Lords Sitting of 8 March 1916

SWANSEA HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
RIVER GLEN BILL. [H.L.]
Second Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Wednesday next.
ABERDARE AND ABERAMAN GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
CANADA COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
COLCHESTER GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
FERNDALE GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  IMPERIAL CONTINENTAL GAS ASSOCIATION BILL. [H.L.]
    VAN DIEMEN'S LAND COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
    Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
YEADON WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

SOUTH EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM AND DOVER RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My noble friend Lord Plymouth has given notice of his intention, in the event of this Bill being read a second time, to move—
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee to take into consideration the traffic requirements at this point of the river, and the effect that this Bill, if passed, will have upon them, and to hear evidence from the Royal Institute
296
of British Architects, the London Society, and others on the treatment generally of this very important part of London."
I think, however, it would be convenient that the discussion upon this Instruction should take place upon the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill. Unfortunately, the noble Earl (Lord Plymouth) is unwell and unable to be present tonight, and he has asked me to take his place.
I understand that on the part of the railway company the proposed Instruction does not present insuperable difficulties. If that is so, it will be unnecessary for me to detain your Lordships at any length. There is, however, one point on which I ought to say something, because it may lead to misunderstanding. The word "traffic" in the Instruction of which Lord Plymouth has given notice does not refer to traffic on the river but to traffic over the river—not to traffic in ships and boats, but to vehicular traffic. It has been an old-standing question whether something might not be done to improve London traffic by giving facilities for vehicular traffic at this point. Your Lordships will agree, at any rate, that in that magnificent prospect of the Thames there is nothing so universally condemned as the appearance of Charing Cross railway bridge, and it is unfortunate that so far as one can gather from this Bill there is little or no prospect of an improvement in that respect. I am not sure that I can add anything useful until we have heard what is to be said by other noble Lords who are interested in this question. In any case I do not think there is any extreme urgency, and I deprecate very much the idea that this Bill should be hurried through without having plenty of opportunity for discussion and allowing public opinion outside to inform itself on the matter. The work certainly would not be proceeded with at once. Therefore there does not seem to be any particular reason for immediate action in the matter, and if there was any likelihood of opposition to this Instruction on the part of those who are anxious that the Bill should go through, I would ask your Lordships to defer the Second Reading until a subsequent date, when the noble Earl who has given notice of this Instruction might himself be present, and, out of completer information, speak to your Lordships more fully on the subject.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, perhaps I may say a word at this point, following the good example of the noble Earl, before we reach the Instruction of which Lord Plymouth has given notice. As regards actual urgency in dealing with this to-day, we are in a somewhat unfortunateposition. We have come down prepared to discuss the matter now; and as I understand from the noble Viscount opposite (Lord Chilston), who is in close touch with the railway company, that he does not object, to this Instruction being carried, I should have hoped that your Lordships would have been ready to deal with it to-day—subject only to this, that I am afraid I cannot go quite so far in complacency as the noble Viscount opposite. I know that your Lordships do not like Instructions to Committees—I believe one has not been passed for the last ten years; and Committees do not care to have their discretion fettered. Were this Instruction in its present form persisted in, I should have felt bound to ask your Lordships not to agree to it owing to the existence of the words "the traffic requirements at this point of the river." A specific Instruction on such a point as this would have been most undesirable. After all, this is almost the most important point with which the Committee will have to deal when the will goes before them, as it is raised specifically in the Petitions which have been deposited against the Bill. The Port of London Authority, which is represented, by the noble Lord behind me, has lodged against the Bill a Petition which is mainly concerned with the traffic requirements at this point.
LORD DEVONPORT: It is to give us a locus standi to watch our interests.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: And, of course, the interests of the Port of London Authority are traffic requirements. In the same way there is a Petition from three gas companies, who use the river for bringing up supplies by barge; and this is concerned with traffic requirements. I must confess that I, like others, read the words in the Instruction as it stands on the Paper as referring to water traffic. I suggest that good English could be made of the Instruction if the words "the traffic requirements at this point of the river" were omitted, and if, after the word "upon," we inserted the words "the
298
appearance of the river." The Instruction I to the Committee would then be "to take into consideration the effect that this Bill, if passed, will have upon the appearance of the river, and to hear evidence from the Royal Institute of British Architects, the London Society, and others on the treatment generally of this very important part of London." That would be giving a locus standi to the bodies referred to, and in the particular circumstances of London it is very desirable, in a case like this, that they should be heard. I believe that the railway company themselves would welcome the advice of these bodies on this subject. In that form I would gladly support the passing by your Lordships of some such Instruction as this. Whether any great scope will exist for the inquiries of these experts in the case of this particular Bill I do not know, as the Bill, after all, is concerned only with the strengthening of a part of the present Charing Cross railway bridge. But it is, in my opinion, desirable that they should be heard, and I think we should be setting a good precedent if your Lordships were to agree to the Instruction in some such words as I have suggested.
VISCOUNT CHILSTON: My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient if, on behalf of the promoters of this Bill, I stated their views. They are quite ready to agree to the instruction in the form suggested by the Lord Chairman—that is to say, they object to the Instruction so far as the words "the traffic requirements at this point of the river" are concerned, but they are prepared to agree to give a locus standi to the Royal Institute of British Architects and to the London Society, and to welcome their assistance in the matter. We think, however, that there is a good deal of misunderstanding with regard to the railway company's proposals in this Bill. Our proposals are for the strengthening of the existing bridge rather than the construction—for which we already have Parliamentary powers—of a new bridge alongside it, which we think would be a still greater disfigurement. I have heard it said that it is thought that if the bridge were afterwards removed at the instance of some philanthropic or public body for the purpose of the improvement of London, there would be more to pay in the way of compensation if the railway company's present proposals are carried out than

