Lords Sitting of 12 October 1915

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
Trade Reports (Annual Series)—

No. 5487. Japan (Formosa, 1914);

No. 5488. Portugal (Goa, 1913–1914);

No. 5189. China (Changsha, 1914):

Colonies (Annual)—
No. 860. Jamaica (Report for 1914–1915):
Prisons (England and Wales)—Report of the Commissioners of Prisons and the Directors of Convict Prisons; with Appendices, for the year ended 31st March 1915:
Beard of Education—Statistics of Public Education in Wales (with Monmouthshire). Part II. Financial Statistics, 1912–1913:
Prisons (Ireland)—Thirty-seventh Report of the General Prisons Board, Ireland, 1914–1915:
Irish Land Acts, 1903–1909—Report of the Estates Commissioners for the year ended 31st. March 1915, and for the period from 1st November 1903 to 31st March 1915:
Fisheries (Ireland)—Report of the Department, of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland on the Sea and inland Fisheries of Ireland for 1914:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
India (Loans raised in England)—Return of all Loans raised in England, chargeable on the Revenues of India, outstanding at the commencement of the half-year ended 30th September 1915, &c.:
Post Office (Telegraph)—The Telephone Regulations, 1915, dated 28th September 1915:
National Insurance Acts—Regulations and Provisional Regulations entitled—

1. The National Health Insurance (Medical Benefit) Regulations (Wales), 1915;

2. The National health Insurance (Lapsed Transfer Values) Regulations, 1915, dated 29th September 1915;

1030

3. The National Health Insurance (Transfer Values) Regulations, 1915, dated 29th September 1915;

4. The National Health Insurance (Persons of Unsound Mind) Regulations, 1915, dated 29th September 1915;

5. The National Health Insurance (Medical Benefit) Regulations, 1915, dated 30th September 1915;

6. The National Health Insurance (Accounts of Insurance Committees) Regulations, 1915, dated 1st October 1915;

7. The National Health Insurance (Societies' Accounts and Administration Expenses) Regulations, 1915, dated 1st October 1915;

8. The National Health Insurance (Arrears) Consolidated Regulations, 1915, dated 9th October 1915:

Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1914—Order, No. 9527, dated 2nd October 1915, postponing the operation of the two Orders described in the Schedule thereto until the 18th October 1915:
Destructive Insects and Pests Acts, 1877 and 1907—Orders, declaring areas described in the schedules thereto to be infected with wart disease and an infected areas for the purposes of the Wart Disease of Potatoes (Infected Areas) Order of 1914—

D.I.P. 243, dated 16th September 1915;

D.I.P. 244, dated 16th September 1915;

D.I.P. 245, dated 28th September 1915;

D.I.P. 246, dated 28th September 1915;

D.I.P. 247, dated 30th September 1915:

Shops Act, 1912—Orders made by the under-mentioned Councils and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, affecting certain classes of shops within their respective areas—

1. Borough of Ealing;

2. Rural District of Swansea. (Two Orders);

3. County Borough of Burnley. (Two Orders);

4. Borough of Eccles;

Mental Deficiency Act, 1913 (Regulations for Transfer of Patients in Institutions)—Regulations made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act, as to the transfer of Patients from one certified institution to another, and from a State institution to a certified institution, and, in cases appropriate to State institutions, from a certified institution to a State institution:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

INDIAN CIVIL SERVICE (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to enable Persons during the continuance of the War, and for a period of two years thereafter, to be appointed or admitted to the Indian Civil Service without examination—Was presented by the Lord Islington; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next. (No. 161.)

