Lords Sitting of 29 September 1915

REPRESENTATIVE PEER FOR IRELAND.
Writs and Returns electing the Earl of Cavan a Representative Peer for Ireland in the room of the Earl of Kilmorey, deceased, with the Certificate of the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland annexed thereto: Delivered (on oath), and Certificate read.
CLACKMANNAN COUNTY WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  GLASGOW WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  To be read 3a on Wednesday next.

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

No. 5473. Muscat (Muscat, 1913–1914);

No. 5474. Egypt (Port Said, 1914);

No. 5475. United States (Porto Rico, year ended 30th June 1914);

No. 5476. Chile (Antofagasta and Atacama, 1914);

No. 5477. Dominican Republic (Dominican Republic, 1914);

No. 5478. Japan (Hakodate, 1914);

No. 5479. China (Shasi, 1914);

No. 5480. China (Shanghai, 1914):

Congested Districts Board (Ireland)—Report of the Board for the year ended 31st March 1915:
Judicial Statistics (Ireland), 1914—Part I. Criminal Statistics.
India (Military)—Despatches regarding Operations in the Persian Gulf and in Mesopotamia:
Board of Agriculture and Fisheries—

1. Annual Report of Proceedings under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Acts, &c., &c., for the year 1914;

2. Regulations for Grants in Aid of Agricultural Education and Research in England and Wales, 1916–1917:

South Africa—Report to the Board of Trade on the Trade of the Union of South Africa (and Rhodesia) for the year 1914. By Mr. H. E. Gauntlett, in charge of the Office of His Majesty's Trade Commissioner for South Africa:
Workmen's Compensation—Statistics of Compensation and of Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, and the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, during the year 1914:
Queenstown Harbour—Report from the Committee appointed by the Postmaster-General to consider the omission of the call at Queenstown on the American Mail Service; together with Minutes of Evidence, Appendices and a chart of Queenstown Harbour:
Merchant Shipping (Subdivision of Ships)—Second Report of the Committee appointed by the President of the Board of Trade to consider and report on the Subdivision of Merchant Ships (Home Trade Passenger Steamers, Cargo Steamers). (In continuation of [Cd. 7743]):
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Diseases of Animals Acts, 1891–1914—Order, No. 9519, dated 21st September 1915, postponing the operation of the two Orders described thereto until 4th October 1915:
Shops Act, 1912—

1. Order by the Secretary for Scotland, dated 24th September 1915, under the Act, affecting a certain class of shops in the Burgh of Dundee;

2. Order made by the Council of the County of Cardigan and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, affecting certain classes of shops within specified areas within the County:

Destructive Insects and Pests Acts, 1877 and 1907—Orders numbered—

1. D.I.P. 241, dated 11th September 1915, declaring an area described in the Schedule thereto to be infected with American Gooseberry Mildew and an infected area for the purposes of the American Gooseberry Mildew (Infected Areas) Order of 1915;

2. D.I.P. 242, dated 11th September 1915, declaring an area described in the Schedule thereto to be infected with Wart Disease and an infected area for the purposes of the Wart Disease of Potatoes (Infected Areas) Order of 1914:

Supreme Court of Judicature (Accounts)—Account of the Receipts and Expenditure of the Paymaster-General on behalf of the Supreme Court of Judicature in respect of the funds of suitors of the Court in the year ended 28th February 1915; also Account of the National Debt Commissioners for the same period in respect of funds held by them on behalf of the Supreme Court of Judicature; together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon:
Church Temporalities (Ireland)—Accounts of the Irish Land Commission in respect of Church Temporalities in Ireland from 1st April 1914 and from 26th July 1869 (the date of the Irish Church Act) to 31st March 1915; together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon:
Public Records (High Court of Justice, &c.)—Schedule containing a list and particulars of classes of documents existing or accruing in Instance Causes in the High Court of Justice, Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division (Admiralty), formerly the High Court of Admiralty, since the taking effect of the Admiralty Court Rules, 1859, deposited in the Public Record Office or in the Admiralty Registry, and not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation therein:
Foreign Jurisdiction Acts, 1890 and 1913—Order in Council, dated the 24th September 1915, applying Section 20 of the Finance Act, 1894, to the Territory of Weihaiwei:
Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Act, 1877—

1. Statutes made by the Governing Body of Queen's College, Oxford, on 11th November 1914 and 19th June 1915 (and sealed on 19th June 1915), amending (a) Statute Tit. I Clauses 3 and 7, and Statute Tit. XVI Clauses 1, 3, and 4; and (b) Statute Tit. II, Clause 11, of the Statutes of the College;

2. Statute made by the Governing Body of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, on 12th June 1915 (and sealed on 18th June 1915) amending Clause 13 (b) of the Statutes of the College:

Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

OPERATIONS IN MESOPOTAMIA.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD ISLINGTON): My Lords, it will, I am sure, be of interest to the House if I read a telegram which has been received to-day from the Commander-in-Chief of the Mesopotamia Expedition. It is as follows—
"The enemy's position in advance of Kut Al-amara captured with many prisoners and guns. Enemy in full flight towards Bagdad. Our forces pushing in pursuit. Details follow."
And subsequent to that message the following details have arrived by telegram—
"Complete success attended the operations of the 6th Division on the Tigris on the 28th September. The position of the enemy is a long one on both banks astride the river, seven miles to the east of Kut and extending from the left bank for six miles. The plan of attack was well conceived. General Delamain's detached force consisting of two brigades, after a demonstration which they made on 27th September, crossed over from the right bank. By a night march they gained the enemy's left, and by a gallant attack carried its northern extremity at 10 a.m. By 2 p.m. the remainder of this portion of the enemy's position was carried after much opposition. By nightfall the force had advanced west of the enemy's position, which was wired in and strongly entrenched and in which the enemy had been pinned all day by another brigade. The troops bivouacked in their position with the fall of darkness, our outer flank was covered by armoured motor cars and cavalry, which were engaged all day against Turkish cavalry. The Turks had to be dislodged trench by trench, and fought with the greatest tenacity. Sonic guns and several hundred prisoners, with many rifles and quantities of ammunition, were captured, and the enemy's losses in dead were very severe, the trenches being full of corpses. It is believed that our casualties are under 500."

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Standing Order No. XXXIX considered (according to Order), and suspended for this day's sitting.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 4) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, this is the Bill that I stated at our last sitting it is desired to pass through all its stages this afternoon. I beg to move that the Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
On Question, Bill read 1a.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 2a: Committee negatived: Bill read 3a, and passed.

THE BALKANS.
LORD ST. DAVIDS LORD ST. DAVIDS rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can make any statement as to the present position of affairs in the Balkans.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to put this Question I would begin by expressing the regret which we must all feel, no less than the Government themselves, that during the fourteen months that have passed since the war began the Governments of the Allied Powers have not succeeded in re-cementing that union of all the Balkan States which might have done so much to bring the war to a conclusion. I am sure that if the Government vouchsafe any answer on this point to-day, they will tell us two things. They will tell us, first of all, that it was a very difficult thing to do; secondly, that they have tried their hardest to do it. I am quite sure that it was a very difficult thing to do. Had it been easy, I have no doubt it would have been done. The problem is not only a difficult one; it is a very old one. Before placing this Question on the Paper I devoted some time to again looking through Gibbon's "History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire." The old Greek Empire in the East fell for one reason only—because they had before them the same problem which the Government have before them to-day, and because, like our Government, they failed to solve it. The problem that brought down the old Greek Empire was this—how were you going to make Greeks and Bulgarians and Serbians all work together instead of against one another. That was the problem then. You have these people
932
living to-day almost in exactly the same places, with precisely the same feelings towards one another that they had on the day the old Greek Empire fell. I venture to say that if you could bring to life the last Greek Emperor of Constantinople, and if an intelligent Foreign Office clerk could spend two hours in telling him the principal facts as to what had happened in Eastern Europe since his death, the last Greek Emperor of Constantinople would be just as capable of dealing with the problem to-day as any Foreign Secretary.
But, after all, the problem was solved once. It was solved before the first Balkan War by the present Prime Minister of Greece; and having been solved once, surely it ought not to have been beyond the capacity of the Foreign Offices of Europe to solve it again. I want to put this question to the Government—Have they taken the right course; have they taken the usual businesslike course? I have no doubt they have given a lot of thought to it. I would go so far as to say that some of the Foreign Offices may have thought of very little else. But have they done what they ought to have done all the same? What have they done? Doubtless they have followed the usual course. I have no doubt that somebody in London has written a beautiful Despatch and that at Paris somebody has read it through and said "I don't like Clause 3" and "I suggest something instead of paragraph 17"; then it has gone on to Petrograd, and somebody there has objected to Clause 5 and to paragraph 20, and has suggested some alternative wording; and by the time the Despatch has come back a battle somewhere has been fought and has been lost and won, the whole circumstances have altered, and the thing has had to be begun all over again. If the Government told the truth, I venture to say that this is what the Foreign Offices of the Allied Powers have been engaged in doing. Is that the right course? Ought they not to have done what any one of us would have done if we had had a difficult business problem before us?
Supposing any one of us had had a business affair which he had to negotiate not only by getting his two or three partners into agreement but by getting three or four other people of conflicting views to join together. What in those circumstances would be have done? Written a letter? Writing letters is not of