299
would otherwise be the case. But I would point out that the new bridge which we have already Parliamentary powers to construct alongside the existing bridge would be a much greater impediment to river traffic; and, further, it would cost a great deal more money, and consequently additional compensation would have to be paid. So far as we arc concerned, all we want to do is to strengthen the existing bridge so as to enable it to carry to the full extent the traffic which is necessary in ordinary circumstances, and which necessitates the use of very much heavier locomotives. So far as the æsthetic appearance of the present bridge is concerned, the railway company are perfectly ready to admit that it is certainly unsightly, and they would be very glad to see the bridge removed but, after all, they are practical people, not philanthropists, and they are not prepared to build a new bridge for the benefit only of those who possess æsthetic tastes. But they are quite ready to welcome the assistance of the noble Earl (Lord Plymouth) and to admit any evidence from the Royal Institute of British Architects and from the London Society; and if your Lordships would agree to the Instruction as amended by the Chairman of Committees, so far as we, the railway company, are concerned we should raise no objection.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I hope that the House will fall in with the proposition made by my noble friend the Lord Chairman and agreed to by the noble Viscount opposite. I confess that, like, I believe, the rest of the House, I assumed that the word "traffic" as used in the Instruction placed on the Paper by my noble friend whose absence we all regret, referred to river traffic and to nothing else. It never occurred to me that the further but no doubt important point of the vehicular facilities of London by carriage bridges had entered into my noble friend's contemplation. I conceive that if your Lordships give this locus standi to the societies named in the Instruction, that particular point could be raised, if desired, amongst others in the evidence which those bodies might desire to give. In those circumstances I hope that my noble friend below the Gangway (Earl Beauchamp) will agree to the amendment of the Instruction which
300
the Lord Chairman has suggested. On the general subject I would only say that I am sure we all agree that this question of a possible improvement in the appearance of the river at this point is one of supreme importance. I rejoice, therefore, that the Lord Chairman has cordially agreed to the admission of evidence of this character—rather unusual, I think I am right in saying, in Committees of your Lordships' House, but of a class which I am certain not only your Lordships but the public generally will be glad to see admitted.
LORD DEVONPORT: My Lords, I desire to take the opportunity of saying that the Instruction as it appears on the Paper did seem to impinge on the statutory rights of the Port of London Authority, and I am glad to hear that the wording of the Instruction is to be amended in a form which will give us no apprehension. I may remind your Lordships that Parliament committed to the predecessors of the Port of London Authority the control of the navigation of the river. We, the Port of London Authority, have inherited that responsibility, and we naturally watch every application that comes to Parliament to execute works or do anything that is calculated to impair or to interfere with in any shape or form the navigation of the river. We are petitioners against this Bill not with any hostile intention, but merely for the purpose of enabling us to have a locus standi to watch these important interests. It is satisfactory to understand that there is no desire to interfere with our statutory rights. That, of course, would be an unwarrantable interference with the powers and duties conferred upon the Port Authority by Parliament. So far as I am concerned, I shall be happy to support the Instruction in its amended form.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I am glad to think that we are all very near agreement in regard to this matter. I do not think there is any point of substance between us. But I submit to the Lord Chairman that his Amendment, to which I have no objection on any other ground, omits the use of the word "traffic." I do not know whether the noble Earl could see his way to the insertion of words providing that the Committee should consider "the treatment of traffic generally at this point of the river." That would bring in the question of traffic. If objection

