Lords Sitting of 18 July 1916

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

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders.

Land Drainage (Feltwell) Provisional Order.

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

Local Government Provisional Order (No. 3).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5).

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

SHROPSHIRE, WORCESTERSHIRE AND STAFFORDSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
RHODES ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Committed; the Committee to meet on Thursday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
To be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Hylton).

CONSOLIDATION BILLS (LARCENY BILL. [H.L.]).
Report from the Joint Committee made, and to be printed. (No. 73.) Bill reported with Amendments and committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and to be printed as amended. (No. 74.) Minutes of evidence laid upon the Table and to be delivered out.
CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
The LORD BALFOUR appointed to take the Chair in Committee of the Whole House this day.
CRAVEN ESTATES BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed.
CONWAY AND COLWYN BAY JOINT WATER SUPPLY BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
FINANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord President (M. Crewe)). (No. 72.)
LECKY'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
HORNSEY GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
Trading with the Enemy Amendment Act, 1916—Summary of cases dealt with by the Advisory Committee up to 2nd June 1916 inclusive, and of the recommendations made therein:
Railway Accidents—General Report to the Board of Trade upon the accidents that have occurred on the Railways of the United Kingdom during the year 1915:
Board of Education (School Attendance and Employment in Agriculture)—Summary of Returns supplied by County Local Education Authorities of Children excused from School for employment in Agriculture on 31st May 1916:
Board of Agriculture and Fisheries—The Recent Development of German Agriculture, by T. H. Middleton, Esquire, C.B., Assistant Secretary, Board of Agriculture and Fisheries:
Ordnance Survey—Report of the Progress of the Ordnance Survey to 31st March 1916:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Army (Territorial Force)—Scheme made by the Army Council for the establishment and constitution of an Association for the County of Ayr under the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907:
Intermediate Education (Ireland)—
Rules as to the employment of Centre Superintendents;
Examiners' Rules:
Irish Universities Act, 1908—Statute VII. for University College, Cork:
County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Act, 1877—Account of Receipts and Payments under the Act during the year ended 31st March 1916:
National Insurance Acts—The National Health Insurance (Insurance Committees) Consolidated Regulations, 1916, dated 14th July 1916:
Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899—Report by the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons, under the Act that the Provisional Orders be allowed to proceed, subject to such recommendations as may hereafter be made with respect to the several Orders:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Corporation of London—Annual Accounts of the Chamberlain of London for the year 1915–1916: Delivered (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

THE MESOPOTAMIAN EXPEDITION.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House whether he is now in a position to make a statement to your Lordships on the subject of Mesopotamia, which has been a matter of question and answer in this House on several occasions.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, it is desirable for several reasons that I should reply as fully as I can to the question which has been put by the noble Marquess. In the first place, as he has stated, this subject has been often before us of late, and, in the second place, I understand that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister is going to make, or has made, a statement upon it in another place, and it is therefore due to your Lordships that something should also be said here. As regards the presentation of Papers concerning Mesopotamia, the House knows what our intentions have been on that matter, because they have been stated here, and it has been informed that the Papers have been fully prepared. That is so. But when the Papers were in a complete state of preparation they were finally examined by the Army Council, and the conclusion which the Army Council reached was that the effect of their publication would be to give information to the enemy concerning future operations, and that the information thus acquired would be prejudicial to the future action of our troops in that country. The House will see that the Army Council could not reach this conclusion until they had the Papers before them as a whole, because the kind of deduction which can be made for the benefit of the enemy from such Papers as those may depend, indeed often must depend, upon the general effect produced by them on a large scale, more than on the single pieces of information contained in any particular document. The War Committee considered, this deliberate opinion having been expressed by the Army Council, that for the time being—I lay stress on the phrase "for the time being"—the withholding of the Papers must be regarded as a chose jugée—that it was not an opinion which it was possible to combat. Therefore for the time being we are not prepared to present Papers on the subject of the military operations which have taken place since we first went up the Persian Gulf. I may say in passing that, also for military reasons,

733
though obviously for military reasons of a different character, the publication of Papers regarding the military operations at the Dardanelles must also for a time be withheld.
The House will realise that, so far as the Mesopotamian operations are concerned, there are two subjects of profound interest both to this House and to the country—two subjects which may be regarded as distinct, although they are in various ways connected. In the first place people may ask, and do ask, how it was that we ever went to Mesopotamia at all. Were our objects in doing so mainly military or were they largely political? Allied with those questions are those concerning the conduct of the military operations from the opening of the campaign until now; and it is on that side of the question that the Papers of which we have so often spoken were prepared, and those are the Papers which for the time being we are compelled to withhold. But there is also another side to the question, closely allied, as I have said, although distinct, and it is upon this, I understand, according to the questions put to me on the last occasion by the noble Viscount, that information is specially desired—I mean questions relating to the transport service, to the medical service, and to some extent also to the general supply services of that Army. To some extent, and to a degree which perhaps might not appear at first sight, some of the same objections apply to the publication of Papers on this subject as also to those of a more purely military character. But, on the other hand, it will be possible at any rate before long to give fuller information on this branch of the subject than upon the other.
As regards the transport service, which has been the subject of much animadversion, and to the difficulties of which, speaking broadly, the greater part of the troubles which have occurred in. Mesopotamia may be ascribed, various inquiries and endeavours at improvement have taken place. As the House knows, it was at the beginning of this year that the conduct of the operations in Mesopotamia was taken charge of by the War Office in the place of India; and without attempting now to enter into anything like a general review of all the circumstances, I may remind your Lordships that it was only at the very end of last year or the beginning of this that complaints began to come home of the working of the transport
734
and medical services, and since then the Departments have made, as I shall describe in a moment, such inquiries as they could with a view to meeting the difficulties. To take the matter of transport first, Sir George Buchanan, a very distinguished engineer, has been examining the whole matter of river transport on the Tigris. No Report from him has yet come home, but there is every reason to suppose that his examination is complete. In March last an experienced officer, General Gilmour, went out, and has since been inquiring into the circumstances both of the river and of railway transport, and the results of those inquiries will be, so far as possible, communicated to the public when they have been received.
What, however, I think has cut deeper into the public mind has been the series of difficulties connected with the medical service and the needless sufferings which are alleged to have been inflicted on a number of our sick and wounded through the failure to carry out that service in a proper manner. At the beginning of the year, when reports were first received in India that the medical service was not being carried out with full efficiency, it was desired to send the best possible gentleman who could be found in India to make a Report. For that purpose Lord Chelmsford, who was at that time serving as an officer, was selected to go to report on Mesopotamia, with two others. Before Lord Chelmsford, however, could undertake this duty he was offered the Viceroyalty of India and accepted it, and consequently the scheme fell through. In his place a medical officer went to Basra and made a Report which did not entirely satisfy the Government of India by its fullness and the amount of information which it contained. Accordingly, late in February—I think on the 20th—the Commission was despatched of which mention has already been made in this House. That was conducted by Sir William Vincent, General Bingley, and Mr. Ridsdale, who is closely connected with the Red Cross Association. That Commission made a full examination of all the conditions. It has presented its Report in India, but the Report has not yet arrived here; nor are we, indeed, cognisant of its general tenor, still less of the details of its contents, and clearly it is impossible to attempt to discuss it until it arrives. In addition to that, a very capable medical officer, Surgeon-General O'Donnell, who is now the Medical

735
Director in India, has been carefully inquiring into the conditions on the spot.
My noble friend opposite, Lord Wemyss, has a Motion on the Paper for Thursday dealing with the whole subject, or at any rate enabling a debate to be instituted which would deal with the whole subject. I should venture to suggest, therefore, that your Lordships would probably prefer to postpone until Thursday anything like a general discussion on the subject, although, for the reasons I have stated, you will not at that time be in possession of any Papers. On the other hand, I am well aware that many of your Lordships, apart from Papers, have no little information of what has happened in Mesopotamia, and you are therefore probably possessed of the necessary materials for a discussion. I think it is possible that it may be suggested that even upon the materials which now exist it would be right and reasonable to hold an immediate Inquiry into what can only be described as the breakdown, in certain respects, of the arrangements in Mesopotamia. There are obvious difficulties attached to an immediate Inquiry—namely, the practical impossibility of securing the evidence of all those who would be in a position to give it. But it is certainly not the desire of His Majesty's Government to evade or avoid inquiry on the subject, and it will be no doubt for us to consider how soon it will be possible to institute a formal Inquiry of that kind. It is the very natural desire of all observers, on recognising failures in such a business as this, to fix the proper responsibility upon some person or persons involved. Nor can anybody say that such responsibility ought not to be ascribed. At the same time, when inquiring into the burden of blame which has to be borne by individuals it is also necessary to inquire into the conditions under which they have worked and the system under which they have carried on their different duties.
There is one point which I think it is important, to bring out. It might well be said, "It is all very well to postpone a full Inquiry into all the circumstances on the ground of physical or personal difficulties, but what guarantee have we that there may not be a repetition of these failures so long as the same people remain responsible?" That is by no means an unnatural question. But so far as the medical services are concerned, it is reassuring to know that Surgeon-General O'Donnell, reporting quite lately, states that the condition of affairs
736
as regards supplies and so on is now as satisfactory as it can be made. Therefore the House will see that the possible danger to which I have alluded cannot be held to arise in this particular case. I have no desire to pursue the subject further now. I thought it due to the House to make this quite bare statement, and I hope that your Lordships can concur with the view that discussion can more profitably take place on the Motion of my noble friend opposite on Thursday.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I might, perhaps, be allowed to say a word or two on what has fallen from the noble Marquess. Although we have pressed for the publication of Papers, I do not think we have failed on any occasion to respond to an appeal from the Government for the non-publication of Papers which might in any way impair the use of our Forces or their position in regard to the war; and I feel sure that your Lordships, on this side of the House at all events, will be willing to acquiesce in the very disappointing decision which has been conveyed to us this afternoon. It is disappointing because it is almost inconceivable that the difficulty which has arisen, and which must have been foreseen from the first, could not have been so arranged between the two Offices, or by the War Council, that your Lordships might not have been kept waiting for three months for the debates which the noble Marquess now admits had better take place. I also think that had this question been faced at the outset, as it might have been, there would have been very little difficulty in providing us with those Papers which, in the interests of the Government, it is highly desirable should be published, exculpating, if possible, the higher officials or whoever is not responsible for the terrible state of things which has been existing in Mesopotamia.
One word as to why it is absolutely necessary for us to proceed with Lord Wemyss's Motion on Thursday. In the first place, to our great regret we have heard for the first time that this Commission which was sent out, instead of being ordered to report at once by telegraph to the Secretary of State what changes were required to prevent the continued sufferings of the troops under these conditions in Mesopotamia, have not only not reported by telegraph, but have gone to Simla, and their Report is only now finding its way to this country by mail. Meantime