933
much use. I venture to say that there is only one thing he would have done. He would have gone and met the other gentlemen and talked the matter over. I have observed that the three or four people who have been really carrying on this war for the country do adopt that businesslike course. I say the three or four people because, although we have a Cabinet of about two dozen members, I do not assume that everything is managed by a couple of dozen Ministers. As I say, the three or four people who have been obviously carrying on the war for this country with great energy do adopt this course when they have a difficult problem before them. They do not write letters; they go over to the Continent and meet the principal Frenchmen and the principal Russians and discuss the matter, and come to some decision. Why has that not been done in foreign affairs in this great problem of the Balkans? No more important problem than this has been before the Government, and I submit that this is the course that ought to have been adopted.
I may be told "Oh, but the Government have representatives, men of ability and men they can trust, in the Balkans, who have been doing the best they can." I do not want for a moment to say anything that would reflect on the abilities of any of the gentlemen who have been looking after His Majesty's affairs as British representatives in the Balkans. But I do say this, that what was wanted in this matter was not only a man of ability but a man of outstanding ability and reputation, a man who was known to carry the people of this country behind him, a man whose word, if he said "Yes" or if he said "No," would be known to bind the Government of this country. This affair in the Balkans should have been negotiated, not in writing, but by word of mouth, and should have been negotiated not by junior representatives but by a man of high Cabinet position, and it would indeed have been a worthy task for a Prime Minister or an ex-Prime Minister of this country. I would press on the Government, if it is not too late—they know better than I do whether anything can now be done—that that is a course which even at this late hour the Government would be wise to adopt.
As I am speaking on this subject there are two other suggestions of a different kind in connection with the Balkans which
934
I would like to put before the Government for their consideration. I do so with great diffidence. Although I have been many years in Parliament I have spoken only once on foreign policy. On that occasion—some members of the Government may remember it—I unsuccessfully moved in the House of Commons the rejection of the Anglo-German Agreement. Had I been successful in that Motion General Botha in South West Africa would have been saved a great deal of trouble, and I think Sir John Jellicoe, with the problem of Heligoland before him, will have very much wished that on that day I had succeeded in defeating the Government. This is only the second speech I have ever made in either House of Parliament on foreign affairs. In those circumstances perhaps I may be permitted to throw out two or three other suggestions to the Government for their consideration. One is this. Sir Edward Grey told the House of Commons yesterday how doubtful is the position in the Balkans. He spoke in no uncertain tone. As far as we can gather, there are people in the Balkans who think that they can attack Serbia without attacking either Great Britain or Russia. They have no unkindly feeling towards this country, and many of them have naturally the utmost gratitude towards Russia for the part she took in the liberation of Bulgaria. To many people in Bulgaria it must surely be a bitter pill to think they would be opposing the Russians. But they have their own domestic quarrels with Serbia, and they seem to think, some of them, that they could attack Serbia and do us no harm. I would suggest this to the Government. I do not know, and I am not asking, whether there are any Russian troops in Serbia to-day. There may be. If not, I would suggest that His Majesty's Government should approach the Russian Government at once and ask them to send a force to Serbia, however small, even if only 500 men, but to send that force in Russian uniform. Then let it be known—that is the point—that these men are on the Serbian frontier and that if anybody, for whatever motive, attacks Serbia to-morrow, it will be the uniform of the Tsar of Russia, the uniform of the men who liberated Bulgaria, that would have first of all to be fired against. I venture to think that this is a suggestion which the Government might entertain. It would cost very little, and it might have a great moral effect.
The third point is a different one, but also has to do with the Balkans. Since the beginning of the war the Monarchy of this country has declared the annexation of Cyprus, which before we only occupied and administered. Cyprus now belongs to the Throne of this country. In Cyprus you have a Greek population of about a quarter of a million. It would be no hardship if you assimilated the law in Cyprus as regards the Greeks to the law which the Greeks themselves in the kingdom of Greece have passed of their own volition for their own advantage. What I suggest is this. I would like the Government to-morrow to issue an Ordinance creating in Cyprus compulsory military service just as exists in the kingdom of Greece. I would have exactly the same conscription law passed, with the necessary modifications, as if Cyprus were part of the kingdom of Greece. In proportion to the Army which Greece raises from her population by her system of compulsory service, that would give you in Cyprus a force of about 25,000 men. In these times 25,000 men even are not to be despised. Why not raise that force and start drilling them? But I would go a step further and press this, too, on the Government. Let them raise this force and notify to the Greek Government that if it should happen that during the course of this war Greek troops and our own find themselves fighting side by side we would send this force from Cyprus to Greece, put it under the orders of the Greek Commander-in-Chief, and let it take its place in the Greek ranks. If you did that to-day, you would add to the good feeling that already exists between this country and Greece. I think it would very favourably affect the judgment of the Greek people, and this is a time when this country wants all the friends she can get. I venture to think that the course which I suggest is a practical one, and one which could do no harm. It may in certain circumstances add to our forces; it will undoubtedly add to our friends. That, my Lords, is the other suggestion which I desire to press upon the serious consideration of the Government.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I am sure that the House has listened with close attention to the interesting speech of my noble friend, this being, as I think he himself stated, the first occasion on which we have heard him engage in a discussion on foreign affairs in this House.
936
I desire to say at once that I fully appreciate the care that he took, while skirting on delicate topics, to say nothing which could in any sense cause difficulty to His Majesty's Government or the administration of Foreign Affairs. I have no doubt that every one here will have seen the statement made by my right hon. friend in the House of Commons yesterday to which my noble friend alluded; and on the general question I have no desire, even if I had the authority of my colleagues for doing so, to add anything to what Sir Edward Grey then stated. A general discussion at this moment of Balkan affairs is bound to be an exceedingly delicate matter. Beyond that, it is almost certain to be in the end misleading, because a single statement made on a particular day, at a time when events are moving rapidly from day to clay, is almost bound, if looked at two or three days later, to give a wrong impression of the views of His Majesty's Government on the whole situation. It is obviously impossible to carry on day by day a public discussion, or for the Government to give daily information on the various phases of politics in any particular part of the world; and, that being so, a single statement made in any detail is bound to prove misleading.
We are entitled to say, as my right hon. friend implied yesterday, that we are in one sense in an advantageous position in this Balkan question. We are completely disinterested on all the points which stir opinion there—not owing to our superior virtue, but owing to the force of circumstances and of facts. From the point of view of this country it is altogether immaterial by whom a particular district in South-East Europe is occupied as far as our own national interests are concerned. All that we say is that we generally desire to see the boundaries of these States drawn so far as possible on racial and national lines. Even that statement is, of course, bound to be subject to a certain degree of qualification. You cannot draw an absolutely perfect ethnographical map of South-East Europe. In many districts there is an admixture of races which makes the accurate definition of boundaries on racial lines scarcely possible and there are various other qualifying considerations. But subject to them, those are, as is familiar to all the world, the lines on which we desire to see a settlement made, and we believe that that desire of ours is