301
is taken to the insertion of some such words as these, I would suggest the postponement of this discussion so that we may have an opportunity of agreeing upon the wording of the Instruction. The striking out of the word "traffic" makes a very big difference in the Instruction as it appears on the Paper.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: If the noble Earl would insert "road" before "traffic," I would have no objection to his proposed words. But I object to any suggestion of including water traffic.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I suggest the words "vehicular traffic."
VISCOUNT CHILSTON: If the noble Earl presses for the insertion of these words, I think the debate should be adjourned. The whole effect of the Instruction is altered, and it is only right that the promoters of the Bill should have time to consider the new words.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: The most convenient course, in my opinion, would be to pass the Instruction this afternoon in the form to which we are all agreed. It is not my intention to ask any of your Lordships' Committees to sit before Easter. There would therefore be plenty of time for the noble Earl who originally gave notice of this Instruction to raise the matter again, if he desired to do so, before the Committee sits.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I think that in the circumstances it would be much better to postpone the discussion on the whole matter. That would enable us to agree upon a form of words to which no objection could be taken in any part of the House. I therefore move that the discussion on the Motion for the Second Reading be adjourned until, say, Tuesday next, if that suits the convenience of noble Lords.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, the further debate adjourned to Tuesday next.

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
Treaty Series, No. 2 (1916)—Agreement between the United Kingdom and France concerning the exchange of Post Office Money Orders between the Seychelles and Madagascar; signed at Paris, 31st January 1916:
Miscellaneous, No. 7 (1916)—Further correspondence with the German Government respecting the incidents alleged to have attended the sinking of a German submarine and its crew by His Majesty's Auxiliary Cruiser "Baralong" on 19th August, 1915 (in continuation of "Miscellaneous, No. 1 (1916)" [Cd. 8144]):
Colonies (Annual)— No. 875. Mauritius (Report for 1914); No. 877. Trinidad and Tobago (Report for 1914–1915):
Births, Deaths and Marriages (England and Wales)—Seventy-seventh Annual Report of the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages in England and Wales, 1914:
Local Taxation (Ireland)—Returns for the year 1914–1915:
Church Estates Commission—Sixty-fifth Report from the Church Estates Commissioners for the year preceding 1st March 1916:
Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland—Report on the Trade in Imports and Exports at Irish Ports for the year ended 31st December 1914:
National Insurance Acts—Second Report on the work of the National Insurance Audit Department, 1915:
Ceylon War Contribution—Treasury Minute, dated 25th February 1916, showing the manner in which instalments of the Ceylon War Contribution will be applied:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889—Annual Statistical Report by the University Court of the University of Glasgow to the Secretary for Scotland under the provisions of the Act for the year 1914–1915:
Naval Prize Act, 1864 and Naval Agency and Distribution Act, 1864—Order in Council, dated 29th February 1916, providing for the distribution of Prize Money amongst the officers and crew of His Majesty's Ships of War entitled thereto:
Naval and Marine Pay and Pensions Act, 1865—Orders in Council, dated 29th February 1916, approving memorials of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty made under the Act:
Liverpool Cathedral Act, 1902—Order in Council, dated 29th February 1916, approving a scheme of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for substituting the Chapel of St. Nicholas for the Church of St. Peter as the Parish Church of Liverpool, and for effecting certain measures incidental thereto:
Penal Servitude Acts, 1853–1891 (Conditional Licence)—Licence granted to a convict discharging her from Aylesbury Convict Prison on condition that she enters a home:
Munitions Tribunals (Appeal) Rules—Rules, dated 2nd March 1916, for regulating Appeals from Munitions Tribunals in England and Wales, made in pursuance of Section 18 of the Munitions of War (Amendment) Act, 1916, by the Lord Chancellor:
Shops Act, 1912—

1. Closing Order made by the Urban District Council of Donaghadee;

2. Order made by the Council of the Urban District of Cleethorpes-with-Thrunscoe and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, affecting a certain class of shops within the said Urban District:

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 provisions of The North British Railway Order are of such a character that they ought to be dealt with by Private Bill and not by Provisional Order: That, save as aforesaid, the Provisional Orders be allowed to proceed, subject to such recommendations as may hereafter be made with respect to the several Orders:
Duchy of Cornwall—An Account of the Receipts and Disbursements of the Duchy of Cornwall in the year ended 31st December 1915:
Duchy of Lancaster—Account of the Receipts and Disbursements of the Duchy of Lancaster in the year ended 21st December 1915, also a separate account of the capital of the said Duchy to same date:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

POSTHUMOUS HONOURS.
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether they see any valid reason why posthumous honours should not be granted in the case of officers and men who have been killed in His Majesty's service, and who would, had they lived, have received either the Distinguished Service Order, the Military Cross, the Distinguished Service Cross, the Distinguished Conduct Medal, or the Distinguished Service Medal.
The subject of my Question may at first right seem one of slight importance, but I venture to say that it would be a mistake to accept this conclusion without further consideration. It may be said that my Question is one of pure sentiment Granted. But the most important of human actions and often the most noble have been dictated by motives of sentiment. Over and over again in the world's history men and women have willingly laid down their lives for matters of sentiment, and nations have preferred poverty and sentiment to riches and material welfare. The progress of ages and the advance of civilisation have made absolutely no difference in the power of this motive. Indeed, I am not at all sure that it could not be proved that sentiment is stronger in the present day than it ever was at any time in the history of the world. I am not going to depart from the general lines of my Question by proving this; but I may say, in the case of one instance—my own country—that I think the Irish have shown the extraordinary enduring power of sentiment against what many would consider their own interest. The truth of the strength of sentiment must be patent to all who give the matter a moment's consideration. This being so, a wise Government will, I think, always be careful not to ignore sentiment if it can be helped, and will utilise it for the benefit of the State and the community and to the noblest ends.
A flag is a mere piece of bunting, and the Victoria Cross, the most coveted distinction

305
which can be bestowed by His Majesty, is not made of gold but of bronze. It is sentiment that gives a value to the bunting and to the bronze. To defend the bunting from insult and to win a small piece of bronze men are daily willingly giving up their lives. In the case of the Victoria Cross they know that if they have performed a deed worthy of such reward, even if they die in its performance, the medal will be treasured in their families and will keep the remembrance of their names and of their valour green for many generations; it will be a stimulus to those who follow them to act nobly, and, if need be, to die gloriously. I believe that this assurance materially enhances the value of the Victoria Cross; and my object in asking the Question on the Paper is to express a hope that, unless very good reasons can be shown to the contrary, other medals and orders, including those I have named, may also be given a posthumous character.
The French are well aware of the value of posthumous honours, and since I put the Notice on your Lordships' Paper I have seen a most touching illustration of the way in which they realise the importance of this sentiment. Your Lordships may have seen it. It is a picture of a French General with a line of children and of ladies in mourning drawn up in front of him, and he is presenting medals to the orphan children and to the widows for services performed by those who have died gloriously for their country. I hope that His Majesty's Government may be able to give, not only a sympathetic reply, but a reply which will show that they intend to go beyond words and proceed to deeds. In this war, the greatest war that Britain or the world has ever entered into, we must not go by precedent, because there are no precedents on this occasion. We have to do everything we can to win this war. We cannot neglect sentiment, and I earnestly beseech His Majesty's Government to give some practical result to any debate that there may be on this subject to-night.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I desire most strongly to endorse the hope which the noble Earl has expressed that this matter will receive the favourable consideration of His Majesty's Government. There is, perhaps, no question in which officers of the Army now on service and also non-commissioned officers and men are more concerned than this one of posthumous honours. I have had many letters on this
306
subject. I have lately seen officers from the Front, Staff officers as well as officers attached to Infantry and Cavalry regiments, and when they heard that this question was to be raised they all said it was really a vital one. I could give reasons for this matter being of such a vital nature. The present procedure is unfortunate and peculiar. An officer may greatly distinguish himself in the first phase of a week's action in France or elsewhere, and he may be noted for the Military Cross. I do not speak of the Victoria Cross, because where the man dies that honour is given posthumously. But the officer may be absolutely noted for the Military Cross, and he may be killed at the end of the week. The fact of his death entirely obliterates any notice that would have been taken of the gallant services of that officer and the bestowal of the Cross. He may, of course, be mentioned in Despatches, but the Despatches may not come out for two or even three months.
I was told only yesterday of an officer who in leading only unit was five times wounded. He was noted for great gallantry. He refused to leave the field, and after his fifth wound he was still leading and encouraging his men. The sixth wound proved fatal. That is a case which surely deserves posthumous honours. Then take two officers of the same battalion who in an engagement distinguish themselves greatly. One is considered worthy of the Victoria Cross, and the other nearly deserving of the Victoria Cross. The latter would naturally he noted for the Military Cross or for some other decoration. Those two officers are killed. The family of the one gets the Victoria Cross; the family of the other nothing. This matter deserves the consideration of the Government, not only in regard to the injustice which is done to the memory of these gallant officers, but also in the interests of the widows and the parents of those who are killed. In The Times a few days ago there appeared a letter describing a case which is quite typical of what we are discussing. A major had greatly distinguished himself, had, been thanked by his Brigadier, and mentioned in Despatches. He was severely wounded and died before the decoration which he had earned could be bestowed, leaving a widow and three sons. His widow stated bow helpful it would be to her in bringing up her boys as patriotic and loyal English