CHURCHMEN IN THE ARMY.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I desire to ask the noble Lord the Paymaster-General whether he will give to the House the figures upon which the calculation is based that seventy per cent. of the British Expeditionary Force in France are members of the Church of England. The House may, perhaps, re collect that it was this calculation that was given as an explanation for the somewhat extraordinary promotion of the Church of England Deputy Chaplain-General, the Bishop of Khartoum, to the rank of Major-General. I venture to suggest that, even if the calculation is true, it is not a good reason for the action that has been taken. But I do not believe that the calculation is accurate, and therefore I am asking the noble Lord whether he will give to the House the basis upon which the calculation is made.
I wish to make it again perfectly clear that in so far as this change of rank was a pure matter of Church of England concern, I do not express any opinion about it. I am as anxious as any one can be that the organisation of Church of
1032
England chaplaincies should be as efficient as possible, and the more efficient the better I should be pleased: But I cannot understand why it was necessary to make the rank of the Senior Chaplain of the Church of England superior to that of any other, unless it was intended to supersede everybody, and this is what a great many people still believe. I am content to accept the disclaimer given on the part of the War Office on that matter; but there is a very strong feeling that the intention was to put the Church of England Senior Chaplain above everybody and not to confine this to a matter of Church of England concern.
I am quite aware that the calculation used to be made before we went to war a year and a-half ago that seventy per cent. of the Forces were members of the Church of England. That, I believe, was then obtained by writing down as a member of the Church of England everybody who expressed no opinion as to his Church. That may or may not have been a reasonable thing to do, but I am perfectly certain that the constitution of the Force as it now exists cannot be made up of seventy per cent. of members of the Church of England. I do not believe that in the British Isles the membership of the Church of England is anything like seventy per cent. Personally I believe it to be under fifty per cent., taking the whole of the population and calculating by any of the ordinary ways, such as the performance of marriages or matters that can be got at according to ordinary statistics. Therefore I am particularly anxious that we should have a statement of the basis for this calculation that seventy per cent. of the British Expeditionary Force in France are members of the Church of England.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, as my noble friend was good enough to say that he accepted my disclaimer with regard to the vexed question of the relative rank of the two ecclesiastics in question, it will not be necessary, I hope, for me to say anything on that particular point. But with regard to the Question on the Paper, my noble friend will recollect that I was particularly careful to use the adjective "approximate" when I gave my answer on September 22. I did so because I was informed by the

1033
War Office that it is not possible to obtain exact statistics with regard to the various denominations at the present moment. Indeed, on the attestation form now in use the question of a man's religion is not dealt with. The calculation that seventy per cent. of the Force consists of members of the Church of England rests, as the noble Lord will not be surprised to hear, upon the conditions in peace time. Taking the years from 1907 to 1913, which is the last year in respect of which statistics are available, the average number of members of the Church of England in the Army was a little over seventy per cent. These figures are the basis of the statement which I made; and I may observe, in spite of what my noble friend has said, that there does not seem any apparent reason why this proportion should have changed in consequence of the war. One may reasonably expect that the same proportion would hold good in war as in time of peace. As my noble friend entered upon the question of the numbers compared to population, perhaps I may remind him that the population of England is, if I am not mistaken, almost exactly four times the united population of Scotland and of Ireland. Therefore, even if you assume that every Scottish soldier is a Presbyterian and every Irish soldier a Roman Catholic and make allowance for the presence of large numbers of Nonconformists in the British Army, on the face of it there seems to be nothing improbable in the statement that seventy per cent. of the Force are members of the Church of England.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Can the noble Lord say whether the proportions to which he referred are obtained by writing down as members of the Church of England every one who makes no contrary declaration?
LORD NEWTON: I am unable to inform the noble Lord how these particular figures are arrived at. Personally I should like to say that that is one of the results of not having a religious census in this country. As to writing down as members of the Church of England every one who makes no contrary declaration, I am unaware whether any such practice takes place. But if the noble Lord wishes it I will do my best to find out whether or not sufficient care is taken in that matter.

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE WAR.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had the following Questions on the Paper—
To ask his Majesty's Government—

1. Whether goods owned by the enemy if captured at sea are confiscated.

2. Whether the Order in Council dated March 11 last is being carried out in the strictest manner.

3. Whether the Lord Chief Justice is empowered to agree with the American Government for the setting up of a new International Tribunal to take the place of existing Prize Courts.

