Lords Sitting of 29 March 1916

WESTON-SUPER-MARE GRAND PIER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
Miscellaneous, No. 8 (1916)—Further correspondence with the United States' Ambassador respecting the safety of alien enemies repatriated from India on the SS. "Golconda" (in continuation of "Miscellaneous, No. 4 (1916)" [Cd. 8163]):
War Organisation in the Distributing Trades in Scotland—Second Report of the Committee appointed by the Secretary for Scotland:
Board of Agriculture and Fisheries—Annual Report of Proceedings under the Diseases of Animals Acts, the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Acts, &c., &c., for the year 1915:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.—
Shops Act, 1912—Order made by the Council of the Borough of Eccles and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department affecting a certain class of shops within tile Borough:
Army (Territorial Force)—Schemes made by the Army Council under the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, for the establishment and constitution of Associations for the Counties of—

1. Bedford;

2. Salop:

Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1914—Order, No. 9720, dated 20th March 1916, defining a Foreign Animals Quarantine Station at No. 2 Basin, Chatham Dockyard, for the purposes of the Foreign Animals (Quarantine) Order of 1896:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be suspended for this day's sitting in order to take the First and Second Readings of the following Bill:
Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.
(The Lord President (M. Crewe)); agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

ABERDEEN CORPORATION WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Stanniore.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH rose to move, after Clause 39, to insert the following new clause—
The Corporation shall apply for and use their best efforts to obtain an order for authority to make and maintain a reservoir for the purpose of providing compensation water for and in respect of the water authorised to be abstracted under the provisions of this Order provided always that until such reservoir is completed and capable of discharging compensation water the Corporation shall not be entitled to exercise any of the powers of the section of this Order of which the marginal note is "Power to take additional water from River Dee."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is at this stage of the proceedings upon this Bill that it falls to me, in accordance with the notice which I have given, to move the insertion of a clause which has been printed and before your Lordships for some days. I greatly regret the necessity of raising any question which even seems to appertain to the merits of a Private Bill upon the Third Reading, but we are shut up to that course by the necessities of the procedure on this class of Bills. There is no other opportunity on which any Amendment can be made or any discussion take place in the House which is not the House of origination of the Bill but upon the stage of the Third Reading. The excuse which I have for presenting to-day the case which I hope I shall make out to your Lordships' satisfaction is on account of what I regard as the importance of the principle which seems to me to be involved, and I suggest that if this Bill passes under all the circumstances in which it comes before your Lordships without any provision for compensation water, your Lordships will have made a precedent which will be founded on in future cases, and you will have made an innovation on a practice which has ruled, I think, practically in every case of this kind for something like a quarter of a century—namely

513
that there shall not be abstraction of water from any stream unless due provision is made for compensation water.
This is not merely a fishery question. The Dee, of course, is a famous river for salmon fishery, and it may be the object of some of those who are on the side opposed to that which I am representing to-day to attempt to get an ad captandum argument, saying "How can you compare the importance of water for the large population of a city like Aberdeen and the selfish interests of a few people who are interested in the fishing" It involves a much larger question than that; and this, Parliament has recognised in times past. There are questions of amenity, in some parts of the country of water for mills, and all the various rights which riparian owners possess. I would be the first to agree that a great city like that of Aberdeen must not only have water, but an adequate supply. I go further and say that I believe that, situated as it is at the mouth of the Dee, it is not only natural but right that it should draw its supply from the watershed of that river, but it should be upon fair and proper terms, upon terms which are reasonable and fair having regard to all the other interests involved. I am not going to argue on the merits of this part of the case, but I think I am right in saying, from such perusal of the evidence as I have had an opportunity of getting, that it is practically admitted on both sides that a reservoir sufficient to provide proper compensation for the water which is now proposed to be abstracted could be provided for something like £35,000 or £40,000.
The proposal in this Bill is to take 3,000,000 gallons a day from the Dee—that is, in addition to 8,000,000 gallons which are taken under previous powers—and the Order giving power to take this water went before a body of Commissioners in Scotland under the Private Bill Procedure Act. It was opposed by various interests—by the district board of the river and by an association of salmon fishery owners; and the objection, I believe practically the only objection, taken to the Bill was that no compensation water was provided and that this was contrary to the practically universal Parliamentary system. The Inquiry was held in October of last year, before the noble Lord opposite, Lord Southwark with whom sat Lord Moray and two members of the other House of Parliament. I am not going to discuss the
514
merits of any particular proposal involved either in this Bill or in the case of the opponents.
The promoters of the Bill put forward two objections, as I understand, to giving compensation water—first, that it was impossible for the proprietors to prove damage; and, secondly, that there was a distinction between what they described as upland or impounding schemes and lowland or abstracting schemes for supplying water. I am not able to understand any reason of difference between those two classes of schemes, because both classes have been before Commissioners at various times during the last quarter of a century in Scotland, and I think I am right in saving that in no single case has the scheme been passed without a provision for compensation water. On the other hand, the opponents maintained that, although the proposed abstraction would cause injury to the fishing interests, the necessity for providing compensation water did not rest upon evidence of damage or probable damage, but was a matter founded upon Parliamentary precedent; and they quoted precedents which to my mind are perfectly satisfactory—one at the town of Wishaw, upon the lower waters of the Clyde, where the fishing interests are negligible but other interests are great; and again in the case of Arbroath, where a clause very similar to the one which is proposed by me to-day was, as I understand, inserted in the Order. I know it will be said that what is proposed to be taken—the 3,000,000 gallons a day—is an infinitesimal proportion of the flow of the water, but in those cases which I have quoted—Wishaw and Arbroath—upon their respective streams the proportion of water which was taken was much less in reference to the flow of the stream than in the case of the Dee; yet the promoters of those Bills had to provide a proper amount of compensation water. As regards the second contention of the promoters, the opponents argue that their attempted distinction is fallacious, as I venture to suggest to your Lordships it is.
But the striking thing which I want specially to call your Lordships' attention to is this, that during the course of the Inquiry last October before the noble Lord opposite and his colleagues the promoters admitted having received from various water engineers of more or less eminence at various times reports upon alternative