737
letters are reaching many of your Lordships, I am sure, as they are reaching me, by every post confirming the view that not only at the beginning of the year, but as recently as late in May, the conditions in Mesopotamia were bad to an extreme which has not been paralleled since the Crimean War. In addition to that, the noble Marquess has not given us to understand that any human being up to now has been made accountable; and in those circumstances I am sure your Lordships will feel that my noble friend Lord Wemyss will be amply justified in going forward with his Motion on Thursday.

GORE'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

POLICE, &c. (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, this is not a very long Bill, and I shall not have to detain your Lordships more than a few minutes in moving the Second Reading. The Bill is divided into three Parts. Part I deals with matters appertaining to the Police; Part II deals with two or three subjects appertaining to factories and workshops; and Part III is concerned with miscellaneous and general provisions.
I will first explain Part I. Clause 1 refers to the retention by ex-police-constables of their pensions whilst employed for the purposes of the war. By subsection (2) of Section 13 of the Police Act, 1890, it was laid down that if a pensioned police-constable was appointed to any office and received emoluments from public moneys, and if the pay and the pension exceeded one and a half times the salary that he received as a constable, so much of the pension in excess of that sum should be forfeited. It was supposed that the ex-constable was covered by that subsection; but it has occurred that in the High Court a decision has been given in a contrary sense, and if one of these pensioned constables went into a Government munition works he might find himself in a worse position than if he were employed by a private firm. Clause 1 of this Bill deals with that point.
738
Clause 2 has to do with a promise which was made when the Local Government (Emergency Provisions) Bill was being passed. In the case of constables who were induced to join the Army or the Navy by promises of extra payment, the clause provides for the excess authorised, and puts them in the same position as servants of local authorities. Clause 3 will enable the Police authority to pay compensation for death or injury to people who, at the request of the police, are called out to assist them in their duties during the war—for instance, people who are engaged in ambulance work during a Zeppelin raid. Such persons would get the same rates as constables. Clause 4 provides that the expression
"pay of the police" shall be deemed to include the pay of any woman who may be employed by a Police authority to perform any of the duties of the police and who is required to devote the whole of her time to such employment. These women will receive the same pay as police-constables. This Clause also deals with the amount to be paid to the Police authority from the Exchequer Contribution Account. Clause 5 provides for the regulation of street collections for charitable purposes, but it will not interfere with those who sell articles in the streets for their livelihood.
I now come to Part II. Clause 7 has to do with what is called the welfare of workers in factories and workshops. In recent years many employers have made arrangements for the welfare of their employees. These have been extended, because of the large number of women and girls who are now engaged in factories and workshops, and a special department has been set up to deal with munition factories under Government. But there is no power at present to deal with other industries, and that is the reason for the introduction of these provisions in this Bill. Where so many women and girls are employed it is desirable to make arrangements for heating, and for convenience for taking, meals, for the supply of drinking water and protective clothing, for ambulances, first aid arrangements, and so on; and also, where both sexes are employed together, for discipline. Provision will be made for the consideration of any objections submitted by the occupiers affected.
The second clause in Part II—Clause 8—provides for the abolition of the investigation of accidents by the certifying surgeon. This work has been deemed by two Inquiries

739
to be redundant—first, by the Committee which sat from 1908 to 1911 on Accidents in Factories, who reported that this officer in this particular capacity was not needed; and again by the Retrenchment Committee, who suggested that this gentleman in this capacity could very well be abolished. The provision in this clause means a saving of £12,500 a year. The certifying surgeon will still be left with the duty of seeing after children and young persons, as to age and other matters, and also investigating lead poisonings and other industrial diseases; and an Amendment was introduced into this Bill in the other House by the Secretary of State, which gives the certifying surgeon work to do in regard to cases of injury caused by exposure to gas, fumes, or other noxious substances. The duty of the factory inspectors in combination with the certifying officer is not treatment, but has to do with seeing that no infringement of the Acts takes place, and also ascertaining, where there have been accidents, whether they were preventable.
Clause 10—the first clause in Part III—provides for the case of miners who have been on active war service. As noble Lords no doubt know, where a miner is anxious to become a mine manager or an assistant mine manager he has, in addition to passing certain examinations, to do five years' practical work. If the man were away soldiering he would become rusty for his examination, and the additional three or four years which he might have to complete would make his examination a still more difficult affair. It is very desirable to do away with that disability and to enable him to pass his examination before he has complied with the qualification as to practical experience. I would call your Lordships' attention to the fact that the standard of safety will not be jeopardised at all, because the man will not be entitled to a certificate of competency until he has completed the period of practical experience in mining. All that will happen will be that he will have the examination behind him. Those are the principal provisions of the Bill, and with these few words of explanation I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Sandhurst.)
LORD STRACHIE: I desire to ask my noble friend a question on Clause 8. He did not give us any explanation for the
740
provision in this clause except that of economy. We are very glad to find that the Government are ready to economise even to the extent of £12,500 a year; and one can quite understand that this may be a desirable saving when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to admit, as he did last night, that his calculations were so defective that we are actually spending £1,000,000 a day more than the Government supposed would be necessary. My noble friend, however, did not say why it is thought desirable to abolish investigations by certifying surgeons in the cases of death or injury due to accidents. The provision is all the, more curious when, as the noble Lord told us, in the case of industrial diseases and in the case of injury caused by exposure to gas, fumes, or other noxious substances, investigation by the certifying surgeon is retained. The noble Lord did not explain whether the work of investigation now being performed by the certifying surgeons is to be done in future by the inspectors of factories. If that is intended, I doubt very much whether it will be possible. These inspectors are already overworked, and more accidents are now occurring because of the larger number of unskilled persons at present employed in factories. Therefore I submit that this is not the time for the saving of this £12,500 a year and the running of risk through necessary investigations not being made. I understand that what happens now is that the surgeon reports to the factory inspector as regards all these accidents, and it is very important that this work should continue. Yet under the proposal in this Bill there will be no protection for the worker who meets with an accident which is not caused by exposure to gas, fumes, or by disease. It is proposed to leave it to the employer alone to make the report. I submit that with every intention on the part of the employer to be fair, you cannot call him an impartial person. Therefore I contend that by this proposal you are depriving workmen of proper protection.
EARL RUSSELL: I venture to think that your Lordships would do well to look also at Clause 7 of this Bill before it finally leaves your Lordships' House. I do not know how much discussion the Bill received in another place, but it does look as if these clauses might be the better for a little further consideration in Committee. With regard to Clause 8, the noble Lord

741
who has just sat down has said practically all that is to be said as to abolishing investigations of accidents by certifying surgeons, which seems rather a serious thing to do for such a small saving as the sum mentioned. The noble Lord, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, stated that this work had been deemed to be redundant, but I was unable to gather from anything he said what the redundancy was or what other inquiries there are which would be satisfactory in place of investigations by certifying surgeons.
As to Clause 7, rather large power is given under it to the Secretary of State to call for special provision to be made at factories. The matters to which the clause relates include "arrangements for preparing or heating, and taking, meals." These words seem fairly innocent, but they might cover the provision of a large and elaborate mess room with expensive cooking arrangements. The clause also applies to "the supply of protective clothing," and "facilities for washing," and there is nothing in the clause to prevent the latter including a Turkish bath. Then there are to be "arrangements for the supervision of workers." I do not know how far that
is intended to go. Does it involve a matron and nurses for female workers? That may be all very desirable, but it is rather dangerous to leave it to the ipse dixit of the Secretary of State as to the requirements to be imposed on employers. There is a provision that if the reasonableness of the requirements is disputed, the matter shall be referred for settlement to a referee selected in accordance with rules to be made under this clause. Your Lordships have not before you the rules that are to be made under the clause, and I do not understand whether the referee is to be appointed by the Home Secretary or how he is to be appointed, or in what way he is to be an independent person. If he is merely to be a Government official, it does not carry the matter much further; and unless this clause is considered it is possible that hardship might be inflicted. When once a Department gets these powers into its hands, Parliament ceases to have control over the exercise of them, and I think it is possible that some safeguards might be devised. I do not propose myself to move Amendments, but I have thought it well to draw attention to the matter so that it may be considered before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of the Bill gave us, if he will allow me to say so, an extremely useful and lucid exposition of its provisions, but it is a very complicated Bill. It amends a great many different Statutes, and there is in it a good deal of legislation by reference. Personally, although I express my gratitude to the noble Lord for his explanation, I think it is a great pity that this House was not given the Memorandum which was circulated to the other House of Parliament in explanation of this Bill. I hold a copy of it in my hand. It is very enlightening and enables one to understand the Bill with much less difficulty than if it is not in one's hand, and as it was printed for the other House I cannot understand why the Home Office did not see that it was circulated along with the Bill to members of this House. I think it is desirable that we should know why we were not treated with the same consideration as members of the House of Commons.
I want to say a word or two about Clause 8. It seems to me, as far as I understand it, to go far to abolish any investigation at all by the district factory surgeon into what are called preventable factory accidents. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the National Union of Teachers have made a strong point that the protection given to children and young persons by these investigations is very important; and it is especially important at a time like this when younger people are being recruited in this class of factory than has been the case before the war. I say that these investigations are valuable owing to the fact that the certifying surgeon himself obtains, through these inquiries, information of mechanical processes which he would not otherwise be so well able to understand, and this knowledge enables him to know exactly what conditions he should affix to certificates of fitness for any particular employment in the case of young persons who come before him.
I have looked at the Report of the Departmental Committee to which the noble Lord alluded, and more especially at those pages which deal with this amendment of the law. I think a point might be made that the Departmental Committee, upon whose Report some stress is laid, had no business to touch this matter at all, as it is not included in their terms of reference. They, in my opinion, assumed a power to make recommendations on a matter on