4. Whether the fullest rights of search by the Fleet are being maintained and carried out by the Admiralty.

The noble Lord said: My noble friend the Leader of the House informs me that it would not be in the public interest for me to put these Questions.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, perhaps I might say a word or two on this subject as my noble friend has withdrawn his Questions. As soon as I saw them on the Paper I communicated with my noble friend and explained to hint the reasons why, in our opinion, it was not expedient that they should be put. Questions of this kind cannot be answered in this House in the brief manner in which a Question in the House of Commons, as a rule, receives an answer, and it might be assumed that they would lead here to a regular debate on the subjects raised. After consulting with some of my colleagues we agreed that it would be highly undesirable that a debate of this kind should now take place. There are, no doubt, occasions on which it is advisable and may even be necessary that a categorical statement should be made on questions of international Law such as those which are raised by these Questions, particularly the very different side of International Law modified as it has been by the new circumstances of this particular war in its relation to neutral countries. But questions are raised of great delicacy and difficulty concerning International Law and also in respect of our foreign relations with certain countries, and we feel that considerable risk would be run of misapprehension and possibly misinterpreta-

1035
tion if we were to endeavour to engage in such a discussion at this time. Misinterpretation is not difficult by taking single sentences out of a statement apart from their context and using them as the basis for an argument, and so many intricate and delicate questions might arise out of the Questions which my noble friend has placed on the Paper that we all feel grateful to him for not having persisted in them, and I am quite sure that nobody will be more glad than he to reflect that some possible dangers have been avoided by the absence of a discussion this afternoon.

PRISONERS AND WAR WORK.
LORD TENTERDEN LORD TENTERDEN rose to ask His Majesty's Government to what extent they are utilising prison labour for the purposes of the war, having regard to the work which could be done by prisoners in making requisite materials and to the extent to which prisoners could be expected to apply themselves for such patriotic purposes far more readily than to ordinary prison work.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have placed this Question on the Paper for the purpose of ascertaining whether prison labour is being or could be utilised in any way for war purposes. I find from statistics that I have brought up to date as much as possible that in England and Wales there were from March, 1913, to March, 1914, 135,000 prisoners, and the idea has occurred to me that in these times, when men are being called to the Colours in ever increasing numbers and when a great strain is being placed upon the labour market in obtaining men and women for the manufacture of munitions, the labour of prisoners might be put to seine use for the purposes of the war. If asked to what use prison labour could be put, I would suggest that probably the best course would be to ask each prisoner to do such work as he would in ordinary circumstances be performing, and I presume that a prisoner's particular trade or vocation in normal times would be indicated on the charge sheet. As a class prisoners are not necessarily unpatriotic; on the contrary, I believe they would exert themselves very much better in carrying out work which they knew would benefit their country in this war than in performing tasks to which they might be set
1036
in normal times in the regular routine work of the prison. I am in ignorance as to what His Majesty's Government may have done in this matter, or whether or not it has already received their close attention; but I beg to submit the question either for their consideration or for their further consideration, in the hope that prison labour may be utilised in some degree to help the country in the great struggle in which it is now engaged.
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Curzon I hope I may be allowed to answer the noble Lord's Question. Every available prisoner was placed on war work immediately war was declared, and special arrangements have been made to facilitate the output of war stores. Up to the 9th instant over three million articles of war stores have been made and issued. The demand for prison labour is so great that orders are being booked for execution a year hence. The work covers more than twenty distinct trades. Most of the prisoners are serving short sentences; hence the work of instruction is continuous and exacting. Since the war began the population of the civil prisons in England and Wales has fallen by nearly one-third. I am sure the House will be glad to hear that the Commissioners cannot speak too highly of the devotion of the officers and of the enthusiasm of the prisoners in connection with the preparation of war stores.