937
fully recognised by all the Balkan States, and quite as much by Bulgaria as by the other States in that part of the world.
Corning to the particular points on which my noble friend spoke, it is, of course, a sad and familiar fact that the relations between some of the Balkan States have been completely poisoned by the events of 1913. Although, as my noble friend quite truly pointed out, the causes which have culminated in that state of feeling are deep-rooted and go far back through the centuries, while that fact in itself, of course, adds greatly to the difficulty in dealing with them, yet the fact remains that several of these States entertain a profound distrust of each other's motives, and consequently they ascribe to the actions which other States may take in some cases a meaning which may not be warranted but is one which prevents anything like an increase of amity between them. That being the state of things my noble friend believes that, in spite of the great difficulty of bringing about a better feeling between the different States, much might have been done by instituting a plan of oral discussion between statesmen of the first rank among the Allies, I presume with representatives of the different States concerned, rather than by proceeding through the usual methods of diplomacy and correspondence.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: The suggestion which I put forward was that they should deal with the States themselves, not with their representatives. My suggestion was that your important person, with a Frenchman and a Russian, should go to the Balkans and negotiate at first hand with the principals concerned, not with subordinates.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I quite understand my noble friend's desire, and he has certainly made the actual method which he thinks ought to have been adopted clearer in the explanation which he has just given. There is always, I think, something tempting in the desire to send persons of the first eminence to deal personally with a difficult and complicated situation, and in many cases I am sure there is much to be said for it. But the plan is not always successful, as has been found by Germany quite recently in two instances. The Germans sent two statesmen of the first rank, both men of great experience and ability—
938
Prince Billow to Rome, and Herr Dernburg to New York and Washington. Those missions did not meet in either case with anything approaching success; and certainly in one instance, possibly in both, it may be questioned whether the German Government would not have acted more wisely if they had left those enterprises alone. But I do not quote these instances in order to decry the principle of oral discussion as compared with discussion by correspondence, because I have no doubt that in a great number of cases genuine advantage can be derived from it. But in the first place the individual has to be most carefully selected, and it is not always easy, from among the very small number of those who are qualified both by the necessary ability and by the public estimation in which they stand, to find a person who is able to go and who can be spared from other duties not less important. My noble friend will, of course, see that the analogy which he presented of conferences which have taken place between Ministers or between eminent soldiers in France is not entirely complete, if only from the great difference that exists between the two cases in the time which has to be occupied in the respective missions. Had it been found possible—which it distinctly was not—for the different Foreign Ministers of the Allied Powers to meet and to discuss these questions, I do not say for a moment that we should have succeeded in arriving at a solution of this intensely difficult Balkan problem, but there would have been, I agree, a far better chance of doing so than is possible by the ordinary methods of the telegraph and the post. It would have been equally impossible to find representatives of the various Allied Powers who could have acted on the plan which my noble friend suggested. It would not be desirable to go into the reasons which cause me to make that statement, but I think my noble friend may take it that it would not have been possible to find representatives of the different countries who could have undertaken the commission of which he speaks. Therefore my noble friend will understand that as a matter of principle I am far from disputing the advantages which might have followed from the course which he has suggested, but I am bound to state that in my opinion it was not a possible course to pursue in the circumstances as they actually exist. But I can tell him, assuming it to have been a failure of the best possible course,

939
that the failure was not due to want of consideration on our part or of that of the other Governments of the advantages which might follow from it.
As regards the two other points which my noble friend raised—that of the employment of Russian troops in conjunction with the Serbian Army, and the interesting suggestion which he made for the junction to a Greek force in certain contingencies of a force from Cyprus—he will excuse me, I hope, if I do not attempt to enter into any discussion of them. I can assure him that we have noted with interest not merely the fact that he should have made those two suggestions but also the moderate and careful manner in which he dealt with them. As my noble friend may well suppose, a number of suggestions of possible expedients of a similar general character to these can be counted, not merely by tens, but by hundreds, and in their turn they receive the best consideration that we can give to them. I would say, in passing, that my noble friend will have noticed the fact that the first of his suggestions is one made not to us but to one of our Allies, and therefore stands in a somewhat different category. But I can assure him that we shall consider both of those suggestions again.
On the general matter I will merely say this. The House will have noted the statement which the Foreign Secretary made yesterday—that so long as Bulgaria remains non-aggressive the relations between Bulgaria and ourselves will remain unimpaired. I have nothing to add to that declaration or to the subsequent statement on the same subject of my right hon. friend. We all, of course, expect that the Balkan States will take the course which they conceive to be the soundest in their own interests, and it would be impossible to expect them to take any other course. Their view of what those interests are, taking a long view, is bound to be affected by the logic of events. But I should like once more to lay emphasis on the indisputable facts which my colleague stated yesterday in the House of Commons of the different results to be expected from the policy of the Allied Powers and the policy of the Central Powers, assuming that either is in a position to carry that policy into effect after the war. I sincerely hope that those grave words of my right hon. friend will
940
have been taken to heart, as I believe they will be, by the parties concerned. The statesmen who control the destinies of the Balkan States are competent politicians with great knowledge of affairs and fully alive to all the facts of the political situation, and I decline to believe that the statement of my right hon. friend—so clear, and pointing to inevitable results without any use of menace or any desire to do anything but to call attention to the facts as they are—can be ignored by ally of the States upon whose action so much depends even more for themselves than it ever in any circumstances can for us.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: As no one else appears to desire to say anything on this subject, I would like to thank the noble Marquess for the kind words he spoke as to my method of putting this case this afternoon. As to the second and third points which I raised, naturally I will not say any more. But as regards the first point, I should like again to press the noble Marquess. The noble Marquess pointed out that eminent men—he instanced Prince Bülow and Herr Dernburg—had not been always successful. I cannot say myself that I have any blind faith as to the infallibility of eminent men. I have known eminent men do very silly things. But the noble Marquess said that we could not spare a really big man from this country at the beginning of the war. There is something in that. I would, however, like to point this out to the House and to the Government. We know, from the experience of a former war, that the Balkan States together are enormously stronger than Turkey. They were enormously stronger than Turkey at the time of the first Balkan War. Since then they have added to their domains; they have added to their population, and they have had time to reorganise—
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I would point out to the noble Lord that he is making a second speech, which is not in order as there is no Motion before the House.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: If I am out of order I will not continue my observations. But I have heard noble Lords over and over again make second and third speeches, and this is the only time that it has been objected to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I have objected before to noble Lords making second speeches.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I was unwilling to interrupt my noble friend Lord St. Davids. At the same time I confess I find myself in full sympathy with my noble friend opposite (Lord Camperdown), because I have noticed, as I think has been also remarked by other noble Lords, that the tendency to make a second series of observations when there is no Motion before the House has greatly increased of late, and it is a practice which clearly ought to be diminished. The rule is a very simple and familiar one. Where a Question is asked a second speech can only be in the form of a Supplementary Question arising out of something which has been said in reply; but if the noble Lord desires to make a formal reply he can only do so by putting down a Motion for Papers or some other Motion.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Or by leave of the House.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Yes, or by leave of the House, which is only given in special circumstances, and, so far back as my recollection goes, rather unwillingly given. I hope my noble friend (Lord St. Davids) mill not think that my observations apply particularly to him. I can say that for some time past some of my noble friends on this Bench and myself have been waiting for an opportunity to make some observations of this kind, because we have noticed with regret that the custom of making second speeches has increased. As we all know, in this House we are not unduly strict or particular on matters of order, but in a House like this—the only Assembly in Europe, I imagine, in which there is no Speaker with powers of calling members to order—it is necessary from time to time to draw attention to contraventions of our exceedingly lax code of rules.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: I will put myself in order by asking a Supplementary Question. I would ask the noble Marquess whether, assuming the whole facts of his statement to be correct, it is not the case that the policy of effecting a re-union of the Balkan States through negotiations on paper has broken down; and whether, even at this late hour, the Government will consider the possibility of adopting the other policy of sending out some one to negotiate face to face.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I think I am entitled to ask for notice of that Question. But in order not to trouble my noble friend to put it again on another day, I will say that we are certainly prepared to take the possibility of such a step as he desires into consideration. I am afraid, however, that at this moment I can say no more.