743
which they were not asked to give their opinion; and reading between the lines I have come to the conclusion that this particular proposal in this Emergency Bill is made in settlement of a pretty old controversy between the certifying surgeons and the Home Office, and that the Home Office are taking advantage, under the plea of emergency and of economy, to do away with provisions which I think are useful, but which, for some reason or other, they have desired to get rid of for a long period of years. I frankly admit that the whole of these are rather points for Committee, but I have called attention to the matter because I think it convenient to say that I have given notice of Amendments to Clause 8 which will raise the question in a concrete form on whatever day the Committee stage is taken.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, with regard to the certifying surgeon and the factory inspector, what I understand is that the work is now being done twice over, and that the certifying surgeon is only in that capacity employed in one third of the cases of accidents that occur.
The investigation is one which requires great knowledge of machinery, because it is not a matter of treatment but of seeing whether the Acts have been complied with, and, if they have been complied with, whether the accidents are preventable in future. With regard to what Lord Balfour said as to young persons and children, I think under the Bill those duties are still left in the hands of the certifying surgeons. I regret that the Memorandum which was attached to the Bill in the House of Commons was not included with the Bill when it was circulated to your Lordships.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: When does the noble Lord propose to take the Committee stage?
LORD SANDHURST: I should like to consult the convenience of noble Lords opposite in that matter.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is evident from the speeches which have been delivered that a little time is required in which to study the Bill. Perhaps in the intervening period my noble friend might consider the propriety of circulating to your Lordships the Memorandum which was attached to the Bill in the other House.
LORD SANDHURST: I will certainly ask the Secretary of State about that. If it meets the noble Marquess's convenience, I would suggest next Tuesday for the Committee stage.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

OUTPUT OF BEER (RESTRICTION) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, this Bill is not a form of temperance propaganda, nor has it any connection with any kind of fiscal policy. Its only object is to increase the tonnage space available for the importation of commodities that are essential to the country. It is proposed to add the materials used for brewing to the very many articles the importation of which has been restricted on account of the shipping difficulty. This cannot be done directly as in other cases, as these materials—maize, barley, rice, and sugar—are also foodstuffs. I do not include hops, as the importation of foreign hops has already been prohibited.
After consultation with the brewing trade, it was decided that the best way to arrive at the object aimed at was to reduce the amount of beer brewed from 30,250,000 barrels to 26,000,000 barrels a year. This will save about one-third of the imported materials, amounting to 160,000 tons. In order to secure this decrease, Clause 2 of the Bill imposes a reduction of 15 per cent. on the output of the breweries as compared with the year ended March 31, 1916; or, as an alternative, a reduction of 30 per cent. on the output in the year ended September 30, 1914. This alternative has been given to meet the hard case of some breweries which have already been compelled to reduce their output considerably in the last year owing to changes in population that have taken place, the result chiefly of the movements of troops.
Clause 3 restricts the establishment of new breweries. Clause 4 provides means for dealing with special cases of hardship. Clause 5 safeguards the interests of "free" as opposed to "tied" licence-holders, and secures to the former a proper proportion of their previous supplies. Subsections (3) and (4) of this clause extend the same security

745
to the Central Control Board and to the managers of clubs. In the Bill as at present drafted canteens are placed in the same position as clubs, but when the Bill reaches the Committee stage an Amendment will be moved taking out canteens from this clause. This will be done at the request of the War Office, who have already made other arrangements.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

ROYAL MARINES BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.
GAS (STANDARD OF CALORIFIC POWER) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (PART II) (MUNITION WORKERS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH had the following Amendments on the Paper—
After Clause 4, line 32, at end, insert:
Payment of Rates by Employers.
Subject to the provisions of this Act, every workman insured under this Act and the employer of any such workman shall be liable to pay the rates specified in the Third Schedule to this Act.
Page 4, Second Schedule, line 30, insert:
THIRD SCHEDULE.
The following shall be the rates of contribution from workmen and employers:—

To be paid by the employer

2½d. per week.

To be paid by the workman

2½d. per week.

In the case of workmen of the age of twenty-one or upwards whose remuneration does not include the provision of board and lodging by their employer and the rate of whose remuneration does not exceed 4s. 6d. per working day, the following shall be the rates of contribution:—
Where the rate of remuneration exceeds 3s. 6d. but does not exceed 4s. 6d. per working day:

To be paid by the employer

4d. per week.

To be paid by the workman

1d. per week.

Where the rate of remuneration does not exceed 3s. 6d. per working day:

To be paid by the employer

5d. per week.

Provided that, in the case of a workman below the age of eighteen, 1d. shall be substituted for 2½d. as the contribution from the workman and from the employer, or where the rate of remuneration does not exceed 3s. 6d. per working day, 2d. from the employer.
The noble Lord said: As your Lordships will have seen, I have given notice of Amendments to this Bill. The Bill is rather a complicated one, and there is in it a great deal of legislation by reference. I have done my best to understand it, but if your Lordships will look at the first clause you will see what a very complicated proposal it is. The clause runs—
Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the National Insurance Act, 1911, relating to unemployment insurance (including the provisions as to contributions out of moneys provided by Parliament), as amended by the National Insurance (Part II. Amendment) Act, 1914, and the National Insurance (Part II. Amendment) Act, 1915 (which provisions as so amended are hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), and the regulations made thereunder shall extend to every person, being a workman within the meaning of the principal Act…
and so on. This shows what a good deal of reading you have to go through to find out what is really the object and intention and probable result of the Bill.
It seems to me that there is a danger, under the latter part of this Bill, of a very unfair burden being put upon the humblest class of workers who have been recently recruited in our munition factories, and it is to attempt to get rid of what I think is this injustice that I have given notice of the long, but I hope not very complicated, Amendment which is upon the Paper. It is not, I am bound to say, exactly in the form in which I should have wished to see it, because I should like to have included provision for some part of the necessary expense of the matters referred to being borne out of public funds; but, of course, I am precluded from doing that by the doctrine of privilege. Therefore I came to the conclusion, with those who advised me, that the only way in which the injustice of which I am afraid can be remedied is by putting a slightly larger share of the necessary expense upon the employer.
The principle of graduated unemployment contribution in accordance with the wages earned by the workers is already incorporated in the health sections of the National Insurance Act. This principle

747
did not, I am sorry to say, find a place in the unemployment sections, presumably because hitherto those sections have applied only to a few of the better paid trades. It is because this Bill will apply to a number of poorly paid employments that I think a new departure should be taken. Broadly speaking, all those well paid employments are men's employments, but this new Bill extends the insurance contributions to a large number of, comparatively speaking, new industries, in many of which women and children are engaged at exceedingly low wages. Take one instance. I could give many more, but this is an illustration in certain leather work, including the sewing of women's shoes, carried on by home workers, the rates of wages in which are so low that the need of a Wages Board is urgent. In munition works the Ministry of Munitions has just fixed, for women and girl workers, wages from 2½d. for girls of 16 to 4d. and 4½d. for adult women, with an extra ½d. for women in danger zones. The point is this, that the charges already levied on women workers tend to lower their wages. There is the Health Insurance of 3d. per week in the case of girls of 18, up to a larger sum in the case of women. It is also customary to charge the workers a penny a week to pay for the cleaning of the workshop, and for the errand girl, and so on; and also for the silk, cotton, or thread, and so on, according to the work on which they are engaged. Some of the women who are working at these wages have other expenses to meet besides those I have mentioned. To enable them to go to work they have to pay from 2s. 6d. to 4s. a week in many cases to have their children cared for while they are at work. This sum varies with the amount of food that has to be provided, and, as your Lordships know, food and other things have risen very largely in price; and I am very much afraid that if some such provision as that of which I have given notice is not incorporated in this Bill serious injustice will be done to a very humble class of workers engaged in useful munition work.
I frankly say that in moving this Amendment at this stage of the Bill I do not feel that I have very much hope of enlisting the real knowledge of a large number of your Lordships, because unless your attention has been called to it and you have studied the Bill, as I have endeavoured to do, I am quite sure that the whole
748
weight and importance of the matter will not easily be brought home to you. My attention was only called to the matter as late as Friday of last week, and I have had no time to go more fully into it than that lapse of time has allowed. I knew that I had to give notice of the Amendment yesterday, because by the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House an Amendment on Third Reading must be in print before it is moved. I think that this Bill, considering its importance, has been hurried through. I know, however, that it is an Emergency Bill, and I do not make a real point of that. Although I think that this Amendment hangs well together and would be just if inserted, I have hardly any hope that I shall be able to persuade the Government Office responsible for the Bill to accept it. But if they do not accept it I would like to ask this question, Cannot they devise some means whereby this obvious injustice to a very humble class of our fellow-subjects can in some way be obviated, because I am sure there is a real grievance.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Are the Amendments of the noble Lord to be taken separately?
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I apologise to the House for not explaining that. The first Amendment is one referring to the liability of the workman to pay the rates specified in the Third Schedule. The second Amendment is to the Third Schedule. It was, of course, impossible to explain the first Amendment unless I explained the contents of the second; but, as a matter of course, the only actual Amendment is the first—for the insertion of the three lines after Clause 4.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4, line 32, at end, insert:
Payment of Sates by Employers.
Subject to the provisions of this Act, every workman insured under this Act and the employer of any such workman shall be liable to pay the rates specified in the Third Schedule to this Act.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, I cannot accept this Amendment. My noble friend's object in moving the Amendment is to relieve the lower paid workpeople of the greater part or the whole of the contributions which otherwise would be deducted from their wages. This suggestion has constantly been put forward and rejected