515
water schemes for the supply of Aberdeen, and it was common understand it, that in practically every such scheme where water was proposed to he abstracted from the River Dee or any of its tributaries or from other rivers provision was always made for compensation water. I am confident that the noble Lord who presided over the Inquiry (Lord Southwark) will say, "This is an infinitesimal amount of water to take, and it really does not very much matter. They are taking 8,000,000 gallons now without compensation, and this is a very small extension of the same power." We have heard that class of defence in other cases. In this case it is a singularly futile one, because if you look at the history of what the Aberdeen Corporation have done in the past you will find that in 1910 they promoted an Order, which was heard as a to take water from the River Avon, which is not in the same watershed as the Dee. It is, as a matter of fact, in a watershed of the Spey. At that time they proposed to take 10,000,000 gallons, with power to extend to 20,000,000 gallons. They went out of the watershed of the Dee and agreed to compensation. In the course of that Inquiry their own counsel, Mr. Balfour Browne, well known as an experienced counsel to many of your Lordships, in arguing his case before that Committee said—
"In my opinion any Committee of Parliament would refuse to let another drop of water he taken from the river without giving compensation. Therefore I should advise the Corporation to that effect. The Corporation would he right, in going to Parliament for works at Cairnton, to allow for compensation water."
And he added—
"In any scheme for taking further water from the River Dee at that place compensation water would have to be given."
That same opinion was supported by all the engineers for the Corporation—by Sir Alexander Binnie, Mr. Hawksley, Mr. E. B. Taylor, and Mr. Benjamin Hall Blyth, all employed by the Corporation to give evidence.
I will not quote more than one, but I will venture, on account of the importance of the matter involved, to give the words of Mr. Hall Blyth—
"At present we know that there is no compensation given for the 8,000,000 gallons taken out of the River Dee. In my view, and if I were acting for the proprietors, if it was proposed to ask for an increased supply I should advise the people to ask Parliament to give compensation not only for the increased supply but for the whole
516
supply coming out of the River Dee. The question of compensation is year by year getting more important. Not only from the point of view of the proprietor—whether he is a salmon fishery owner, or a mill owner, or merely taking all interest in the beauty of his estate—but I think from a national point of view compensation ought to he given in the fullest possible quantity every time water is abstracted from any stream."
I should not go so far as Mr. Hall Blyth. I should not think it fair to ask the Corporation to give compensation water in respect of water which they have enjoyed for half a century. That, I think, would be unfair. But I do think it is unreasonable at this time of day for the Corporation to ask Parliament to give them power to take more water from the Dee without giving compensation in return.
No doubt the noble Lord opposite will say "Oh, but this 3,000,000 gallons a day is only such and such a fraction of an inch of the supply at ordinary times, and is not worth considering." But what I want to point out to the House in answer to that is this, that according to the Corporation's own admission six years ago they wanted 10,000,000 gallons. They knew that they could not get that without compensation. They lost that Bill for reasons with which I am not concerned. I do not know what they were, but it is quite clear that they want a great deal more water than the 3,000,000 gallons. They are not rash enough to come and ask for more now, because they know that they would be condemned in compensation; but they are endeavouring in a small way to establish a principle in order that hereafter they may plead it as a precedent and come for a great addition to the water. That is the apprehension of those for whom I am venturing to speak.
I will not detain your Lordships many minutes more, but I always look on these occasions at the statement which is put in against the view which I hold, and I find that I always learn more from my opponents' statement than I do from the statement which is put in on the side for which I happen to be arguing. I hold in my hand the Statement of the Aberdeen Corporation in support of the Bill which has been circulated to your Lordships and in paragraph 5 I find it is said—
"The Dee at Cairnton is a large river, the intake being many miles from the source of the stream, and the quantity of water to be taken by the Corporation under the powers of the Order would be inappreciable."
I say in the first place, in answer to that,