IMPORTATION OF HOPS.
LORD HARRIS LORD HARRIS rose to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture what quantities of hops have been imported from Belgium in each of the last three years and in the present year; and whether he is satisfied that no portion of this year's importation has come from that part of Belgium temporarily occupied by enemy armies.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am afraid it will occur to your Lordships that the apparently insignificant subject which I am raising is inappropriate between the highly important one which has been discussed and the one to follow, but in this matter I represent a community with a real and substantial grievance, and therefore I feel that I am justified in bringing it publicly forward. In doing so I shall take advantage of the latitude which this House allows and diverge a little from the actual subject of the Question. Not only the hopgrowers, but the pickers who are dependent on the cultivation of hops, have this real grievance—that in consequence of our fiscal policy the cultivation of the plant in this country has decreased in a comparatively short period by 50 per cent., namely, from over 70,000 acres to rather over 30,000. Hops have plenty of enemies without those which are imposed by law. To quote an old Kentish dog-gerel—
"First the flea and then the fly,
And then the lice, and then they die."
Added to this is the fact that, owing to the fiscal policy of this country, the English growth is practically swamped by foreign importation. And it is to be remembered, as regards this particular plant, that it would be perfectly possible for this country, if it had a free hand, to grow every hop that is required not only here but throughout the whole Empire.
The position of Government this year is extremely inconsistent. They have themselves implored us all—and the Press has supported them—to curtail our expenditure on foreign produce; yet a policy is

943
maintained which results in English money being sent out of the country for the purchase of foreign hops. That is hard enough, but we are, in addition, strongly suspicious that British gold is not only going to the United States for United States hops, but that it is going to the United States for hops grown in Europe, possibly behind the lines of the German armies, and that they are represented to be Belgian hops. I have only this moment had a Paper put in my hands which was moved for and presented to the House of Commons yesterday, and it is very significant as showing the justification of the question which I have asked. The importation of hops from Belgium between September, 1913, and August, 1914, was 23,000 cwts. Between the same months of 1914–15 that importation had increased to over 27,000 cwts. notwithstanding that Belgium had been during that period over-run by the German Armies, that a considerable area in it was in the occupation of the German Armies during a good part of that year, and that the ordinary agricultural operations of the country had been most seriously interrupted.
I should be only too glad to hear from my noble friend that he thought it possible to induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do what has been urged for so many years and is regarded by the growers as merely an act of justice—place a small duty on foreign hops. But if we have to put up with a continuance of what is, in our opinion, unfair competition from abroad, I hope the noble Earl will be able to impress upon his colleague who controls the Customs to use every possible vigilance to ascertain whether or not there is any ground for our suspicion that hops are coming into this country from behind the German lines and represented to be hops coming from behind our lines. I believe that this year there are only 1,500 acres under hops in that part of Belgium which is behind our lines, and, giving a liberal growth of ten cwts. per acre, that would be only 15,000 cwts. If that number is exceeded from Belgium, then I should say that our suspicions are, without question, justified.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF SELBORNE): I can give the noble Lord the information for which he asks. The quantities of hops imported from Belgium in each of the last three years
944
and in the present year up to August 31 last have been, in round figures, as follows:—In 1912, 35,000 cwts.; 1913, 23,000 cwts.; 1914, 6,000 cwts.; 1915, up to August 31, 23,000 cwts. The exact quantity which may have been imported from that part of Belgium which is in the occupation of the enemy cannot be stated. I am not prepared to say that none has come from the part of Belgium which is occupied by the Germans, because a certain amount may possibly have come by way of Holland, but the amount must be only small, because the total importation from Holland in the twelve months from September, 1914, to August, 1915, was only 258 cwts. I regard it as quite impossible that hops could have been smuggled through the German and the British military lines from that part of Belgium which is occupied by Germany to that part which is occupied by the Allies.
I am afraid I cannot follow the noble Lord into that part of his speech which dealt with fiscal policy, because agreement on fiscal policy, I would remind him, was not the basis on which the present Government was formed. But I wish to take this opportunity of expressing my agreement with him in the importance which he attaches to hop-growing as part of our greatest national industry. I doubt if those who do not live in hop districts sufficiently realise what an extraordinarily valuable form of intensive culture this is to any country. The annual expenditure per acre of hops never falls below £20; it goes up in some cases to £60 an acre, and it is found generally to vary somewhere between £30 and £45 an acre every year; and of that cost of production over half is paid directly in wages for labour, and the remainder is almost all paid to labour indirectly. Certainly in England, there is no form of agriculture which supports so large a number of people or distributes such a great volume of wages comparative to the acreage involved. Therefore I have no hesitation in saying that it would be, in my opinion, a national calamity if the hop industry of this country was, from any cause whatever, permanently ruined.
LORD HARRIS: Might I have the figure for 1914 again?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: In 1914 the quantity of hops imported from Belgium was 6,000 cwts.
LORD HARRIS: In the Return which was made to the House of Commons and contained in the Paper which I have in my hand 22,918 cwts. is the figure given for 1913–14.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I will try and find out where the discrepancy is; possibly the two sets of figures do not cover the same period.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: Did my noble friend say that this year, up to August 31, 23,000 cwts. of hops came here from Belgium.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: Where could they have come from if not from behind the German lines?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: They were grown in France and Belgium—they all came from Dunkirk.

NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS, &c., BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, in moving that this Report be now received, I think it would probably be for the general convenience if I were to say a word on the position in which we find ourselves owing to the action which was taken by your Lordships' House in making certain substantial Amendments in Committee. Since then we have had the opportunity of consulting our colleagues whose Departments are specially concerned with this measure, and I will tell the House what the result of that consultation is. We have arrived at the conclusion that the changes which are brought about by the Amendments made here in Committee are in fact considerably greater than they would appear to be on a superficial examination of the Bill and a comparison between its form now and that in which it was before Committee. It will be seen, I think, that the adoption of these Amendments by your Lordships has in fact brought about a reversal of the principle on which the Bill was framed and on which it was passed through the House of Commons.
946
The intention of the Bill as it came up here was that the pensions and allowances on the normal scale should be, as they always have been, the care of the Admiralty and of the War Office, but that a private body—in this case the Corporation of the Royal Patriotic Fund—should be entrusted with the duty of supplementing those national pensions through funds collected either centrally or more probably in the main locally, and by the employment of persons exercising local influence for that purpose. That was the main object for which the body to carry out these purposes was a Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, it being believed that owing to the constitution of that Corporation and the fact that the larger number of persons who possess great local influence are members of it these objects could thus be best carried through. I shall be told that public money would be needed to carry out, in all probability, part of the work entrusted to this new body. That is undoubtedly true. But the intention of the framers and promoters of the Bill was that if a public grant had to be made it should be made in the form of a large single contribution from the Exchequer to the funds of the body entrusted with the distribution, and not by undertaking a regular annual payment for the purpose.
In the form in which the Bill now stands the suggestion is that the National Exchequer should undertake these duties, the body having ceased to be in the main a private corporation such as was intended in the original form of the Bill, and that the private contributions would only be such crumbs as the Exchequer could collect for further supplement of pensions and allowances after having undertaken to supply them itself. It was stated, and so far as I know generally believed, in the House that in those circumstances the crumbs would not be forthcoming on a large scale. I am bound to say that I think that this belief was probably well founded. Our view is, therefore, that the whole principle of the measure is affected and indeed altered by your Lordships' Amendments, the result of which, as I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, does not spring to view at first sight in the mere substitution, as it appears, of two members for six from the Royal Patriotic Fund and in the other changes which have been made. But in the opinion of His