307
men if she could have shown them the decoration won by their father in defence of his King and country.
I have received many letters—not now but in the past—from relatives of officers who have died, expressing exactly the same views, and saying what a comfort it would have been to them if they could have possessed the decoration which they were told by the officer commanding the regiment, or perhaps by a higher authority, would have been awarded to the deceased officer had he lived. In the old days there were what were called "forlorn-hopes," but we all know that in this war there have been forlorn-hopes frequently and often. I know many cases in which units have been led against trenches and it has eventually been found that the wire entanglements had not been destroyed. Faced by the machine guns of the enemy, these units have gone forward without a pause and have died before they could get to the trenches which they were attacking. In no other war, perhaps, have there ever been such a number of gallant actions as there have been in this. It is very difficult to see what arguments can be advanced against the granting of the noble Earl's request; everything is in favour of it. No doubt in the case of the older orders the Chancelleries might object to this change, and it is the fact, perhaps, that their charters would be against it; but in the case of the new orders that have been instituted there could be no possible objection. No community has suffered in this war more than, or perhaps as much as, the Peerage. I believe there have been more losses, both by deaths and wounds, among the relatives of members of this House than, relatively to their numbers, among any other class in the community. We in the Army, and I speak in the name of many officers in the Army—the heads of the Army in the Field, the various Generals, and I need not say the regimental officers—as well as non-commissioned officers and men, absolutely and entirely desire and trust that the Government will grant this concession.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, I desire to add a few words in support of the alteration in the Regulations which has been suggested. This is a change which it is desired by a very large number of people in the country should be made. It is felt that those who give combatant
308
service to the State and receive inferior pay to that awarded to those engaged in the civil and non-combatant service of the State should certainly, in the matter of honours, stand at all events in as good a position as those employed in less dangerous work. A Civil Servant who serves his country well and long, provided he lives, in time gets his reward and is granted an honour. But it is entirely different in the Army and Navy. Unfortunately many of the bravest and best are cut off in the prime of life, and consequently never receive those rewards and honours which in the course of their career they have merited time after time. There can be no doubt that modern war has largely revolutionised the way of looking at these things. In modern war, owing to the terrible destructive power of modern explosives, the chance of surviving is less and less, and those who are brave and lead their troops with skill and foresight are unfortunately less likely to survive. Therefore the case is all the stronger that the relatives of those men who have earned honours and rewards by their bravery should receive the honours and in that way know that they have been earned. At present a man who has shown most conspicuous bravery may be killed in battle or die of wounds soon afterwards. No doubt his commanding officer, his brother officers, his comrades in arms, will write sympathetic letters to his relatives and friends, and tell of the glorious way in which he died and of the noble work which he performed. That must be a great solace to sorrowing hearts, but it seems to me that on an occasion like that the State might at least give a posthumous honour so that the man's name may go down to posterity as an example to those who come after him. I hope that this proposal will receive sympathetic consideration at the hands of His Majesty's Government.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I most cordially support what has been said by the noble Earl and by the noble and gallant Field-Marshal. No words of mine could add to the force of the observations which they have addressed to your Lordships. I feel specially what the noble Earl (Lord Meath) said about sentiment. Sentiment always has been, is, and always will be the strongest force by which mankind is moved; and I am well aware that among the ranks of the Army and among sorrowing and