517
that any abstraction of water is material; but your Lordships will see how material it is when you know from the figures and from the Corporation's own action that they want 10,000,000 gallons, and in a very short time they will have to come and ask for it. Again, in paragraph 10 of this Statement on behalf of the Aberdeen Corporation mention is made of the visit to the intake works on the Dee which the noble Lord opposite and colleagues undertook while they were sitting at Aberdeen. I have no doubt they had a very pleasant outing in beautiful scenery, but I am informed that, so far as practical purposes were concerned, their visit was quite useless, because the river was in about half-flood at the time and they could form from that visit absolutely no judgment of what the effect of taking water out of the Dee at the summer level would be.
I frankly admit that there is one strong point against the side which I am arguing, and that is the time at which this opposition is brought before your Lordships. I am familiar with the terms of the Scottish Private Bill Procedure Act. It provides, amongst other things, that if there is to be a Petition against a Bill it must be in the House in which the Confirming Bill originates. That, in this case, was the other House of Parliament. By unfortunate circumstances for which the opponents are not responsible they have been prevented from bringing their opposition to a point, in the other House of Parliament. Notice was given. A distinguished member of that House, well qualified to take up the case, had it in hand and was going to speak for it. He was prevented at the last moment owing to circumstances beyond his control from being present, and he handed over the case to a friend. That friend was not familiar with the procedure and misunderstood the course he had to take, and by an accident, for which I certainly cannot hold him responsible but for which those whom lie was representing were not responsible, they were foreclosed from taking the action in the other House of Parliament which would, without doubt, have procured the re-hearing for which I am asking. In those circumstances I venture to say that, having regard to the importance of the principle involved, it is reasonable that this House should give an opportunity of a second hearing, which is really all that I am asking in the clause which I have ventured to put before your Lordships.
In paragraph 17 of the Aberdeen Corporation's Statement it is said—
"The effect of the proposed clause is to bind the Corporation to apply for statutory authority in some future session to construct a large compensation reservoir, which must necessarily be very costly."
I say boldly that this is not accurate. It is not a large compensation reservoir which is wanted. Their own engineers agreed that one to supply the water necessary could be constructed at a cost of about £35,000 or £40,000. Then towards the end of the Corporation's Statement there is the usual sort of peroration—
"The Corporation are advised that a clause such as that now proposed is Unprecedented."
I venture to say that this does not apply to Scotland. I believe I am right in saying that in no single instance in Scotland during the last quarter of a century has water been allowed to be taken from a river, wherever it is situated, in whatever circumstances it is proposed to be taken, without a compensation reservoir and without compensation water being insisted upon. It is for those reasons―on account of the importance of the principle involved; on account of, as I think, the absolute injustice which will be perpetrated upon those who own certain interests in the River Dee—that I venture very respectfully but very earnestly to urge your Lordships to pass this clause.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 39 insert the following clause:—
"As to compensation water.
The Corporation shall apply for and use their best efforts to obtain an order for authority to make and maintain a reservoir for the purpose of providing compensation water for and in respect of the water authorised to be abstracted under the provisions of this order provided always that until such reservoir is completed and capable of discharging compensation water the Corporation shall not be entitled to exercise any of the powers of the section of this order of which the marginal note is Power to take additional water from River Dee.' "—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I am sure we have all heard with considerable pleasure the interesting speech which the noble Lord has just delivered, but I am bound to say that for myself I should have preferred to have heard him refer more to the evidence that was taken before the Commission over which I had the honour to preside than the evidence taken and the views expressed by counsel in previous cases. The noble Lord referred