947
Majesty's Government the basis is thus altered, and consequently the action which His Majesty's Government have to take upon it is thereby to some extent affected.
The Ministers who preside over the Departments which are specially concerned and affected by the measure require more time to consider the whole question in all its aspects—more time, that is, than could reasonably be asked for in carrying the Bill through its further stages in this House. In our opinion, therefore, the most reasonable and easy course is for the Bill to go down to another place in its present form with such Amendments as, in the opinion of the House, may be needed to make that form more shipshape and coherent than it is left by the Amendments which were carried in Committee. In those circumstances we think that it would be better for His Majesty's Government, as we cannot pretend to adopt the changes which have been made by the House, not to ourselves attempt to undertake the work of trimming off the rough edges of the Bill, but to let that be done by those noble Lords who are responsible for the Amendments carried, and of course we shall not raise any objection to their doing this to any extent that they think fit.
There are, I see, several Amendments to be moved at this stage, but they by no means cover the entire ground of amendment which noble Lords will, I conceive, wish to undertake if the Bill is to go down in anything like a complete form to be considered by the House of Commons. There are various other Amendments, some of them of a drafting character, which in order that the Bill shall present a decent appearance on its return noble Lords would, I have no doubt, wish to see included; and it would probably be the most convenient course that noble Lords should move those at the last stage of the Bill, after the Third Reading. We can get through this afternoon those Amendments which are down for to-day, and we can take the Third Reading on any day—perhaps early next week—that noble Lords might find convenient, by which time they could place the other Amendments on the Paper. We all, of course, desire to make the Bill a workable one, even though we may not all be agreed as to the precise lines on which its operations ought to move. After all, this Bill has
948
to frame a system which is to last for years to come—a system which, as I said on a former occasion, will go on for a period long exceeding the utmost period of the life of probably any member of this House. Therefore it is clearly important that it should become law in the best possible form.
I should like to add this. Although in some of its details, and, even more, in some of its principles, it has been a matter of discussion between different members of this House and also in another place, the subject itself is one which we ought to carefully guard ourselves from regarding in any sense as one of controversy. It is merely a question of finding the best method of arriving at results in the care of these people, all of whom deserve and will continue to receive the utmost sympathy of the public men of all parties and schools. Therefore although there may be some contest as to principles there is none whatever as to the object, and I sincerely hope that when the Bill is considered elsewhere—and I believe this will be the case—this fact will be carefully borne in mind, because it would be painful and odious to us all if this high national object were to become a matter of anything like dispute or acrimonious controversy. I now move that the Report be received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I would ask the noble Marquess to make his view of future policy a little more distinct. The only Division which took place was in regard to Lord Devon-port's Amendment, which had the effect of cutting out the Royal Patriotic Fund. Is that the Amendment which requires so many corresponding Amendments, or are the Amendments which are required consequential upon the Amendments which were moved by the two noble Marquesses opposite? Because a great many of the Amendments which were inserted in Committee throughout the Bill were on the initiative of the two noble Marquesses, the one in charge of the Bill and the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne. If it is in consequence of Lord Devonport's Amendment that further Amendments are required, it rests, I think, with him or those who supported him to try and meet the suggestions of the noble Marquess. If, however, the further Amendments indicated

949
are consequential on the Amendments moved by the two noble Marquesses supporting the Government, it falls upon them, surely, to make the additional Amendments required.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think the answer to the point raised by my noble friend opposite is that the Amendments which will be necessary in this Bill, and to which reference was made by the noble Marquess who leads the House, are mainly consequential upon the decision of your Lordships to strike the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation out of this Bill. So far as I am aware, if there are any Amendments consequential upon the Amendments which stood in my name they are certainly few and insignificant. But the point of my noble friend's observation was, I think, this—that the House having determined to make what we regard as a fundamental change in the structure of the Bill by striking out the reference to the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, it seems futile for us to follow that up by touching up the Bill throughout in order to make it accord with that Amendment. In our view it is better to allow the matter to take what I conceive to be its usual course—namely, that the Bill should go from your Lordships' House back to the House of Commons, where it will be for that House to decide whether they can accept the change which your Lordships have made. There can be no doubt that in that House the objections and arguments brought forward by noble Lords in this House are sure to be raised, and we shall have to see whether they prevail in the other House of Parliament as they prevailed in this. Until that point is cleared up it would be, in our opinion, useless for us to pursue the task of doing what I think the noble Marquess called trimming the rough edges that have been left on the Bill by the somewhat drastic treatment it received at your Lordships' hands the other evening.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I confess I do not understand why the treatment which this Bill has received at your Lordships' hands should be considered as of such drastic importance as my noble friend has just Mated. What is it that we have done? A majority of this House struck out the words, "Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund." Well, the Committee never was a Committee of the
950
Royal Patriotic Fund in the Bill as proposed to your Lordships' House. It was a Committee appointed mainly from outside the Royal Patriotic Fund altogether, the Corporation of the Royal Patriotic Fund being allowed to appoint six members of that Committee as against nineteen appointed by the Government or by Government Departments. The representation of the Royal Patriotic Fund on the Committee was afterwards reduced to two instead of six. But that is all. Those are the alterations which your Lordships have made in this Bill which have induced the two noble Marquesses who have just addressed your Lordships to take so strong a view of what has been done. I do not wonder that the noble Marquess who leads the House should have admitted that it does not spring to the view at first sight why these alterations are so terrible. I should have thought it perfectly possible, if it was considered that there was any great virtue in the words "Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund," that they might have been restored in another place, and, if necessary, the additional members of the Fund might have been placed upon the Committee, as indeed was suggested, I think, by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House himself. But it is for the Government to judge of the effect upon their own Bill of the Amendments made by your Lordships, and I hope that before they decide upon any action in regard to it they will really consider whether what your Lordships have done justifies the description which has been given of it.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I rise to ask a question. If Amendments are proposed from this side, will the Government express their opinion with regard to the advisability or not of accepting them? It is quite possible, if Amendments are proposed from this side, that if the Government were to say that they thought they had better not be put in the Bill they might be withdrawn. But we shall be under a considerable disadvantage if the Government, by taking the course which I understood the noble Marquess to indicate, were absolutely to refuse to us the benefit of their opinion upon any Amendment which might be proposed.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, as I have taken some little part in this discussion I rise to confirm what has been said by the two noble Lords who have

951
just spoken. His Majesty's Government appear to look upon the Amendment carried in this House as what is called a wrecking Amendment. We never regarded it in that light. We regarded the question of the Committee being formed on the basis of the Patriotic Fund as an important detail but no more than an important detail, and I cannot see why it should not be regarded as a detail still. Certainly it was not our intention in the smallest degree to put forward what is called a wrecking Amendment.
LORD SOUTHWARK: My Lords, is it not the fact that in the Bill as brought up to your Lordships' House there is no provision made in respect of public money? My noble friend Lord Devonport also pointed out that there was no likelihood of private funds being forthcoming, because he told us that those connected with the Royal Patriotic Fund had said that all their money was already allocated. With regard to the National Relief Fund I think there was an anticipation, when this Bill was framed, that there would be some millions of money forthcoming for these objects from that Fund, but I understand that that hope, too, is not to be realised. The question therefore is, Where is the money coming from? If you are going to have public money you ought to have public control and it ought to be under the Treasury, whereas in the Bill as originally drafted this Statutory Committee was to be a sort of sub-committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund, to whom they were to report, and not to report to the State, and there was to be no one responsible in the House of Commons. I quite understand that the Bill has been greatly altered. At one time I intended to suggest to His Majesty's Government that it would be a good thing to withdraw the Bill, redraft it, and reintroduce it into the House of Commons, and then send it up here as a new Bill. It seems to be decided that those who have hitherto had control of pensioning in the Army and the Navy are not to be the bodies to be used for the purpose of these supplementary grants. If you are going to have this new Statutory Committee I suggest, in drafting a fresh Bill, that this new body should have considerable powers beyond those of simply making supplementary grants. There are all manner of services that will be demanded and will have to be carried out in connection with our soldiers and sailors after this war.
952
There are at present very many societies and much overlapping; yet we hear of much distress amongst old soldiers and sailors, whether Crimean veterans or otherwise. I suggest that when you are making a new statutory body you should have a body that should take over all these matters and be responsible to the State. I did suggest on a former occasion that the bodies that had been doing the pensioning hitherto—the Chelsea Board, and the bodies connected with the Admiralty—might have their powers extended; and if you want this under any particular body, put it under either of those. I quite concede that we have greatly altered the character of this Bill by the alteration we have made. There is no doubt about it that the money to be provided for our soldiers and sailors is going to be State money, and not money collected by voluntary subscriptions. I see a provision in the Bill that these local committees in the country are to solicit and receive contributions from the public towards any of these purposes. That is the only hope of any money coming in voluntarily for what this Bill proposes to do, but I think most of us realise that there will not be much money forthcoming in that way.
LORD TENTERDEN: My Lords, on the Second Reading of this Bill I advocated two things—that there should be State control, and that the pensions should be provided for from Government funds. The chief object I had in advocating State control was to make sure that the money would be forthcoming from the Government. Great exception is taken to the alteration made by Lord Devonport's Amendment, which in effect does provide for State control. To my mind the most essential point., the one I have had at heart most, is that the money for the pensions of our soldiers and sailors, officers and men, should be forthcoming, and if the Government are prepared to give a guarantee that any deficit whatever will be made up by them, then as far as I can see it matters little whether we provide for State control or whether we do not. What the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, said in Committee is only too true, and he speaks with the authority of an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said that when you start legislating on matters of this kind and provide public funds the result is that voluntary contributions fall off and eventually cease to exist. There is no doubt