309
anxious relatives at home the sentiment is very strong in the direction of giving posthumous orders or decorations to those whom they have lost. And I cannot conceive, as the noble and gallant Field-Marshal said, that there can be any valid objection to this proposal. The line might be taken that there should be no posthumous honours. That might be argued. But it cannot be said, when one order is posthumous, that the concession may not be conceded of other orders. And we must remember that in the allocation of orders for gallant action it is very difficult to say exactly where the line of the Victoria Cross comes and that of the next lower decoration. It is a question which cannot be decided with absolute certainty. Therefore it must happen that men who might have gained the Victoria Cross lose it, and no permanent record remains for their families of their gallant deeds. By allowing these symbols of honour and patriotism to remain as a permanent possession and a heirloom in many humble homes, you will, I am sure, do much to develop patriotism among the people of this country.
THE DUKE OF RUTLAND: My Lords, this is a matter which has been brought to my notice on several occasions in those counties with which I am closely connected, and I firmly believe that at this juncture of our history no act would be more welcomed by the relatives of the men who have died for their country than the granting of posthumous honours as suggested by the noble Earl. There is a very strong feeling existent that the line which has always been taken in this respect by our gallant French Allies should be followed by us, and I cannot see any valid reason for not doing so. The only objection that I can conceive is that there is no precedent for it. If that is one of the objections which are going to be put forward by His Majesty's Government, all I can say is that I trust they will reconsider their decision. In these days the word "precedent," as regards the services of the Army and the Navy, ought to be ruled out of court altogether. It is an accursed word at the present moment. Precedent and red tape, I believe, have done as much harm to us in this war as a whole German division, and ought to be eliminated. What is wanted is speed so long as efficacy is joined to it, and speed is very often gravely diminished by our old friend "red tape";
310
and this is so closely allied to the word "precedent" that I could not help referring to it. The thousands of gallant deeds which have been done in this war are not only deserving of a record in the newspapers, but are deserving of the insignia which mark those gallant deeds being handed down to the families of these men. Even on a lower ground than that, consider the amount of extra patriotic feeling that would be caused if the medals and other decorations won by those who have been killed in their gallant efforts for their King and country were sent to their relatives at home. It is an important point, and one which should be carefully considered by the Government. Nowadays not one single thing that can, so to speak, "keep the home fires burning" should be omitted, and I hope that the Government will sweep away front their minds all idea of precedent, and consider this question from a broad, national point of view.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, it is now over thirty years since I first had the honour of representing the War Office as Under-Secretary of State. Five or six years after that I again had the honour of that responsibility, and now five and twenty years later I find myself for the third time representing this Department. The overwhelming duties of the Secretary of State for War prevent his frequent attendance in your Lordships' House, and, if I may say so with great respect, it will at all times be a great pleasure to me, within my duty and to the best of my ability, to endeavour to give your Lordships any information that yon may desire.
I am sure we have all listened with great interest and sympathy to the speeches that have been made, and I will make it my duty to report personally to the Secretary of State what has been said by the noble and gallant Field-Marshal and by the other noble Lords who have spoken. Lord Meath's Question on the Paper refers to the Distinguished Service Order, the Military Cross, the Distinguished Service Cross, which deal with military matters; the Distinguished Conduct Medal and the Distinguished Service Medal, which have to do with the Admiralty—and I am instructed that as regards the two last named decorations the Admiralty will fall in with whatever is arranged. But perhaps I may be allowed to mention some others