THE CENSORSHIP.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether the report in the Observer of Sunday, October 10, of a speech made by the Minister of Agriculture, at York, in which he described certain acts of the Censorship as an example of "mischievous stupidity," is an accurate one; and, if so, whether the speech represents the views of His Majesty's Government.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF SELBORNE): My Lords, this is a subject which I have previously discussed in this House, and I have to say at once that I hold exactly the same opinion in office as I held out of office. When I first drew public attention to this matter it

1037
was in the form of a letter to The Times, and I protested against the tendency, which appeared to me to be increasing, of giving an undue prominence to our successes in this war over our defeats. When I wrote that letter I believed there was only one authority in this country which dealt with the subject—that is the Press Bureau, presided over by Sir Edward Cook and Sir Frank Swettenham. But Sir Edward Cook explained to me, in correspondence, that there really were two quite distinct authorities—one a military authority, which was exclusively responsible for the military news published, and the other the Press Bureau, which dealt with the general superintendence of the Press—and that the Press Bureau, as such, over which he presided had no responsibility whatever for the military news published. They simply published without editing the news sent to them for publication by the military authority. I took an early opportunity in this House of stating that that was the case, and of correcting my criticism accordingly. I hoped and believed that that was generally understood; but as it appears not to be I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me an opportunity of repeating it.
In my speech at York the other day the act of censorship which I criticised was the excision from the report of The Times Correspondent of a statement that the Germans had fought well. For that excision the Press Bureau, over which Sir Edward Cook and Sir Frank Swettenham preside, had no responsibility any more than the noble Lord who sits on that Bench. The excision was done by a military authority. Who he was I do not know, nor do I know for certain whether he was in this country or in France, though I believe and suspect he was in France. I withdraw nothing from the opinion I expressed as to his exercise of discretion. The noble Lord asks whether I spoke in the name of His Majesty's Government. I did not consult my colleagues, but I should be very surprised to learn that any of them disagree with me.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: I am sorry that the noble Earl has taken my Question as expressing censure upon him. My object was the reverse. I put down the Question in the hope that the noble Earl would be able to say that he had converted his twenty-one colleagues to his own view.

THE PROMISED BALKANS STATEMENT.
LORD HAVERSHAM: My Lords, should like to ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House whether there is any intention on the part of His Majesty's Ministers to make a statement on foreign affairs, particularly on the subject of the Balkans, similar to that which I understand is to be made in the House of Commons on Thursday next by Sir Edward Grey.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, in these matters we are, of course, greatly in the hands of the House. As a general rule it is felt that where a statement is made in one House in ordinary times it is due to the other House that a similar statement should be made there; but I confess I do not feel certain that in a matter of this kind there is any very great advantage in duplicating a statement on foreign affairs. My noble friend (Lord Lansdowne) and I naturally cannot speak with precisely the same first-hand knowledge of the Foreign Office that the Foreign Secretary in another place possesses. It is possible, of course, for us to ascertain the lines on which the statement is to be made and endeavour so far as possible to say precisely the same thing in other words, but whether the House or the public profit greatly by duplication of that kind I take some leave to doubt. As a matter of personal recommendation, I should recommend any noble friend of mine to attend the Gallery which the House of Commons is good enough to set apart for us in order to hear the statement at first hand. But, as I say, we are greatly in the hands of the House in this matter.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: My Lords, I would like to put it to my noble friend that this is surely reducing our system to single-Chamber government. Here is, by general admission, a most important and a remarkable occasion. The Foreign Secretary has told the other House that he will make a full statement there on Thursday. What is this house for if, on occasions of this enormous importance, our opinion is not to be in any way consulted and if none of us are to have an opportunity of saying whether we agree with the view of His Majesty's Government or whether we do not? I submit that my noble friend is going rather far.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I should be inclined to agree with what has just been said by the noble