953
in my mind that that will take place here. Voluntary contributions will fall off to nil, and State control will ipso facto be established whether it is put in the Bill or not. I ask that the Government should guarantee that any deficit under the Bill will be made good by the Government, and that might get over the difficulty which has arisen.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I merely wish to notice an observation which fell from my noble friend Lord Cromer, which shows that he is to some extent under a misapprehension. He spoke of us as if we had charged him and his friends with a desire to wreck this Bill. Neither my noble friend nor I make any such charge; nor do we think for a moment that that is the desire of my noble friend and those who acted with him. I believe, on the contrary, they would like the Bill to pass and are far from desiring to wreck it. Our position is simply this. Your Lordships have made what we regard as a very important change in the Bill. The noble Earl opposite treats it as a matter of detail. I think it amounts to a great deal more than that, but opinions may differ as to the gravity of the change. Our view is that this change having been made by noble Lords opposite it is for them, and not for us, to deal with any Amendments necessitated by that change and consequential upon it. But if they, or noble Lords in any part of the House, think proper to move Amendments, we shall certainly—and this is the answer I have to give to my noble friend Lord Camperdown—discuss them and say quite frankly what we think about them. But in our view the responsibility should not be with us.
On Question, Report received.
Clause 1:
Establishment of Statutory Committee.
1.—(1) For the purposes herein-after mentioned relating to pensions and grants and allowances made in respect of the present war to officers and men in the naval and military services of His Majesty and their wives, widows, children and other dependants, and the care of officers and men disabled in consequence of the present war there shall be constituted a Statutory Committee, consisting of twenty-five members, appointed as herein-after mentioned.
(2) Of the said twenty-live members—
eighteen (of whom one shall be chairman and one vice-chairman and some shall be women and not less than two shall be representatives of labour) shall be appointed by His Majesty;
954

one shall be appointed by the Treasury;

one shall be appointed by the Admiralty;

one shall be appointed by the Army Council;

two shall be appointed by the Soldiers and Sailors' Families Association;

two shall be appointed by the General Council of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation.

(3) There may be paid to the chairman or vice-chairman, out of moneys provided by Parliament, such salary as the Treasury may determine.
(4) All other expenses of the Committee (including such travelling and other allowances to members of the Committee as the Committee may determine) shall be paid out of the funds at the disposal of the Committee.
(5) Seven members of the Statutory Committee shall constitute a quorum.
The Statutory Committee may appoint subcommittees consisting either wholly or partly of members of the Statutory Committee, and may delegate to such sub-committees, with or without any restrictions or conditions as they think fit, any of their powers and duties under this Act.
Subject to the foregoing provisions of this subsection, the Committee shall regulate their own procedure.
(6) The term of office of a member of the Statutory Committee shall be three years; but a retiring member shall be eligible for re-appointment.
(7) The Statutory Committee may, with the consent of the Treasury, appoint and employ a secretary, assistant secretaries, and such other clerks and servants as they may require, and may pay out of funds at their disposal to such secretary, assistant secretaries, clerks and servants, such salaries or remuneration as they, with the consent of the Treasury, may determine, and may with like consent establish a scheme of pensions for persons in their permanent employment or grant pensions to such persons on retirement.
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD THE EARL OF LICHFIELD had an Amendment on the Paper to the first paragraph of subsection (2)—
(2) Of the said twenty-five members—
eighteen (of whom one shall be chairman and one vice-chairman and some shall be women and not less than two shall be representatives of labour) shall be appointed by His Majesty;
The noble Earl moved, before the words "representatives of labour," to insert "employers and not less than two shall be."
The noble Earl said: I was very glad to hear the remark that fell from Lord Crewe to the effect that though we might differ as to the form which this Bill should take we were all actuated by the same motive, and that was to get the best possible terms for the gallant men who have given so much for their country. I was also pleased to hear Lord Lansdowne

955
state that the Government would be glad to give their opinion on any Amendments that we might bring forward. I must ask indulgence for putting this Amendment down a second time, but I withdrew it somewhat prematurely in Committee and did not give my reasons sufficiently for suggesting this alteration. Further, I would point out that the Bill has been so altered in Committee that there is more reason now for putting employers as well as representatives of labour on to the Statutory Committee. In the first place, there are now eighteen members of the Statutory Committee to be appointed by the Crown, as against twelve as the Bill originally stood. Therefore if places were given to at least two employers of labour there would remain a larger number of free places than there were in the original Bill.
Again, take the clauses that were incorporated in the Bill in Committee. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House moved one, and another was also inserted, in which specific reference was made to employers as well as representatives of labour. In Clause 3 the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, moved a subsection, which was agreed to, providing that for the purpose of making provision for the care of disabled officers and men the Statutory Committee should appoint a special subcommittee "which shall include representatives of employers and of labour." And a new clause was subsequently added directing that the local committee may appoint, for the care of disabled officers and men, a special sub-committee "which shall include representatives of employers and of labour." I think it is evident that the Bill would be more complete and would better carry out the provisions which are indicated in those clauses if two representatives of employers were added to the Statutory Committee.
Your Lordships may perhaps wonder how it was that employers were not put down specifically in the Bill as drafted. The reason evidently is that the Report of the Special Committee of the House of Commons with regard to Pensions and Grants was adopted in this respect. In that Report, which was published in April last, the Committee recommend that two members of the Statutory Committee shall be representative of labour, but they make no mention of employers. This Committee was appointed for the special
956
purpose of dealing with pensions and grants, and had nothing whatever to do with the care of disabled officers and men. But if we turn to the Report of Sir George Murray's Committee on the Provision of Employment for Sailors and Soldiers Disabled in the War, we find that, after recommending the appointment of a Central Committee acting under the direction of some existing Government Department, they specially recommend that on that Committee should be included representatives of employers of labour and of trade unions and other labour organisations. Therefore it would seem only reasonable that in this Bill, in which is incorporated the care of disabled soldiers and sailors, the provision which that Committee recommended should be inserted. Then, again, there is the very important question of demobilisation. I am aware that no mention is made of it in this Bill, but surely it is our duty, as far as we can, to see that the Committee constituted under this Bill should be capable of dealing efficiently with this question, because it would seem almost impossible to contemplate the establishment of two unconnected organisations, one dealing with disabled and the other with able-bodied sailors and soldiers.
I will trouble your Lordships with a short extract on this question from the Report of Sir George Murray's Committee. They said—
"It has been suggested to us that an organisation so created—"
that is, the Central Committee which they suggested—
"might ultimately be utilised for the purpose of dealing with the employment of ex-sailors and ex-soldiers of all kinds, whether able-bodied or disabled. The numerous agencies at present engaged on this work in different parts of the country, and the complexity of their operations, make it highly desirable that some step should be taken to co-ordinate their activities and to prevent overlapping. But such a scheme does not come within the terms of our reference, and we are aware that the question has already received a good deal of attention elsewhere. It is only mentioned in this place because it seems to us almost impossible to contemplate the establishment of two unconnected organisations—one dealing with disabled and the other with able-bodied sailors and soldiers."
Having that in view, and also the fact that the care of disabled officers and men is one of the most important parts of this Bill, I think it is highly desirable that employers and labour representatives should be brought together on the Statutory Com-