749
in regard to the existing insured trades. An Amendment on similar lines was put down in the other House by a Labour Member. It was not moved because it was out of order there. But subsequently reference was made to it by another Labour Member, from which I should gather that the Labour Members themselves were not entirely in agreement in regard to the desirability of having discrimination of this kind as to the workpeople who are paid at different rates. I may point out that the Amendment would set up an impracticable distinction between the present insured trades and the new trades. Workpeople getting less than 21 s. or 27 s. a week, as the case may be, if engaged in engineering, shipbuilding, etc., will continue to pay 2½d.; if insured under the new Bill they will pay 1d. or nothing. There will be many border-line cases in which it is very difficult to say as regards a particular workman whether he is at the moment insured under the principal Act or under the new Bill. Constant difficulties and disputes between employers and workmen will arise accordingly. Even if in all cases the demarcation question could be settled so that it was quite clear without difficulty whether a workman was insured under one Act or the other, the difference of treatment in the two cases could not be justified and would arouse resentment. The women and girls, for instance, engaged in shell turning or fuse making are insured under the principal Act (as being engaged in engineering) and would continue to pay 2½d. The girls of the same type, and getting, perhaps, the same money, engaged on shell filling or fuse filling would pay no contributions or reduced contributions.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Moved, That the Bill do pass.—(Lord Stanmore.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, on this Motion I should like to call your Lordships' attention to the Bill itself. It is a Bill "to extend the provisions of the National Insurance Act, 1911, relating to unemployment insurance to certain trades and employments in connection with the present war." My attention has only been directed to-day to this Bill, because it was read a second time as recently as Thursday last and is down for Third Reading this afternoon. If your Lordships will look at the Bill you
750
will see how it proceeds. Clause 1 applies to a workman who (a) is engaged on or in connection with munitions work as defined by the Munitions of War Acts; or (b) is employed in a trade mentioned in the First Schedule of this Act. This is an Emergency Bill limited to a certain time by Clause 3, which provides that employers and workmen are only to be liable to pay contributions up to such date as the Board of Trade may by Order determine, "not being later than five years after the commencement of this Act or three years after the termination of the present war." But though this is an Emergency Bill, if your Lordships look at the trades specified in the First Schedule you will find, among others, that "saw milling, including machine woodwork and the manufacture of wooden cases," is included. To a certain extent I have no doubt that packing cases are used for ammunition and things of that kind, but the result of this provision is to include not merely the saw millers who are engaged for ammunition purposes and for the purposes of the war, but all saw millers of every kind and sort all over the kingdom.
I call your Lordships' attention to this because it is an instance of an Emergency Bill which is used for much larger purposes. It introduces certain trades which were attempted to be included before, but that attempt was then defeated. It is so with regard to the question of saw millers. I believe that the reason of this provision in the Bill is this, that there are some saw millers who are at the present time out at the war, and who, when they come back, will displace other persons who are engaged in the saw milling occupation; and therefore it is thought right that the persons who are now engaged should pay contributions and should be included under the unemployment sections in order to provide for them after they are replaced by the persons who are now abroad and who may return and resume their employment. I am bound to say that if saw millers are to be included it should be only saw millers who are engaged during the war. It is hardly fair to include saw millers who are employed all over the country. I know that this has been specially objected to by large contractors in Scotland and other places, who are engaged in timber works and employ a large number of men, who will now, under this clause, become liable to contribute under the unemployment sec-

751
tions. I do not like to move the omission of paragraph (7) from the First Schedule, but I think it ought to be omitted in justice to all saw millers who are not employed in place of persons who are now out at the war. I submit that this Emergency Bill principle is being very largely extended and made to include all kinds of Regulations and Orders which are not emergency matters at all.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, I should like to point out to the noble Earl that the saw milling trade were selected on exactly the same principle as the six other trades in the First Schedule, and that they are doing a very large amount of war work.
On Question, Bill passed.

MARRIAGE OF BRITISH SUBJECTS (FACILITIES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Islington.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, before this Bill is read a third time I want to ask the noble Lord in charge of it whether he can give me one item of information. It is very important that a Marriage Act should be drafted in terms which are quite intelligible. I have had the greatest difficulty in understanding the meaning of this Bill. I want to ask the noble Lord this question, Does the Bill do more than allow an Order in Council to be made applying to Dominions to which an Order in Council could not be applied under the existing Act of 1915? If it is limited to that, I have no objection.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD ISLINGTON): My Lords, my noble and learned friend has quite accurately interpreted the purport of this Bill. It is merely to give effect to the Act that was passed by Parliament last year. It was found, as I explained when the Bill was read a second time, that in certain Colonies the practices were such that the Order in Council which could be imposed upon Dominions and Colonies under last year's Act could not be extended to those particular Colonies. It is in order that the Act of last year should have effect throughout the Empire that this Bill has been found necessary.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

RE-ELECTION OF MINISTERS BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I will ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, which has come up to us from another place and is of distinctly practical importance, although for some reason a somewhat facetious colour has been supposed to attach to it. What happened was this. Last year, after the Coalition Government was formed, a measure was introduced entitled the Re-election of Ministers Bill, by which those numerous Ministers who accepted office were exempted from the penalty of securing re-election from their constituents. The principle was generally approved. As the Bill was introduced into another place it covered the whole period between May of last year and the end of the war; but some purists, not desiring, I suppose, to place too much power in the hands of the Executive, moved an Amendment limiting the action of the Bill to the months of May and June of last year, with the result that this further measure has become necessary.
At the same time as that Bill was introduced the Bill constituting the Ministry of Munitions was brought forward, and this latter measure was drafted in the belief that this Ministry, being created only for the period of the war, would enjoy the benefits of the Schedule to the Act of 1867, which exempts certain offices from re-election, without that Schedule being included. Therefore in the Bill which created the Ministry of Munitions, Schedule H of the Representation of the People Act, 1867—which, as your Lordships will remember, was the famous Reform Act introduced by Mr. Disraeli, by the Schedule of which various offices are exempted from the necessity of re-election when transfer is made from one to another—was not included. Consequently the present holder of the office of Minister of Munitions and the present Secretary of State for War both become subject, or would become subject except for this Bill, to re-election.
But there is a third and still more significant case—that of my right hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General. He, it was naturally assumed, having become Solicitor-General when the Coalition Government was formed and therefore having

753
become a Minister in those happy months of May and June, would escape re-election. It appears, however, on close examination that such is not the case, because the benefit of the Re-election of Ministers Act of last year, so to speak, exhausted itself in enabling him to become Solicitor-General. He was not re-elected after his appointment as Solicitor-General, and therefore—it is a strangely technical point—he does not get the benefit of the transfer from the Solicitor-Generalship to the Attorney-Generalship, which he would in ordinary course obtain under the Act of 1867. Consequently he becomes also liable to re-election; and, indeed, he has been for a long time sitting in the House of Commons without being a member of it in the strict sense.
I hope your Lordships will agree to the prompt passage of this Bill. It is clearly not in any sense to the public advantage that these Ministers should be unable to sit in the House or to take part in debate. I trust, therefore, that your Lordships will not only give this Bill a Second Reading to-day but will agree to its passage through all its remaining stages to-morrow, in order that my right hon. friends may be able to be in their places in the other House on Thursday. I shall also, I may mention, ask your Lordships to take the Finance Bill through its remaining stages to-morrow, because for sound financial reasons it is absolutely necessary that it should receive the Royal Assent on that day.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Committee negatived, and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

ENEMY TRADING IN INDIA.
LORD SYDENHAM LORD SYDENHAM rose to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India—

1. Whether the firm of Schroeder Schmidt, of Bombay, which was stated to have been closed, is still dealing in manganese ore under the name of Ettlinger & Company.

