. It is the Amendment inserted on the motion of the noble Earl opposite (Lord Lichfield) having a bearing on the title of the Bill. I hope he will agree that it is not worth while to insist on this Amendment as matters stand, because although his title may appear to represent more fully the actual purpose and meaning of the measure I think that is probably more a matter of appearance than of substance. It clearly will make no difference to the actual working of the Bill.
Moved, That the House do not insist on the said Amendment.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: I quite agree with my noble friend that there is nothing much in the title of a Bill; it is more what the Bill contains than the title that matters. At the same time I consider the reason that the Government have given for disagreeing with this Amendment as rather ominous. The reason given is that

107
"it is more convenient that a Bill dealing mainly with supplementary assistance rather than with primary should be so described." My Amendment brought in the words "Help to Disabled Men." Now those words are cut out altogether, and in the provisions of the Bill the Government have not provided any means whatever for adequate treatment of disabled men. That seems to show that the Government look upon the treatment of our disabled men as comparatively a detail compared with the question of supplementary allowances. I asked my noble friend just now whether the Government proposed in the larger Bill to include the whole question of disabled men, and I was very glad to hear his answer in the affirmative; because it is a most serious position now that these men are to be dependent entirely on charitable funds under this Bill, and the State is not recognising that it is its duty to provide everything necessary for their health, their training, and finding them employment. In those circumstances I have felt bound to call attention to the Commons Reason for disagreeing with the Amendment, because I am afraid that the case of disabled men will not receive sufficient attention under this Bill.
I must trouble the House with a quotation. In July last the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board, replying to a statement that the Government under the Bill were not doing all they should do for the case of disabled soldiers, said—
"Hon. gentlemen may come down and say, 'There is a good deal more which ought to be done for disabled soldiers and sailors. We appointed Sir George Murray's Committee. Look what it recommends! Look at the numerous suggestions made by that Committee for restoring the health and strength of these men, and for restoring them once more to positions in the labour market!' And the hon. Member for the Central Division of Edinburgh (Mr. C. E. Price), who himself did good service on that Committee, a very strong Committee, which made a most admirable Report, comes down and says. 'But in your Bill you have ignored all the suggestions we have made.' Believe me it is nothing of the kind. It is perfectly true that there are only three lines in the Bill, 'To make provision for the care of disabled officers and men after they have left the Service, including provision for their health, training, and employment.' I have looked through all the admirable suggestions made by the Committee, and I say that every one of those suggestions is covered in those three very pregnant lines."
Well, under the Bill, with the constitution of the Statutory. Committee, the State has
108
undertaken no obligation whatever towards these disabled men. It is going to leave the provision for their care to voluntary charitable funds. However much the State may supplement those funds I do not know, but the Government in this Bill have not undertaken the principle which is very generally recognised by the country as a whole, that it is our duty to provide for the care of these disabled men and not leave it exclusively to charity.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I understand that my noble friend is alarmed at the change in the title of the Bill because, for one thing, he is dissatisfied with the House of Commons Reason for objecting to the alteration made by your Lordships' House. The Reason given is that "it is more convenient that a Bill dealing mainly with supplementary assistance rather than with primary should be so described." I gather that my noble friend sees in those words an indication of a desire on the part of His Majesty's Government to avoid their liability to make themselves responsible in the case of disabled men, in whom he takes a very proper interest. However particularly one may read the clauses of an Act of Parliament I should certainly never be inclined to pay too much attention to the wording of the Reasons given by the House of Commons for disagreeing with Lords Amendments. Those Reasons are generally of a somewhat fragmentary and inconclusive character, and personally I do not think they amount to very much more than, if I may say so, a civil, or perhaps scarcely civil announcement of the fact that our Amendments are not going to be accepted. My noble friend may rest quite assured that we, at any rate, do not admit that there is in those words anything that can be taken as a repudiation of the claim of the disabled men. I would suggest to my noble friend that it would be well, now that we have agreed with the other House of Parliament with regard to the greater number of the Amendments, not to insist in the case of this one. Should your Lordships insist on this Amendment the Bill would have to go back again to the House of Commons, and I cannot think that that would be a very desirable end to this controversy.
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: I should like to say that I had not the least intention of pressing a refusal to accept the

109
Commons Reason for disagreement. At the same time I thought it necessary to express my opinion upon it. I entirely agree with what has fallen from noble Lords on this side of the House, that however much we may dislike this Bill in its restored form we should leave the whole responsibility of it now in the hands of the Government.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Bill to be printed as agreed to. (No. 170.)