1039
Viscount on the Cross Benches if it could be reasonably inferred from the statement of the Leader of the House that there was any desire on our part to deprive your Lordships of an opportunity of discussing the position in the Balkans or in any other part of the world. I understand that the Foreign Secretary on Thursday will give to the House of Commons some account of the actual position in regard to affairs in the Balkans. That announcement will be public property, and it will be open to any of yew Lordships after it has been made to call attention to the matter and to provoke discussion here. But I see some practical inconvenience in an attempt on the part of Ministers to duplicate the same statement ill both Houses of Parliament. Unless I am mistaken, a few days ago my noble friend (Lord Crewe) made a statement with regard to a question of foreign policy which had already been dealt with or was being dealt with at the same time in the other House by the Secretary of State. What was the result? The two statements were collated and compared, and I observed newspaper comments which fastened upon minute differences between the language of my noble friend and the language of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and all sorts of fanciful theories were constructed upon that basis. I confess that in a case of this kind I should have thought it desirable in the public interest that the authoritative statement should be made by the only person who can make it, and that is the Minister responsible for the Department.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: I have no wish to raise a discussion, but I would point out to the noble Marquess that great stress has always been laid upon the importance of any step in foreign policy being made subject to Parliament. Without the least desire to say anything indiscreet, I would remark that the decision of the Government as to the course to be taken might be affected by the opinion of the two Houses of Parliament, and things might be said here which might be useful to the Government as showing the mind of some of us.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: After the expression of opinion which has fallen from my noble friend on the Cross Benches, the noble Marquess (Lord Lansdowne) and I will take the opportunity of discussing the question with the Foreign Secretary. It occurs to me that it would be at least
1040
equally convenient, as my noble friends on the Cross Bench appear to desire that a debate should take place, that the debate should be opened on a Motion by some other noble Lord, and the Government can then take part in it. But we hold the objection which my noble friend behind me described to any attempt at a duplicated statement, which is certain to be taken hold of in the way that he suggested by those who desire to trace some possible difference of opinion or at any rate difference of method between members of the Government. But, as I have said, we will speak to my right hon. friend on the subject and take an opportunity of letting my noble friend know what decision is arrived at.
THE EARL OF CROMER: As regards the noble Marquess's remark that we might go to the Peers' Gallery in the House of Commons, I would point out to him that the space there is very limited indeed, and, moreover, when you get there it is very difficult to hear. I think that is rather a practical objection.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: My Lords, I should like to add a word with reference to the noble Marquess's suggestion that we should go to the Peers' Gallery of the House of Commons and hear the statement by the Foreign Secretary at first hand. I recognise the inconvenience of a duplicated statement where the duplication cannot be made on the same authority, but I would point out to the noble Marquess that the suggestion which he made involves the possibility of a still further inconvenience. We might go to the Peers' Gallery in the House of Commons and hear the Foreign Minister's statement under the difficulties referred to by my noble friend beside me and we might come here afterwards and ask a Question—without any statement on the part of Ministers here—on the basis of a partly-heard statement in the other House. Inasmuch as our sittings open an hour and a-half later than the sittings of the other House, that would be possible. But I venture to think it would produce inconvenience even greater than that of the risk of a possible misunderstanding between two statements made in the two Houses—a risk, considering the facilities on the part of Ministers of conferring together before the statements are made, which is, I must say, one of very slight importance.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: I should like to ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House whether, in the event of his deciding in the public interest to make a statement in this House, he can give us any indication on what day he will make it.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The original Question asked by my noble friend behind me (Lord Haversham) was directed to a statement being made in your Lordships' House as nearly as possible simultaneously with that in the other House. I quite understand that if a statement is to be made here it is expected that
1042
it should be made on Thursday, and if one is to be made at all I am quite as willing to make it on Thursday as on any other day.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Standing Order No. XXXIX to be considered To-morrow, in order to its being suspended for that day's sitting.
House adjourned at Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.