2. Whether the firm of Schroeder Schmidt was not an adjunct of Ettlinger & Company before the war; and

3. Whether Ettlinger & Company are now supplying the Munitions Department with manganese ore through the Carlton Iron Company.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, since I drew attention to this question in January last it has entered on a new phase which is very difficult to understand. I then pointed out that the firm of Schroeder and Schmidt, of Bombay, was regarded as an enemy concern when war broke out, and was ordered to close. This firm, however, received permission to go on trading pending liquidation, and in that happy position it remained for about fifteen months. Further action at length was taken by the Government of India after some protests had been made, and a Mr. Kann, whose proper home is Frankfort, was allowed to go out and make arrangements for the carrying on of the business and the transfer to somebody else. In the last half of January a Mr. Dadabhoy Ramtek was apparently negotiating the purchase of 20,000 tons of manganese ore as the approved successor of the Schroeder and Schmidt firm. I further stated at the time that Schroeder and Schmidt were really agents of Ettlinger and Company, of London, and that Ettlinger and Company were in close financial relations with Beer Sondheimer and Company, of Frankfort. My noble friend the Under-Secretary of State said, in reply, that enemy firms in India could only trade under licence from the Government of India, and that such licence was not given unless discontinuance of their operations would be disadvantageous to British interests. He also stated that Schroeder and Schmidt had been closed "except that the firm is permitted to dispose of indent goods already obtained, and to sue, if necessary, for recovery of debts subject to the supervision of a controller." And he had been informed also that manganese ore could be "obtained more quickly" from this enemy firm "than in any other way." And finally the noble Lord assured the House that Ettlinger and Company had "really no connection with this particular firm in India," and that Mr. Kann, during his complicated negotiations, was "under the vigilant attention of the authorities."
My Lords, those statements created considerable surprise in India, and it was at once explained that 80,000 tons of manganese ore was available for export in British hands in December, and that Schroeder and Schmidt held at that time only 7,000 tons. I may add to this that the richest manganese ore in India is in British hands, and that Schroeder and Schmidt could obtain it only by acting as middlemen. How any advantage to British

755
interests could possibly accrue from allowing Schroeder and Schmidt to go on trading, it is very difficult to imagine. As regards the pre-war relations between Schroeder Schmidt and Ettlinger, I have a copy of a letter which was written by the former to the latter in November, 1913. From that letter I should certainly say that it was clear that Ettlinger and Company were almost the head office of Schroeder and Schmidt, and that both these firms were in most intimate relation with Frankfort and also with another firm in Bremen of which I do not know the name. Besides that, I have copies of the Bilbao-South Spanish charter parties, which prove that Ettlinger and Company were agents for Beer Sondheimer and Company, and I understand that these connections were known in business circles though apparently not to the India Office.
I now come to the later phase of this question. Mr. Dadabhoy Ramtek seems to have dropped out of the matter, and the firm of Schroeder and Schmidt now trades in the name of Ettlinger and Company; and in April last cargoes of manganese ore were consigned by Ettlinger to Hull and Genoa. The Hull cargo was intended for the Carlton Ironworks Company, of Middles-borough. Since then 2,900 tons of manganese ore have been shipped from Calcutta by Ettlinger, and consigned to Ettlinger and Company in this country. All that mass of ore was intended for the Carlton Ironworks Company. Now manganese ore has been made contraband of war and is controlled by the Munitions Department. But the Munitions Department has permitted this large supply from a firm of very doubtful antecedents to the Carlton Ironworks. More than that, before the war the Carlton Ironworks Company were in close financial relations with Ettlinger and Company, who, I think, still have the monopoly right of selling the ferro-manganese produced by the Carlton Company. Since the war began, Ettlinger and Company have been in the habit of issuing this rather attractive advertisement—
"Army supplies. City merchants with surplus capital invite proposals connected with War contracts. Are also prepared to entertain any profit-sharing scheme for other bona fide transactions in general merchandise, and request full particulars.—' Anglo-French,' Box M 246, The Times."
Whatever may be the status of a firm which is the agent of an enemy firm in Frankfort and almost stands in parental relation to an enemy firm in Bombay, it certainly is not Anglo-French.
Meanwhile Ettlinger and Company appear to be accumulating stocks of manganese ore at Calcutta and Bombay with very wise prevision. Before the war Schroeder and Schmidt were almost the sole suppliers of manganese ore to Germany. When peace comes Germany will be in great need of manganese, which only Russia and India can provide. In a letter recently received in London I find the following—
"It is useless our raising a contention about the firm of Ettlinger, because, although your description of them is quite correct, the business which is being done in their name is not being done by them or for them, but by the Government of India, who have taken over their concern and are using it themselves."
I am certain my noble friend will contradict that statement, because it is quite inconceivable that the Government of India can be speculating in manganese ore under a German name. Nothing could be more important than preventing an impression of that kind getting about among Indian merchants.
The importance of this matter seems to me, not so much in the value of the trade permitted, which is not very great, as in the remarkable measures which seem to have been taken, cither by the India Office or by the Government of India, and in the extreme cleverness of the pre-war preparations of the Germans which is revealed. In the background there is Beer Sondheimer and Company, of Frankfort; in London there is Ettlinger and Company, doubtless naturalised, but agents of Beer Sondheimer and standing in very close relations with an enemy firm in Bombay, and perhaps with an Ironworks Company which bears a good English name. When war broke out, the Indian firm was recognised as an enemy concern. It was ordered to close, but then received most-favoured-nation treatment, and the parent firm in London was this year allowed to carry on the business for the firm in India. Considerable injustice has been done to British firms in India; but my point is that this is a typical and most instructive instance of that peaceful penetration which we were told not long before the war by a high authority was for the benefit of mankind.
The moral I draw is this. We talk glibly of removing the tentacles of the German octopus from our trade; but we have not succeeded so far, and when peace comes we may find the task almost impossible, because the number of interests which have their financial home in Germany is greater than we know. Incidentally I think this

757
case does plainly demonstrate the urgent need of the Registration of Firms Bill which is shortly to come before your Lordships' House. I now beg to put the Questions standing in my name.
LORD BERESFORD: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to bring before you a case even more serious than the one to which my noble friend has called attention. It is the case of the firm of Müller, and I should like to ask what is the objection to winding up this firm. Müllers were turned out of the Baltic Exchange. But they were reinstated at the instigation of the Government, and there is consequently a great deal of indignation amongst the members of the Baltic Exchange. It has been brought to the notice of this House already that between 1,250,000 and 1,500,000 tons of ore have gone through Rotterdam to Germany since the war began, and a great deal of that ore has been sent by Müllers. In 1914 they chartered a steamer. Its original destination was Antwerp, but when they heard of war being declared they diverted it to Rotterdam. All that cargo was manganese ore, so necessary for making munitions of war, and the whole of that cargo went eventually to Germany. This really means supplying munitions with which to kill our soldiers. It is not only very hard on the soldiers but very hard on the munition workers, because they have to work double time in order to counteract the effect of these German shells on our lines. I submit that the Government should do something to stop Germans in this country trading as English subjects when they are really trading for the benefit of Germany. The company to which I have called attention is not only an enemy company, but it has been proved to have been trading with the enemy. I would also ask whether any of the naval advisers have protested against this firm. I am informed that they have, but I am not sure about it. I should like to know definitely whether they have protested against this large amount of manganese and iron ore going into Germany. My noble friend Lord Devonport showed quite recently, in your Lordships' House, that 557 cargoes have gone to Germany representing over 2,000,000 tons of ore. That is a serious thing for our soldiers, for our expenditure, and for the war altogether. I do not see how we are to end the war if the British Government allow these things to go on.
LORD ISLINGTON: My Lords, before I reply to the Question placed on the Paper by my noble friend Lord Sydenham, I would refer to the speech which has just been made by the noble and gallant Lord. It is impossible for me, without notice, to answer a question in regard to a firm about which at present I am in possession of none of the facts. These are extremely complicated cases, and it is absolutely necessary to have, due notice in order that inquiry may be made, because it very often means probing into the recesses of more than one Public Department. I did not glean from the remarks of the noble and gallant Lord that this particular firm of Müller is connected with India or the Government of India. From what I gathered, it was a firm trading in the Baltic. Therefore the question which he put to me should more properly be put either to the representative of the Board of Trade or to the representative of the Admiralty.
My noble friend Lord Sydenham has raised three specific points in the Question that he has placed upon the Paper. First, as regards Schroeder and Schmidt, a firm in Bombay, I repeat what I said on a former occasion when this question was raised, that this firm was licensed to liquidate shortly after the outbreak of war; it had its licence revoked, and was closed down in June of last year. Since that time it has only been authorised to sue for the recovery of debts, and to dispose of the balance of indent goods which had been imported to the firm in pursuance of contracts that had been entered into prior to the commencement of the war. The House will understand that, in closing down these firms, especially if they are large firms, it is only fair to the firm and to all concerned that due time should be given for this process of liquidation to be carried out, and of course in the case of a large firm in ordinary circumstances the process must be one of considerable duration. Throughout the process of liquidation all moneys that are accumulated in regard to transactions are deposited with the Treasury of the Government of India, and therefore in no way come into competition with other or British firms in the country. As I explained in the debate last January, this firm of Schroeder and Schmidt not only dealt in manganese ore but with many other commodities, such as piece goods and hides. Therefore