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE rose to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can give any information to the House as to the origin of the serious outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Somerset; and whether he can say that it has not arisen owing to his having removed the restrictions on the importation of cattle from countries where foot-and-mouth disease exists.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl for a little more information than is sought in my Question. Since putting the Question on the Paper I have been informed by the Chairman of the Contagious Diseases Committee for the County of Somerset—the county where this outbreak has principally taken place—that there are 153 cattle infected and over 300 cattle in contact on the farms which at the present moment are under restriction. I am also told that up to the present the Board of Agriculture has taken no steps as regards slaughtering. I understand that only eight animals have been slaughtered. It would be very useful, therefore, if my noble friend would indicate what is going to be the policy of the Board of Agriculture in regard to this matter—whether the old policy of slaughtering is going to be followed, or whether some other procedure is about to be adopted.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (The EARL OF SELBORNE): My Lords, I regret to say that this outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease is a serious one. I am unable to give any information as to the origin of the outbreak in Somersetshire. It is, however, quite clear that the disease was not introduced by foreign animals landed under the provisions of the Foreign
110
Animals Order, 1915, since none have been landed under it either at Avonmouth or Cardiff, the only ports through which infection could in this way come to the district. The main circumstances are that the discase appeared on the premises of a dairy farmer living at Monkton Combe, on the outskirts of the Borough of Bath, being confirmed as foot-and-mouth disease on October 21. An investigation showed that the disease had been there for nearly three weeks before it was recognised, so that it will be apparent that, with the start it had, and taking into account that there are so many ways in which it could be introduced into a partly residential district, the business of tracing its origin will be found a very difficult if not an impossible one. I must say that it is a most deplorable thing that not only the farmers who are not experts in the disease but those experts they called in should have been staring this terrible disease in the face for three weeks before they had the slightest idea what it was or gave the Board of Agriculture any notice.
Up to the present twenty-four outbreaks in all have occurred in the Monkton Combe district. There is direct connection traceable between them all, except two of them which are away from the main group—one in the parish of Winkfield, three miles away from the nearest place of infection in the Monkton Combe district, and the other in the parish of Compton Dando, about seven miles away from it. It is practically certain that these two are connected with the others, but, so far, the connection cannot be definitely indicated.
The other outbreak of disease in the country is in the extreme south-western corner of Pembrokeshire. That is directly traceable to a calf which was taken from premises in the Monkton Combe district which have since been declared infected. This animal, with nine others from the Bath auction mart, was taken direct by rail to Pembroke. The calves were from the first closely watched, and distinct signs of the disease were found to exist on October 28. Since that date there has been no development of the disease at this centre, it having been found possible, in the favourable circumstances of the case, to keep it under complete control.
I will now answer the further question put to me. The noble Lord asked why

111
there has been some delay in the slaughter of the animals concerned, and whether there is any change in the policy of the Board in that respect. No, there is no change. The delay is exclusively owing to the fact that the scene of the first series of outbreaks is in the district of the Bath stone quarries, and it is extremely difficult to dig the necessary excavations in which carcases could be cremated; no labour could be got to do it, nor could any butchers or slaughterers be procured, and I have had to resort to the Army. The Army have given me a body of men, up to any size required, to go about and dig the holes in which to cremate the carcases
112
under the supervision of the officers of the Board of Agriculture, and they are also helping me with butchers to slaughter the animals. If I cannot get butchers I shall without hesitation have the animals shot, which of course involves the loss of any salvage there might be from cases not yet diseased. My noble friend can rest assured that the Board of Agriculture will pursue its usual course, hitherto so successful, in the most drastic manner of dealing with this scourge.
House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, till To-morrow; quarter past four o'clock.