311
that would have to be taken into consideration. There is, of course, the Companionship of the Bath and the Companionship of the Order of St. Michael and St. George, and the promotions in those orders. If your Lordships will allow me, I will state what the precise position is of these various decorations. You are all aware that the V.C., in the case of decease, is given to the next of kin—that was laid down in 1902. In the case of the C.B., the C.M.G., the D.S.O., and the Military Cross, if the intended recipient dies between the issue of the Gazette and the time of the investiture, the insignia are sent to his next of kin; and the war medals of deceased officers and men are issued to the relatives. By a General Order in 1810 the first Peninsular War medal was sent to the families of fallen officers. I find also that in 1855, after the Crimean War, and after a list of appointments to the Order of the Bath, these words appeared in the Gazette, "List of Officers of the Army and Navy who would have been recommended for the honour of the first, second, and third classes of the Bath had they survived."
I venture to say that we all sympathise, and I am sure none more so than the Secretary of State, with the intentions of Lord Meath. I think all would desire to pay this tribute to those gallant, and heroic men who have made the great sacrifice for their King and country. More than that, all would desire to meet the wishes of those relatives who have sent out their very best without scruple, have received their sad tidings with courage and without, murmur, and have gloried in the deeds of gallantry of those who have fallen. I can assure the noble Duke opposite that I do not think there is any danger of too much attention being paid to precedent. From what I have learned of my noble and gallant friend the Secretary of State for War, I do not think he is likely to be at all trammelled in that direction. But in other matters it frequently occurs, as we all know, in regard to proposals which look extremely attractive and equally simple, that when one comes to try to give them practical effect one finds that there are difficulties which at first were not apparent. So it is in this case; and perhaps I may enumerate one or two of them.
Noble Lords know that there is another method of reward for gallant conduct and
312
efficiency besides decoration—that, of brevet promotion. That promotion is, I understand, even more thoroughly appreciated—if that is the right term—by young officers than decorations, and for the obvious reason that it, may materially advance them in the profession which they love and which they so adorn. These are officers, of course, of exceptional capacity. It is manifest that one cannot, promote a deceased officer, and it has been thought that in some degree, perhaps slight, some feeling of unfairness might be created. Another point is this. It would have to be very carefully considered whether this action should be made retrospective. Again, the selection of names is always a very difficult matter in the case of posthumous honours. Whatever system was adopted, it is feared that there could not fail to be a certain amount of heartburning and disappointment on the part of some of the relatives of those whose names were not chosen. It would be difficult to satisfy every claim. But while I enumerate these difficulties I am instructed by the Secretary of State to say that he views the desire of my noble friend Lord Meath with very great sympathy—and I can assure noble Lords that he would have listened with equal sympathy to the various speeches had lie been able to be present—and that while he cannot disguise from himself the difficulties which surround the question, two or three of which I have ventured to enumerate, he will give the subject very close attention to see how far he can extend the present practice of bestowing posthumous honours. He also asked me to state in addition that, as in other campaigns, the whole matter will be dealt with at the termination of the war when the medal is issued.
THE EARL of MEATH: I am grateful to the noble Lord and to the Secretary of State for War for the reply which has been given, and I shall look forward confidently to some action being taken. I think I may say, with the support of my noble friends, that unless some action is taken we must press this matter later on. In the meantime there is one thing I should like to say. It may be argued that in some cases there is no relative sufficiently near of kin to whom to present the decoration. My humble suggestion would then be that the Government should present it to the regiment.

CONTROL OF BRITISH SHIPPING.
LORD SYDENHAM LORD SYDENHAM rose to ask His Majesty's Government—

1. What measures have been taken to regulate or restrict the chartering or purchase of British ships during the period of war.

2. What control is exercised over chartered vessels which continue to fly the British flag.

3. Has it been rendered impossible for aliens of enemy nationality to charter British vessels.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the shortage of shipping at the present moment is giving rise to many and grave difficulties, and it is tending, and may perhaps tend still further, to increase the cost of many commodities of first-class importance to the country. The main reason of this shortage is, of course, the very large number of ships which have had to be taken up for direct and indirect purposes connected with the war, which has naturally had the effect of destroying to a great extent the carrying power of the mercantile marine of the Allies for purely trade purposes. We are told that the matter is receiving the closest attention of the Government, and there is a general hope and expectation that measures will be taken to check the deplorable waste of tonnage which has occurred and at the same time to fulfil all the really necessary needs of the Army in the field. But in the present stringent circumstances it is natural that the chartering and the sale of British vessels to aliens should have given rise to a certain amount of apprehension, and I have ventured to put my Questions on your Lordships' Paper in order that the Government may be in a position to remove any doubts and to make the matter perfectly clear.
I understand that powers have recently been taken to control the operations of chartered ships by a system of licences, which prevents any one of those ships from leaving port without the permission given by the licence. I hope that method will prove effective, but I should have thought it would have been more simple to insist upon a licence being obtained before a charter was granted to an alien. There are existing restrictions upon the sale of ships to aliens, but I believe that to a great extent those restrictions have been nullified by a system of mortgaging which has lately come into use. The procedure is this: A
314
British ship is mortgaged to an alien; the mortgage is registered in the alien country; the interest is not, paid, and the mortgagee then forecloses and secures judgment in his own Courts. I believe that most neutral countries have passed legislation which prevents their ships being mortgaged in that way, and I suggest that we might do the same here, and bring this system, which seems to me to be a thoroughly wrong one, to a complete end.
I hope that the licensing system will effectually prevent a British ship under an alien flag from taking a cargo to, say, the port of Rotterdam. I mention Rotterdam, because I regard that as a particularly dangerous port and hardly a Dutch national port under the operation of the Rhine Navigation Treaties, which have taken away some of the powers of the national Government with regard to that port. It has been brought to my notice that two Germans in a neutral port have chartered British vessels since the war began, and one of them has, or had until very lately, two such ships under his charter. I do not know whether those persons have been naturalised in the country in which they reside or in this country, but in any case we now have sufficient experience to understand that naturalisation in such cases is absolutely futile. We have before us the striking spectacle of full-fledged American citizens engaged in plotting, and plotting successfully, against the lives and property of their nominal fellow-citizens. That gives one an idea of the value of naturalisation in this state of war! If chartering is not permitted without licence and without the inquiry which the granting of a licence would demand, it would prevent aliens of enemy origin from obtaining tonnage under our flag. It is with the hope that His Majesty's Government will make these important questions perfectly clear to the country that I have put the Questions which stand in my name.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I need not say that we will gladly place at the disposal of my noble friend on the Cross Benches any information in our possession as to the matters with which his Questions deal. We are, of course, all aware that until the war broke out the transfer and chartering of vessels went on without any restriction whatsoever. It soon, however, became evident that it was imperatively necessary to deal with the