759
it will be seen that the process alluded to is one that must take time before it is brought to a final conclusion. But that, I understand, has now definitely come to pass. I would also point out that during the period of liquidation the whole of the manganese ore exported by this firm has come to this country, and has been under the very close supervision of the authorities both in India and here.
Now I will say a word as regards the other firm alluded to by the noble Lord—Messrs. Ettlinger and Company. The noble Lord asks me whether Schroeder and Schmidt was not an adjunct of Ettlinger and Company before the war. I must admit that I find myself obliged to-day to modify what I said last January in the course of the debate then. What I said then in regard to the connection between Ettlinger and Company and Schroeder and Schmidt was said with imperfect information. I have found out since that there was a connection between these two firms before the war, and so far as I have been able to ascertain the manganese business of Schroeder and Schmidt had been largely financed by Ettlinger and Company. When I last spoke on this question, from the information then in my possession there seemed to be no objection, under the supervision that was being carried out, to Ettlinger continuing to supply ore to this country. At the time manganese ore was greatly needed by the Munitions Department, and, as I then said, it was found by the Munitions Department that they could obtain ore through this source more readily and of a higher quality than would have been the case had they left this particular firm out. Ettlinger were therefore allowed to export ore from India for the use of this country, and for the purposes which I have described. Every precaution was taken to ensure that the delivery was to this country, and that it was in bond; and in addition to the convenience to the Department in time of emergency, it was also done with a view to considering the small mineowners who were purchasing through this company, and it was therefore on that account to a large extent that the transfer was allowed.
Recent investigation by the Board of Trade regarding the character of Ettlinger and Company has brought out the fact that before the war close relations existed between this firm and the firm alluded to by the noble Lord—Messrs. Beer Sondheimer
760
and Company, of Frankfort. The Secretary of State for India, on becoming informed of these facts, considered it inadvisable that facilities should be maintained which would assist in the resumption of German influence in the manganese ore trade after the war. Accordingly, after consultation with the Government of India, it was decided to issue orders with a view to terminating their business in India, and the firm in question is now being informed accordingly.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is Ettlinger and Company?
LORD ISLINGTON: Yes. Now one word as regards the other firm alluded to by the noble Lord—the Carlton Ironworks Company. I have made inquiries of the Ministry of Munitions and am informed that the Ministry do not purchase either manganese ore or ferro-manganese from this company. I have no doubt that manganese is supplied by the Carlton Iron Company to manufacturers of munitions, though this has not been obtained through the Ministry. As regards this firm I may say that the Office for which I answer—the India Office—has no direct concern, and I would suggest that if the noble Lord desires further information he should consult either the Admiralty or the Board of Trade. I may say this in addition. The Carlton Iron Company had business relations with Ettlinger and Company before the war. It seems that they were under German influence, but I am given to understand that since July of 1914 the company has been reconstructed, and at least five-sixths of the shares are now said to be in British hands. Beyond this I have no further information regarding this firm.
Before sitting down I will state broadly what the Government of India are doing to deal with cases such as those which have formed the subject of the noble Lord's questions. The Government of India, in order to secure complete power over these firms, are issuing two Ordinances. One of these will empower them to impose prohibition and restriction both on imports and on exports in any way they see fit. This will give them complete power to deal with any suspected firms or undesirable individuals. Then there is a second Ordinance, which follows closely the British Act dealing with trading with the enemy, but has the necessary adaptations to meet

761
the varying conditions in India. The Government of India, have long prevented hostile firms carrying on business in India for the benefit of enemy interests; but for the purpose of determining what is a hostile firm—a very difficult matter to determine—they are taking as a criterion whether a firm's, business was being carried on before the war for the benefit of enemy interests and is likely to be resumed on similar lines after the war. This action, your Lordships will see, will give the Government of India power to close down firms who, in order to continue their business during the war, have temporarily severed their enemy connections, but have done so in such a way as to make it possible or likely that they will resume them on the termination of the war. It will also enable the Government of India at the same time to transfer the stocks and the contracts to British firms, so that the supply of manganese ore to ourselves and to our Allies will in no way be interrupted. When these Ordinances are in force—which will be very soon—I think it may be said that the control of enemy trading by the Government of India will be complete; and it will therefore then rest with them to decide the extent to which it is desirable to exercise these powers with regard to the elimination of enemy trade in India and its connection with this country. I hope that I have answered all the points raised by the noble Lord, and that he is satisfied with the information I have been able to give.
LORD SYDENTHAM: I thank my noble friend for his very full answer. As regards the past, I do not think he has quite satisfied me; but with regard to the future, he holds out hopes of great improvement. I understand that in future Ettlinger and Company will not be able to move manganese across the seas. And I am sure the House will welcome the two Ordinances of the Government of India. But the war has been in existence nearly two years.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think a word ought to be said on that last point. The noble Lord who represents the Government of India spoke with a general air of satisfaction at the action which his Department has taken with respect to this enemy firm, but it seems that the Government of India have wakened up two years after the war began. What have the Government of India been doing all this time? My noble friend on
762
the Cross Benches brought this subject prominently before the Government at the beginning of this year. Then, not because the Government of India had found anything out but because my noble friend presses them and persists, they ultimately take action.
I do not know, but I think it is extremely doubtful whether they would have done anything at all except for Lord Sydenham's Questions. I put it to the noble Lord as representing the Department that it would have been only right if he had said that the Department were extremely sorry that nothing had been done before. These things have been going on all these months. Yet he says, "We have just found out that Schroeder and Schmidt, or Ettlinger and Company, had connection with some Germans in Frankfort before the war." Why did they not find that out before? Why did they not apply to the Board of Trade and ascertain? Indeed, I do not quite know even now what the position of Ettlinger and Company is. I understand that, under the action of the Government of India now, the Indian branch of Ettlinger and Company is not allowed to operate. But are we to understand that the branch of Ettlinger and Company established in this country is still operating? Are they still a firm protected by British laws and helped by the good order and government, of this country? Are the really Germans, and are they in connection with Germans still? What is their position?
Then there is—it certainly has a good English name—the Carlton Iron Company. I am left in some doubt as to the position of this firm. They appear to have dealt with Ettlinger, who dealt with Schroeder and Schmidt, who dealt with a German firm in Frankfort. Whether the Carlton Iron Company are a true British concern or not does not appear. I hope we shall not be given the answer that we must inquire of another Department. If we can be quite sure that the Government will take this matter in hand and finally fathom the intricacies of the German connections of these various gentlemen and firms, we shall be satisfied. But I must say that my noble friend has been abundantly justified in calling attention to the matter; and I hope that the next time my noble and gallant friend Lord Beresford asks about another German gentleman called Müller, he will receive a full explanation of why the Government have not acted in that case.
LORD ISLINGTON: My Lords, I think I must say a word in reply to the noble Marquess, because I think he is under a misapprehension. He seemed to conceive with regard to these firms that they had been allowed to proceed as they liked during the whole of the war, and that no security or control had been placed over them by the Government of India. That is not so. In the case of one firm, they were placed in liquidation and told to close with the exception of open contracts which still existed, and all the moneys that were collected from those sources were placed in the Government Treasury and were not at the disposal of the firm. So that I do not think it is quite fair to say that the Government of India have been callous and indifferent to British interests in regard to that firm. As regards Ettlinger and Company, I can only speak, of course, in regard to that firm in its connection with Indian business. The noble Marquess expressed the hope that I should not give him the reply that he must ask another Department. But I am very much afraid I must give him that answer, because it is impossible for my Department to reply in respect of all the different firms dealing in other parts of the world. These, of course, properly come under the supervision and the control of an entirely different Department from the Government of India or the India Office. The firm of Ettlinger may, for aught I know, have large interests with other parts of the world, but it is not in my power to obtain the information for which the noble Marquess asked in regard to anything outside India. I rose merely to submit these points, because it struck me that the noble Marquess, in making his comments, considered that the Government of India had been indifferent to their duties, which is really not the case.

MILITARY SERVICE—CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they are now able to state whether the method of dealing with conscientious objectors indicated by the Prime Minister in his statement to the House of Commons on the 29th June 1916 is intended to have the effect of putting into civil custody military conscientious objectors sentenced prior
764
to the issue of Army Order X of 25th May, 1916; and whether they can now inform the House what has been the result of the second Court-Martial on C. H. Norman, where he is now detained, and in what custody.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, when I raised a discussion on this subject a fortnight ago your Lordships will remember that there were two matters left over which the spokesmen of His Majesty's Government were not at the time able to answer. I put this Question down for last Tuesday, but at the request of the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War—and I hope he will allow me to congratulate him on his position and the House on having a direct representative of the War Office to deal with these and other kindred matters—I put off the Question until to-day. The most rev. Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury was fortunate enough to obtain an answer from the noble Earl rather earlier [on July 13] on the first branch of the Question, and I think I need only ask him to be so good as to clear up something about which I am not perfectly clear. In the reply which he made to the most rev. Primate, the noble Earl said that the conscientious objectors at the present moment undergoing detention—who were sentenced before Army Order X was issued—were divided into two classes: those who behaved well when in prison, and those who behaved badly by refusing to obey orders. Those who behaved badly were to have a Court-Martial and the benefit of the Prime Minister's statement, and the noble Earl said it was the intention of the War Office that those who behaved properly should not be treated worse than those who behaved badly. I did not quite understand whether they were to be put in as good a position, and whether they were to be placed in civil custody. If that is the intention, perhaps the noble Earl will make it clear. With regard to the last part of my Question, I want merely to know what was the reason for the second Court-Martial on Norman, what the result was, where he is now detained, and whether he is in civil custody.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF DERBY): My Lords, I thank the noble Earl in the first place for deferring this Question, and in the second place for his kind words concerning myself. With regard to the part

765
of the answer previously given about which he is not clear, I would point out that detention is not a civil punishment. When men are under detention they are still under military discipline; but it is the intention that those men who are under detention and are behaving properly shall be put in exactly the same position as those who have behaved badly, in that their cases will be inquired into by the Central Appeal Tribunal.
EARL RUSSELL: With the result that they will go into civil custody if they are found to be conscientious objectors?
THE EARL OF DERBY: If they are found to be conscientious objectors they will go into civil custody, and will come under the scheme by which national work is found for them. With regard to the latter part of the Question, C. H. Norman was sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment with hard labour by the second Court-Martial. On July 5 he was removed from Wandsworth Detention Barracks to Wormwood Scrubbs, where to the best of my belief he, now is. He is in civil custody, and his case will therefore come before the Central Appeal Tribunal.