957
mittee. I hold no brief for employers. I do not know what their views may be. I am sure that whether they are on or whether they are off the Statutory Committee they will be quite ready to take their share and do all they can to help these great questions forward. But if employers are given official representation on the Committee I cannot but think it will be a good thing for the country and for labour itself. Therefore I have ventured to bring forward this question again for your Lordships' consideration in the hope that His Majesty's Government may be willing to reconsider it.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 16, after the first ("be") insert ("employers and not less than two shall be").—(The Earl of Lichfield.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: On the previous occasion when my noble friend opposite moved this Amendment I asked him to withdraw it for reasons which I then stated. Certainly on this occasion I do not make any appeal to him of that kind, in the first place because, as my noble friend stated, we do not pretend to take precise responsibility for the shape in which the Bill goes down to the other House.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: But the noble Marquess promised that the Government would give us their opinion about Amendments that were moved.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Certainly, and I am going to do so. And in the second place—as I was going to add—because my noble friend has this Amendment greatly at heart. He has pointed out two reasons which in his opinion make it specially desirable. In the first place, he says that as the care of disablement is one of the principal functions of the Statutory Committee employers as well as representatives of labour ought to be specifically represented. I should have thought that, as a matter of fact, disablement questions would have been dealt with more or less exclusively by the committee for dealing with those matters rather than by the Statutory Committee sitting fully. My noble friend will remember that the Disablement Committee is designed to include a number of persons who are not members of the Statutory Committee, and therefore it would probably assume a somewhat different aspect from that which the Statutory Committee would itself take. The other reason which I think was in my noble friend's mind was the possibility of
958
the whole question of disbandment, demobilisation, falling to be dealt with by the same body. That, of course, is a vast question which we have not begun to face as yet, and whether when the time comes it will be possible to do what Sir George Murray's Committee indicated was the most likely course—namely, that of dealing with it by precisely the same body as that which deals with these questions of pensions and allowances—I am not in a position to say. But I do not make that observation in order to detract from the weight of my noble friend's contention.
As regards the main purposes of the Bill—that is to say, pensions and allowances, which are stated as being the principal purposes for which the Statutory Committee is framed—I can only repeat what I said before, that I do not feel quite certain that my noble friend's addition would add to the favourable reception of the measure in another place, simply for this reason, that it would not be doubted that so far as the general interests of employers of labour are concerned they would be quite adequately represented by the Statutory Committee as constituted. The same could not precisely be said of the interests of labour, and that is why labour representatives were expressly included, and that does appear to constitute a difference between the two categories. As I said before, the reason for expressly including women was somewhat of the same character. But certainly if my noble friend opposite and other noble Lords who have taken a prominent part in the debate consider that this Amendment ought to be included, I should make no further protest, although, as I say, from my noble friend's own point of view I doubt whether he is wise in desiring to include it.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I agree with what has been said by the noble Marquess who has just sat down. I do not think this is an Amendment which would be favourably received in another place. If I rightly understand what the noble Marquess said, His Majesty's Government have included representatives of labour by name in this proposal because it was considered that the views of the labouring classes might differ from those held by other members of the Committee and they would not be adequately represented by them. All the other members of the Committee will necessarily be in a greater or lesser degree employers of labour, and I do not know that in effect the

959
words proposed by the noble Earl would have any real effect in altering the composition of the Committee. Anybody who employs labour at all would be an employer of labour, and might be put on the Committee as representing employers. I hope the noble Earl will not think it necessary to press this Amendment.
LORD HAVERSHAM: I also hope the noble Earl will not press this Amendment, and for this reason. His object is that on the Statutory Committee representatives should be placed of the different classes. If this were an industrial dispute it would be quite right to put on representatives of employers and of labour. But this is a Committee which has to deal with the pensions and allowances of officers and men of the Services and their various dependants. The Statutory Committee is certain to include a number of members who will be quite competent to look after the interests of the officers and men; amongst the representatives will be some appointed by the Admiralty and some appointed by the Army Council. But the industrial classes produce the great majority of the soldiers, and therefore for that reason the Government have included representatives of labour. As Lord St. Aldwyn said, almost all the other members are in a certain sense employers of labour, so that nothing would be gained by putting this Amendment in the Bill.
THE EARL OF CROMER: This Amendment was very fully discussed on the former occasion, and the noble Earl who moved it has said nothing to alter my own personal opinion as regards the fundamental point. He will remember that the idea we had was not to earmark so many individual members of the Committee, but to leave the number at eighteen and give the Government the widest latitude as to who should be appointed. It does run contrary to that to have two representatives of labour at all, and no doubt if we were logical the proper thing would be not only not to insert representatives of the employers but to delete the representatives of labour. The noble Marquess, however, urged some very cogent reasons against doing that, so I think on the whole the best thing to do is to leave the measure as it stands.
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: I withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2:
Establishment of local committees.
2.—(1) For the purpose of assisting the Statutory Committee in the execution of their duties, a local committee shall be established for every county and county borough, and for every borough or urban district having a population of not less than fifty thousand the council of which so desires, and for any other borough or urban district for which the Statutory Committee, on the application of the council thereof, considers it desirable that, having regard to the special circumstances of the case, a separate local committee should be established.
(2) The constitution of a local committee shall be such as may be determined by a scheme framed by the council of the county or borough or urban district and approved by the Statutory Committee; so, however, that every such scheme shall provide—

(a) for the appointment by the council of the county or borough or urban district of at least a majority of the local committee; but the members so appointed by the council need not be members of the council; and

(b) for the appointment by the local committee from amongst their own number of a chairman; and

(c) for the inclusion of women and representatives of labour among the members of the local committee.

(3) The scheme, in the ease of a county, may provide for the division of the county into districts and the appointment of a sub-committee for each such district, which sub-committees are hereinafter referred to as district committees, so, however, that every borough and urban district within the county having a population of not less than twenty thousand, and in the case of the county of London the city of London and each metropolitan borough, shall be a separate district, and that the council thereof shall have the right of appointing at least a majority of the members of the district committee, and in the appointment of every such district committee some of the members appointed shall be women.
Such a district committee may, but need not, contain any members of the local committee.
(4) A scheme regulating the constitution of any such local committee or district committee as aforesaid shall provide for the substantial representation amongst the members of the local or district committee of persons who have within the area either as members of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, or the Soldiers and Sailors Help Society, or otherwise, been performing functions similar to those to be performed by local committees under this Act.
(5) For facilitating the preparation of such schemes as aforesaid the statutory committee shall as soon as practicable prepare and issue forms of model schemes.
(6) A local committee or district committee may also appoint sub-committees, either for any special purposes or for any special parts of their area, and any such committee may consist either wholly or partly of members of the local or district committee.
(7) Any two or more local committees may combine together for the joint exercise of any of

961
their powers and duties under this Act, and may for that purpose appoint a joint committee, and may agree as to the proportions in which the several local committees represented on the joint committee are to contribute towards the expenses of such joint committee.
(8) A local committee may delegate to any district committee, and a local committee or district committee may delegate to any subcommittee, whether appointed for any particular locality or not, any of its powers and duties under this Act, whether with or without any restrictions or conditions as it may think fit.
(9) Any expenses of a local committee (except so far as they may be paid by the Statutory Committee) shall be paid out of funds at the disposal of the local committee.
(10) In the application of this section to Scotland "county borough," "borough," or "urban district" means a royal, parliamentary, or police burgh.
EARL ST. ALDWYN EARL ST. ALDWYN had an Amendment on the Paper, in subsection (2), after the words "Statutory Committee," to insert "whose decision, in the event of any difference between the council and the Committee, shall be final." The noble Earl said: I moved this Amendment in Committee in the form in which it now appears on the Paper. The noble Marquess, however, was of opinion that this particular wording would not in reality meet the case from a drafting point of view, and he suggested the terms of an alternative provision which he was prepared to accept. Those terms have been embodied in the new Amendment which I now propose to move. The object, of course, is solely to secure finality in the settlement of the scheme, and to leave the decision in the case of difference with the Statutory Committee.
Amendment moved.
To insert the following new subsection:
"If within such time, not being less than one month, as may be allowed by the Statutory Committee the council does not frame a scheme or such a scheme as the Statutory Committee approve, the Statutory Committee may themselves frame a scheme, which shall have a like effect as if it were framed by the council and approved by the Statutory Committee."—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The noble Earl has quite correctly represented what occurred on the last occasion. It appeared to us also that it would not do to leave the Bill without some one having the last word in what I hope will be the very rare event of its being found impossible by the local council and the Statutory Committee to agree on a scheme, and that this being so
962
it was more advantageous to place that last word in charge of the central rather than of the local body in order to secure something nearer approaching uniformity, although it has never appeared to us that local schemes could be or ought to be absolutely uniform in character. The terms which the noble Earl has read out are considered, as I understand, by those who are competent to give a legal opinion on the subject, better suited to ensure the object he has in view than the words that were originally placed on the Paper.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3:
Functions of Statutory Committee.
3.—(1) The functions of the Statutory Committee shall be—

(a) to decide any question of fact on the determination of which the amount of a pension or grant payable out of public funds to a dependant, other than a widow or child, may depend;

(b) to frame regulations for supplementary grants in cases where owing to the exceptional circumstances of the case, the pension or grant or separation allowance payable out of public funds seems to the committee to be inadequate;

(c) out of funds at their disposal, to supplement pensions and grants and separation allowances payable out of public funds, so, however, that no such supplementary grant shall be made except in accordance with such regulations as aforesaid;

(d) out of funds at their disposal, to make grants or allowances in cases where no separation allowances or pensions are payable out of public funds;

(e) out of funds at their disposal, to make advances on account of pensions or grants or separation allowances due to any person out of public funds during any interval before the payment thereof actually commences;

(f) to decide, in any particular case, whether, as respects a wife, widow, child, or other dependant, any pension or grant or separation allowance and, as respects an officer or man, any supplementary grant has, under the regulations subject to which it was granted, become forfeited;

(g) to decide, as between two or more claimants to any pension or grant or separation allowance, which, if any, of the claimants is entitled thereto;

(h) to determine any other questions in relation to pensions or grants or separation allowances which may be referred to the committee by the Admiralty or Army Council;

(i) to administer any funds which may be placed at the disposal of the committee by local committees or by any society or other organisation having funds applicable to the making of grants of the nature of those which the committee are authorised to make, or otherwise;

963

(j) 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;

(k) to make grants in special cases for the purpose of enabling widows, children, and other dependants of deceased officers and men to obtain training and employment.