315
matter. My noble friend does not at all exaggerate the immense importance of the scarcity of tonnage at the present moment, and it is clear that it is necessary to watch with the closest possible scrutiny any attempts to alienate British tonnage either permanently or for a time.
The first step was taken at the end of the year 1914, when owners of shipping were notified that they would be required to acquaint His Majesty's Government whenever there was a question of selling any ships belonging to them. But early in last year, as my noble friend is no doubt aware, a very important Act was passed through Parliament—I refer to the British Ships Transfer Registration Act. Under that Act it is laid down that no transfers are valid unless they have previously been approved by the Board of Trade; and I am able to say that this approval is given very sparingly and not without the closest scrutiny of the facts. One measure of precaution is invariably taken whenever such a transfer is permitted. A bond is required of the purchaser binding him not to use the ship for an improper purpose—by which I mean for the purpose of directly or indirectly assisting the enemy; and that bond has to be backed by a London bank. I am told that this provision acts as a very substantial deterrent in the way of any attempt to elude the provisions of the Act. Subsequently two Orders in Council were passed—one on November 10, 1915, and the other on February 15 of the present year. Under those Orders in Council no British ship registered in the United Kingdom may proceed on any voyage without licence from the Licensing Committee appointed by the Board of Trade. The earlier of those two Orders in Council, I may explain, had only reference to voyages from a foreign port to a foreign port; the later one extended the operation of the first Order, and made it apply to all voyages no matter where taken. I am assured that under these Orders in Council a very effectual control is maintained by the Transport Department of the Admiralty. It is part of the arrangement that the Transport Department receives once a month from the owners of all ships a Return showing the position and commitments of the ships. These Returns are indexed and kept up to date, so that it is possible for the Admiralty at any moment to determine within a day or two the position of a particular ship and the extent
316
and nature of her commitments. Apart from this, a very large proportion of British ships have been already requisitioned and are consequently under the direct control of His Majesty's Government.
Then my noble friend asked a Question with regard to the possibility of aliens of enemy nationality chartering British vessels. As to that, I have to say that it is certainly conceivable that there might be cases in which a British vessel was chartered by an alien enemy, acting, of course, through a neutral intermediary and thereby concealing his own identity. My noble friend evidently had in his mind some nefarious conspiracy of that kind when he spoke just now of a case in which the vessel in question had been mortgaged and in some way or other the transaction had been masked in that manner. These things are no doubt conceivable, and I am not prepared to say that they never happen, but I am assured that it is very difficult, indeed, for them to happen. All these operations are closely watched. They are watched not only by our own Consuls in all parts of the world, but to some extent by the trade rivals of the people concerned, who are apt to give a useful hint if anything of the kind is happening. We believe that under the present system of close control it should be possible to reduce to a minimum the risk of any such evasions of the Act and of the Orders in Council. I need not say that if my noble friend is able to put his finger upon any weak spots in the present system and to offer us suggestions as to the manner in which the present arrangements might be tightened up we shall gladly avail ourselves of his suggestions. But in the meantime, according to the information which reaches me, there is not any very serious risk of an abuse of the present arrangements.
LORD SYDENHAM: I have to thank the noble Marquess for his full and reassuring reply. As regards the case of the two Germans to which I have referred, I gave the names of the people and of the two ships that had been chartered to an official of the Admiralty, so that it is all in their hands.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Six o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.