THE BATTLE OF JUTLAND BANK.
THE DUKE OF RUTLAND THE DUKE OF RUTLAND rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is their intention immediately to move a Resolution conveying the thanks of Parliament to Admiral Sir John Jellicoe and the officers and men of the Grand Fleet for the victory obtained by them at the Battle of Jutland Bank.
The noble Duke said: My Lords, I am aware that this is rather a delicate Question for the Government to answer. At the same time I am supported by precedent, because during the great Napoleonic wars the thanks of Parliament were on several occasions conveyed to the gallant Admirals and seamen of our Fleet for victorious actions at that time. I do not know how far the parallel applies in the present case, but it does seem to me that in the somewhat exceptional circumstances Sir John Jellicoe and the officers and men of the, Grand Fleet deserve special recognition at the hands of the representatives of the country. It may be said that this is not the moment for the thanks of Parliament to be given to the Fleet, or to any section of His Majesty's
766
Forces, for the gallant work they have done, but that this should be postponed to a later moment. That is a point on which I am anxious to get the opinion of His Majesty's Government. Certainly in the days that I have been quoting Parliament did not wait until the end of the, war, I do not know how long your Lordships imagine this war is going to last. But as far as my own private opinion is concerned I think the extremely momentous action which was fought the other day by Sir John Jellicoe and the Grand Fleet is distinctly deserving of the highest recognition that the country can give.
It must also be remembered that on this occasion—not that it matters to the officers and men of the Fleet, because they know what they have done and what they are going to do—a considerable amount of undeserved feeling against them was created by the strangely unfortunately-worded announcement of the action which was made by the Admiralty. So far did feeling go that, instead of achieving a great victory, it was thought that the Fleet had merely scraped through the action with considerable loss and no appreciable gain, as regards victory at all events. I believe I am right in saying that when many of the wounded men from the Fleet were landed at Queensferry and other naval ports to be taken to hospital they were, in many cases actually hooted—groaned at—by onlookers. I know from my own personal knowledge that officers when they landed at Queensferry and other places after the action were actually condoled with by the, cabmen who drove them on having taken part in an unsuccessful action. That was largely owing to the, as I say—and I am putting it very mildly—most unfortunately-worded message which was first conveyed to the country by the Admiralty. At any rate, it ought to be made clear to the country that they were not defeated.
The Highest in the land has congratulated the Fleet on what they did, and Parliament would not be straining any privilege or going beyond any action that it should take if, as soon as possible, it were to show its marked appreciation of the extreme gallantry, determination, and skill shown by the Grand Fleet on the occasion of the battle of Jutland Bank. Although we all know that the Navy is a silent Service which talks very little but thinks a great deal, that is no reason why Parliament should not show its appreciation of what it has

767
done during the past two years. I am fully aware that recognition is, of course, also due to the vast fleet of mine-sweepers, patrol boats, and armed trawlers, and all that immense section of the naval forces which has sprung up during this war and which has done its part so magnificently. Any appreciation on the part of the country of the services which have been rendered by the Navy cannot but be highly gratifying to the Fleet, a considerable branch of which, of necessity, gets but scant appreciation at the hands of its fellow-countrymen, because they do not know what those men have been doing. Those of your Lordships who know what has been done during the past two years, not only by the Fleets recognised as Fleets and by the ships of His Majesty's Navy recognised and in the Navy List, but by all those men on board the mine-sweepers, patrol boats, trawlers, and so on, recognise that all these men deserve the deepest thanks of the country. I will not detain your Lordships longer. I should very much like to know the opinion of His Majesty's Government with regard to this question. I am certain that, whatever they decide to do, there is not a man in this House who does not appreciate to the full the immense services which have been rendered by Sir John Jellicoe and the officers and men of the Grand Fleet.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I feel certain that the suggestion of the noble Duke will enlist the sympathy of all your Lordships, as in principle it does the sympathy of His Majesty's Government. We should all be glad to hasten the expression of any form of thanks which can assure the Fleet how heartily we recognise, not only the consummate strategy and the daring tactics of the Commander-in-Chief and of his subordinate commanders, but the devotion and coolness of all ranks during the actual progress of the engagement, the special deeds of valour enumerated in Sir John Jellicoe's Despatch, the dash and gallantry shown by the lighter craft, the light cruisers and the destroyer flotillas, and last, but not least, the splendid skill and endurance of the engine room department.
The thanks of Parliament, as my noble friend has pointed out, by frequent precedents would seem to be the most fitting expression of the nation's pride and gratitude after what my noble friend accurately describes in his Question as a
768
naval victory. It was saddened, as previous victories have been, by grievous and irreparable losses of gallant seamen; but the enemy's material loss was intrinsically greater than ours, and was markedly greater in proportion to his naval strength. The reduced and battered German Fleet had to make the best of its way back to its bases, saved only by the approach of darkness from destruction; and the unchallenged command of the North Sea, and of all seas, rests with us. In spite of what my noble friend stated, nobody now believes that this engagement was other than a success for us. At the time there was doubtless some misapprehension. For a short period that misapprehension may have been widely spread, though I trust it did not often take so extreme a form as that narrated by my noble friend. Now that misconception has completely disappeared, for everybody has read Sir John Jellicoe's Despatch, and the facts are known.
But, my Lords, in this war it has so far not been our practice to offer normal thanks to those British commanders who have earned them either by sea or by land. Cases, however, will rise to the recollection of the House in which precedent would have fully justified that course. As a mere illustration I may mention the brilliant expedition of Admiral Sturdee to the Falkland Islands, which can compare with not a few of the naval exploits for which in the past the thanks of Parliament have been accorded. Several of the advances made on land since the autumn of 1914 might also be mentioned. It must, however, be remembered that in bygone days a Parliamentary Motion constituted almost the only form of public thanks that was possible, for newspapers were few and dear, and the debates in Parliament were not reported. Now the sailors and soldiers can read in the nation's eyes the nation's gratitude. For these reasons His Majesty's Government think it wise to postpone for a time—and only for a time—those formal tributes of honour to the commanders and to those who serve under them. That the postponement may not be very long is the heartfelt wish, not merely of His Majesty's Government, but also of the whole House and of the whole country.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, may I remind your Lordships that, in addition to the claims to gratitude of the Fleet to which allusion has been made by

769
the noble Duke, there is another. But for the vigilance of the Admiralty and the promptitude with which the Admiral at Queenstown acted, we should have had the whole of Ireland in a blaze. The authorities managed to obtain information about the ship full of arms and also of Casement's movements and had him arrested. Had it not been for that prompt action we should have been under the necessity of reconquering Ireland. I think it is hardly possible to state the debt we owe the Fleet on that account.
LORD BERESFORD: My Lords, I quite appreciate the view which my noble friend opposite (Lord Crewe) has taken with regard to this question. It would probably be better if the thanks of Parliament were given to Sir John Jellicoe and his officers and men after the war. But this is a very peculiar case. There was issued a deplorable communiqué which the officers and men of the Fleet felt most keenly. The population thought that they had been beaten, and in several places they were hissed—this I can vouch for—although they had fought perhaps the finest action ever fought in the history of the world. The action of Sir David Beatty in holding the German Fleet for four hours has never been equalled. Trafalgar had a great deal to do with the alteration of the map of the world; it was a brilliant action, but only 492 men were killed in the whole Fleet. Sir David Beatty lost 5,100. Do you not suppose that the officers and men who came back to this country, with regret and admiration and affection for those they had lost, felt it very acutely and very deeply when they were hooted and hissed as if there had been a reverse. Therefore I support the view of my noble friend (The Duke of Rutland) that enough has not been made of the action by the constituted authority here. I do not believe that the German Fleet will come out again; they will be very foolish if they do. And if they do not come out again it will mean that the mastery of the seas remains with us absolutely. In this action we commanded the sea, but we could not command the weather. Nothing to any seaman could be better than the manoeuvring and the tactical and strategical skill displayed by our Admirals in this action. As far as our opinion, as seamen, goes, there was not a single mistake made—nothing except the accident of the weather. I think
770
it would be a graceful act on the part of the Government if something were said to remove the feeling of distress and disappointment felt by both officers and men in our splendid Fleet on account of their reception at home immediately after the action, when they knew well what a victory they had won.

LIQUID FUEL.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU had the following Notice upon the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether they can indicate what steps are likely to be taken in the near future, or have been taken since the beginning of the war, to promote economy in the use of petrol for public and private purposes; the dates of any regulations or notifications insisting on the need for economy; also what steps have been or will be taken to increase the production in this country of liquid fuel, including benzol from gas works and low temperature distillation plants, in view of the needs of our aerial, naval and military forces, as well as for commercial purposes.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the subject of the Question which I have put on the Paper is an important one. We have arrived at a stage in the war when, to public knowledge, we are running short of liquid fuel, at any rate for the time being; and when you consider that our aircraft, a considerable portion of our Fleet, and a great part of the transport of our Army are dependent on liquid fuel, the importance of the subject is obvious. What seems to me to have happened in regard to this question is this. Too late in the day—in the twenty-fourth month of the war—the Government have realised that there is a chance of this country being short of supplies of fuel of this description. Consequently they have, I think quite rightly, taken steps to see at any rate that the Army does not suffer and that the public services are supplied. But this has now to be done at the cost of the private consumer, and, to a certain extent, of the transport services of this country and of the commercial community.
I maintain that if this question had been properly considered earlier in the war we might to-day have been in a much more favourable position and should have had ample stocks for our requirements.