(2) The Statutory Committee may refer to any local committee for their consideration and advice any question pending before the Statutory Committee, and may request any local committee to collect and furnish them with any information they may require with respect to any matter, and may delegate to any local committee the distribution within their area of any grants made by the Statutory Committee, and may pay or contribute towards the payment of the expenses incurred by the local committee in respect of any of the matters aforesaid.
(3) For the purpose of making provision for the care of disabled officers and men, the Statutory Committee shall appoint a special sub-committee which shall include representatives of employers and of labour.
(4) Paragraphs (8), (9), (10), and (11), of the First Schedule to the Patriotic Fund Reorganisation Act, 1903 (relating to funds, accounts and audit) shall apply in respect of the Statutory Committee in like manner as they apply in respect of the Corporation.
(5) The Statutory Committee shall in each year make a report of their proceedings to His Majesty.
(6) Pending the appointment of a local committee or sub-committee for any area, the Statutory Committee may make arrangements with any organisation for the performance within that area by the organisation of the functions of the local committee mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of section four of this Act.
(7) For the purpose of enabling the Statutory Committee to discharge their functions the Admiralty and the Army Council shall on request supply the Statutory Committee with such particulars as they may require with regard to any payments made by them to any officer, sailor, marine, soldier, widow, child, or dependant, and the Statutory Committee may on request duly communicate all such and similar information to any charitable body legitimately interested in the case of any officer, sailor, marine, soldier, widow, child, or dependant.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to omit from subsection (7) the words "and the Statutory Committee may on request duly communicate all such and similar information to any charitable body legitimately interested in the case of any officer, sailor, marine, soldier, widow, child, or dependant," and to substitute the following words, "and the Statutory Committee shall on request communicate to and shall on request be entitled to receive from any charitable body legitimately interested in the case of any officer, sailor, marine, soldier, widow, child, or dependant all particulars relevant to such case."
The noble Lord said: In regard to this Amendment I am entirely in the hands of the House and the Government. If the Government do not desire that it should be put in, I will not go further with it; but it does seem to me, when there are two bodies concerned in the administration, extremely desirable that there should be an interchange of opinion and of information between them. As the Bill first stood, there was nothing to insist upon the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association giving information to the Statutory Committee, but the Statutory Committee was bound to give the information to the other outside voluntary associations. On the Committee stage the Government changed that to a permissive form, inserting the word "may" instead of "shall" in this subsection. My object is only to bring about the best possible administration, and to endeavour, if possible, to secure that all information shall be interchanged between the two bodies. I think that would be an improvement on the Bill as it stands. But, as I have said, if there is still a serious objection on the part of the Government, I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, page 6, line 23, leave out from ("dependant") to the end of the clause and insert ("and the Statutory Committee shall on request communicate to and shall on request be entitled to receive from any charitable body legitimately interested in the case of any officer, sailor, marine, soldier, widow, child, or dependant all particulars relevant to such case").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
EARL ST. ALDWYN: There are a good many different kinds of charitable bodies. I can conceive that there are such bodies who might be entirely indisposed to give this information, and my noble friend provides no machinery by which his "must" shall be carried out. Would it not be better to leave the clause as it is?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Perhaps I ought to say a word, as my noble friend opposite (Lord Camperdown) desires to hear the Government's opinion. Our objection to the Amendment in the form in which the noble Lord has moved it is undiminished by reconsideration. The noble Lord, as I gathered on the last occasion, pins his faith to the adverb "legitimately" interested in the case of any officer, soldier, and so on, and he

965
considers that the word provides a sufficient safeguard against the demand for a large quantity of possibly most private and delicate information by a set of persons who constitute themselves into a society and profess to be, and very likely actually are, interested in a particular case. In our view that is a somewhat dangerous proposition. It is undoubtedly true that there are societies to which such information very properly could be supplied, and I should hope and believe that in those cases it would be supplied. But I cannot agree that any set of persons who may have what may be a quite legitimate interest in an individual are thereby entitled to receive large masses of very confidential information. I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8:
Short title.
8. This Act may be cited as the Naval and Military War Pensions, &c. Act, 1915.
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: There is no allusion whatever in the short title of this Bill to the very important part of it which deals with the care of disabled officers and men, and I think it important that the public should be made aware as widely as possible of the provision that Parliament is making for these disabled officers and men. I am conscious of the difficulty of expressing the scope of a Bill at all adequately in a short title, and I need hardly say that I have no particular love for the words in the Amendment standing in my name. But still I think, and perhaps your Lordships will agree, they are an improvement on the title as now in the Bill. This is, of course, a matter entirely for the Government. If my Amendment were carried Clause 8 would read, "This Act may be cited as the War Pensions, Help to Disabled Men, &c., Act, 1915."
Amendment moved—
Clause 8, page 8, line 7, leave out ("Naval and Military")
Clause 8, page 8, line 8, after ("Pensions") insert ("Help to Disabled Men").—(The Earl of Lichfield.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: As a matter of fact the question of its title has really no effect on the Bill, and of that I take it my noble friend is aware. But he desires that its short title should call some attention to the fact that the Bill, besides dealing with pensions and allowances, deals with these questions of employment and disablement. I should have thought that if after the word "Pensions" merely the words "Help, &c.," were inserted without mentioning "Disabled Men," that would have met the case. But I do not wish to object to my noble friend's Amendment as he has phrased it if the House desires to accept it.
LORD HAVERSHAM: I would point out to the noble Earl that what he wishes to put in is already in the Preamble. Any one reading the Act would see that it is intended for the purposes he desires to emphasise.
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: I am aware of the words in the Preamble. My object is to insert words which will be used in connection with the Bill when it is cited.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: At all events I hope the word "Help" will not be put in by itself, because "Help" is a very general term.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Short Title:
Amendment moved—
In the short title, leave out ("Naval and Military") and after ("Pensions") insert ("Help to Disabled Men").—(The Earl of Lichfield.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: May I ask the noble Marquess when it is proposed to take the Third Reading?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: As to that, I am very much in the hands of the House. I have no doubt that noble Lords opposite will be able to tell me when the Amendments they would desire to move on the Third Reading will be ready, and I should propose that the Third Reading should be taken then on the first convenient day. I understand that the House of Commons is about to adjourn almost directly for a short period, but it is desirable, I think, that we should proceed with this measure, and that whether the House of Commons

967
meets next week or not we should sit either on Tuesday or Wednesday, whichever day is most convenient to noble Lords opposite who have Amendments to move. We could then dispose of this measure and it could go down to another place.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: Would not Wednesday be the most convenient day, being the middle of the week?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Yes, Wednesday is quite suitable so far as we are concerned.
Bill to be read 3a on Wednesday next, and to be printed as amended. (No. 159.)

CHURCHMEN IN THE ARMY.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask the Paymaster-General whether he will give to the House the figures upon which the calculation is based that 70 per cent. of the British Expeditionary Force in France are members of the Church of England.
The noble Lord said: Since I came into the House I have received a telegram from Lord Newton asking for a postponement of this Question. In the circumstances I beg to postpone it until a later date.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bill received the Royal Assent—
Consolidated Fund (No. 4).
House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Wednesday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.