771
There was no secret about the increasing consumption of liquid fuel before the war. In 1913 this country consumed 105,000,000 gallons of petrol; in 1914 it had risen to 125,000,000 gallons; and in 1915 to nearly 150,000,000 gallons. Therefore it was obvious that, war or no war, the consumption was increasing rapidly. The war found us in this position. Though there were good stocks in some countries, like America, there was no great reserve in this country; and we have ever since the war been put in this position, that being non-producing with regard to petrol—except the small quantities that are distilled from shale in Scotland—we have had to import it and the price has risen so much that a tank steamer of 6,000 tons of liquid fuel from New York to-day costs £100,000; more than double what it would have cost a short time ago. I think it is not inopportune that I have put this Question on the Paper at this moment, because the noble Lord who replies will have an opportunity of telling your Lordships authoritatively the amount of restriction which is likely to be put on the supply to the private consumer after August 1. It has been stated that he is to be left with only 30 per cent. of his usual supplies. The Times yesterday informed us that the figure was 50 per cent., while others place it higher. Users of the automobile of all classes recognise that in a question of national necessity their own private and even commercial interests must give way. I do not think there is any harm in saying that the consumption by our Army at the Front for transport services may in some contingencies be doubled shortly, and this extra amount which has to be found will have to come entirely out of the home supply. This is another case in which we are loo late in taking precautions. If at the beginning of the war real thought had been given to the subject, we might have had ample stocks laid by.
Nobody can defend the unlicensed consumption of petrol that has been going on ever since the beginning of the war. No check has been put on its use by the private consumer for what is called joy-riding; and nobody could have witnessed the multitude of cars, as I did myself recently, going down to comparatively distant race meetings, without seeing that even now there is no heed paid to the Government's plea for economy. Above
772
all, there has been a scandalous waste of petrol in some cases in connection with Government services. I am not going to quote cases to-day, but it is known that cars have been washed with petrol. It has been reported to me by officers whom I cannot but believe implicity. I think it behoves the Government to set their own house in order by promoting the greatest possible economy. One often sees cars conveying single officers. Greater economy in that direction might be observed, and I believe the War Office have already taken action in that connection. In many instances a train would be equally as quick, and even the humble tramcar might be used in some cases. Again, I am sure that officers could in many cases do work on co-operative principles, and not use one car for one officer only. I quite agree that drastic restrictions are now inevitable, and they will cause great inconvenience. It is all very well for the Government, in their appeals for economy in motoring, to lead the public to consider that motoring is a luxury, but it became a necessity long ago. People have sold their horses and carriages and have been accustomed to rely on motor-cars for all kinds of professional work. To cut off to a large extent the supply of liquid fuel to the inhabitants of this country would be a very grave act indeed, and I am sure that nothing but necessity compels the Government to restrict its use as much as they are going to do.
One other point I want to mention before I sit down. There is a source of home supply which I have advocated in this House and elsewhere for many years past, and that is that we should produce benzol from gas works and low temperature distillation plants. I have used benzol myself with great success, and it is now being used more and more. It was largely used before the war, in France, for taxicabs especially; but the Government of this country before the war were taking very little interest in this subject. I think now we ought to be going into the question of low temperature distillation of coal and stripping gas of benzol on as large a scale as possible. I commend the Government for the steps which the Board of Trade have taken already at Barnsley, where they have a system for the home production of liquid fuel, but it must proceed on a very much larger scale than that. If the Government wish to be independent of foreign supplies of

773
liquid fuel, which will be absolutely vital to aircraft and transport and to certain portions of the Fleet, they must institute in this country a wide system of distilling benzol from coal on a low temperature system. Otherwise in this war and in any other war afterwards we shall be absolutely dependent on foreign produced liquid fuel. Moreover, liquid fuel is an absolute necessity to carry on the business of the country. When I criticise the Government in this way I should like to say that the Admiralty, alone of the Government Departments, were aware of the coming shortage, and I am informed that they made a protest early in the war on this point. I understand that the importing companies also informed the Government. But it was not until the appointment of the Petrol Committee, under Mr. Berry, of the Great Northern Railway, that any serious notice was taken of the subject. I have put this Question on the Paper with the object of giving the Government an opportunity of stating their policy with regard to the future, and I hope they will tell us that they are seriously considering the question and giving it the attention which it deserves.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, the Committee appointed by the Board of Trade to deal with the petrol question have taken a census of the consumption, stock, and estimated requirements of all users of motor spirit. The results of the census have only just been ascertained, and it is now clear that drastic restriction in the use of petrol for all classes of motor vehicles will be necessary, as the shortage of petrol at the present time is serious. It is provided by the Finance (No. 2) Bill, now before Parliament, that on and after August 1, 1916, no motor spirit may be purchased without a licence. A duty of 6d. per gallon will be charged on licences for private cars, and of 3d. for doctors' cars and veterinary surgeons' cars; and the amount of petrol issued under the licence will be considerably less than the estimated requirements shown on the census cards, though I cannot tell the noble Lord the exact proportions.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Can the noble Lord say whether 50 per cent. is probably correct, or somewhere about that figure?
LORD STANMORE: I am afraid I cannot tell the noble Lord the figure. There can be no question at present of the use of benzol as motor spirit, inasmuch as practically all the benzol produced is required for the manufacture of high explosives. Every possible step has been taken to increase the output of benzol at gas works, and a Bill has gone through the House of Commons—and I hope may pass its final stage in your Lordships' House to-morrow—enabling the Board of Trade to make Orders substituting a calorific-power standard of gas for an illuminating power standard in the case of undertakings erecting benzol recovery plant. Further, the number of by-product coke ovens has been largely increased. The Board of Trade consider that low temperature carbonisation of coal may undoubtedly have a high value, but at the present time the by-product oven has an even higher value for war purposes, inasmuch as the yield of raw materials of a standard of purity suitable for explosives is greater, and the metallurgical coke produced is urgently required for blast furnaces, etc. The question of low temperature carbonisation in the future is being considered by the Government.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord, of course, has not been able to tell us in what proportions these allotments of petrol will be made, but may I ask him, before the Government make any declaration, whether he would not consider and bring before the proper authorities the great hardship which will be created if those proportions are made according to the amount of petrol used in the past and without inquiry. A man who has been, as my noble friend put it, joy-riding unlimitedly for many months puts in a return, say, of 100 gallons; another man who has used his car almost entirely for military and public purposes may return 40 gallons. If each of them is going to get a quarter of his previous supply, you will make it quite impossible for the one to do the work he has hitherto done.
The Government before bringing forward their restriction in this connection—which I admit may be wholly necessary—made an appeal to us voluntarily to abstain, in the public interest, from undue use of petrol. I know a large number of people who have made it a practice—it has been almost a sacred rite—not to take their

775
motors out unless required for some really necessary work. It is rather hard in those cases that they should see their neighbour who had not met the Government demand placed in a very favourable position, while they are absolutely unable to get about to do their necessary public work. I would ask my noble friend to have this point considered. A grave fear has arisen in the course of the last few days that a standard which is said to be one-quarter of the previous supply is going to be fixed indiscriminately. I should have thought that those who had been moderate in their use of petrol ought to have an opportunity of showing before some authority that they have a right to the full supply they had hitherto received. I may state that in my part of the country we have a very large camp, and some motor-cars have been used to carry workers to and from the camp, which is situated three or four miles away on the common. It would be very hard if that work were stopped, while those who are using their cars to go forty or fifty miles to London, when the train would do just as well, do not suffer the same amount of restriction. I hope that this matter will be given serious attention by the authorities.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stanmore has referred to the cards, and rather intimated that the returns made would form the basis of future supply. I would ask the noble Lord whether any test or inquiry has been made in reference to the statements filled in upon the cards with regard to past consumption. If the noble Lord has not already informed himself on that question, perhaps he will make inquiries. I suggest that it might be desirable to test certain cases, because there is little doubt that some people have not been conscientious about their return. I was myself told that I had been very foolish to make a true return seeing that I would certainly get it cut down, and that I should have done what other people did—namely, make a much larger return, and ask for 100 gallons a month, and I should then get 25 gallons, which would be the normal amount required. It will be very unfair if no attempt is made to test these cases and to cut down people who have made wrong returns.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I forgot to mention, when I spoke just now, that I entirely endorse what fell front Lord Montagu about the over-consumption of petrol by the Army at home. Only to-day I had an instance brought before me where drivers who were loading up allowed their engines to run for an hour and a-half. All these things ought to be looked into, especially the consumption of petrol by officers travelling from place to place in England. If this were done, I believe that a reduction of something like one-third might be made.
LORD STANMORE: The course which it is feared will be taken is so obviously inequitable that I cannot believe that this will be the basis on which the arrangement for the future will be made. Anyhow, I will inquire into the matter, and bring the noble Viscount's suggestion to the notice of the Department. And that applies also to the suggestion which was made by Lord Strachie.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I thank the noble Lord for the reply he has given me. It has not been very satisfactory, but I recognise the difficulty of answering all the questions. Perhaps if the subject is raised again later on, definite information will be given to the House; and I hope the consumption will not be cut down until that has been done.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, it was not, of course, possible for my noble friend to go into details on the questions put to him from the other side of the House; but I may say confidently that the principle to be adopted is not likely to be the principle of merely reducing in the same proportion the amount consumed by individuals, whether that consumption was a prodigal or a careful one. It seems to me that the first object would be to ascertain whether the basis of the calculation was a reasonable one, and then to apply the percentage of reduction. We will take care that this aspect of the case is thoroughly considered.
House adjourned at five minutes past Seven o'clock, till to-morrow, half-past Three o'clock.