519
to something which Mr. Balfour Browne had said in a previous case. We are all very much interested in listening to counsel, but we do not always take their advice. I notice that on that particular occasion Mr. Balfour Browne stated what he would do on another occasion if it should ever arise, and having said that he added, "I do not know whether they would take my advice." I am sure they would not have taken his advice.
The clause which Lord Balfour of Burleigh has moved to-day would practically mean the throwing out of this Bill or putting the Corporation of Aberdeen to the expense of coming to Parliament and entering again upon perhaps, and most likely, another long and expensive Parliamentary water contest, for which in the unanimous opinion of the Commission over which I presided in Aberdeen for six days there is no real or substantial justification. I must state that my brother Commissioners, the Earl of Moray, Sir John M. McCallum, M.P., and Mr. A. C. Morton, M.P., were all men of considerable experience in water matters, and we were unanimous in our decision that compensation water ought not to be given. The feeling of the Commissioners was earnestly in this direction, that if any real, fair, or common sense case could be made out for giving compensation water it ought to be given, but this, in our opinion, after the closest inquiry, was not established. The noble Lord who has moved this clause has not produced any evidence to say "Here is a strong point. See what was said by this witness and that witness in favour of giving compensation water, and the necessity for it."
What are your Lordships now asked to do? You are asked either to re-try the case without hearing or reading the evidence, or you are asked practically to state that no water shall be taken in future from the Dee or any other river, whether substantial harm is done or not, without giving full compensation in water. This was not the law in 1862, nor in 1885, nor is it the law now; otherwise I suppose we should not have been entrusted as a Commission with the Inquiry as to whether in this case compensation should or should not be given. Originally the petitioners' case was that the scheme was unnecessary and that the city did not require more water. We had taken very little evidence
520
on that point before the petitioners admitted that the scheme was necessary, and then it practically resolved itself into whether compensation water should or should not be given. Nobody disputed that in other cases—in the majority of cases, if you like—compensation has been given, and rightly given because real and substantial damage was done. In this case we, the Commissioners, say that no real and substantial damage will be done, and that the Corporation and people of Aberdeen ought not to be put to wasteful expenditure.
In 1862 the Act was opposed by proprietors of salmon fisheries, but 6,000,000 gallons a day were given without compensation. In 1885 a further 2,000,000 gallons a day were given without any opposition from salmon fishery proprietors, showing clearly that they were under no grievance in the loss of the previous 6,000,000 gallons. And now in 1915, at the Inquiry over which I had the honour to preside, another 3,000,000 gallons were asked for, and we granted the request without compensation because we found, like our predecessors who bad investigated this Aberdeen water question, that there was no real grievance. The total decrease in depth of water in the River Dee through the 8,000,000 gallons being extracted is only a quarter of an inch at the intake, and, as your Lordships know, after a short distance that quarter of an inch disappears and it is absolutely impossible to find any shortage. Indeed, there is no shortage of water, because I am given to understand that water comes in in other directions and makes up for the loss. The additional 3,000,000 gallons which we propose to give in this Bill will make a further difference of three-sixteenths of an inch. It would cost the Corporation of Aberdeen at least £37,000 to make the reservoirs in respect of this possible loss of three-sixteenths of an inch of water where no damage has been proved as likely to arise, and in tie opinion of the Commissioners this would be a wicked and unnecessary expense to which to put the Corporation. The noble Lord referred to the fact that there are plenty of sites where these reservoirs could be placed. I admit that. But the Commissioners thought that there was no occasion to make use of any of those sites, because they did not think it right that the Corporation of Aberdeen should be put to this expense.

521
We have delayed the execution of this work in consequence of war time and not wishing to put the Corporation of Aberdeen to immediate expense. But if the proposed clause were now inserted in the Bill the Corporation would be put to the expense of coming to Parliament again, of going through all the details with the Scottish Office, of preparing plans and estimates, of advertising, and would then run the risk of any Bill that might be promoted being rejected and this water fight of Aberdeen might be continued for years at great expense. The noble Lord referred to our interesting visit to the intake. It Was an enjoyable afternoon, but I do not think any of us wont there as experts. Certain points have been raised regarding procedure. I believe the noble Earl the Lord Chairman is going to speak, and I am sure he will not allow any irregularity to pass unnoticed. Therefore I will not deal with that matter. I will only say, in conclusion, that I think we should be doing great injustice to the Corporation and to the population of Aberdeen if we delayed their having an opportunity of taking this additional water from the River Dee.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, I have no personal interest in this matter, but I am bound to say that I sympathise very much with the action taken by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, on this ground and on this ground only—that I think it is a very dangerous precedent to allow water to be taken unless provision is made for some compensation. Any one who has had experience of the degree to which the counties round London, such as Hertfordshire and other counties, have suffered from the abstraction of water will appreciate what I mean. I fully realise that it is of paramount and indisputable importance that a great city like Aberdeen should have all the water it requires, and that no sentimental or unreasonable obstacle should be placed in the way of her getting that water at a reasonable cost. But we are told—and I think it follows from the figures which have been given us in the course of this discussion—that compensation water can be provided at such a price that it would not be any very serious charge on the ratepayers of Aberdeen.
There is one other point I wish to make. The noble Lord who has just spoken referred to the fact that Aberdeen had been given
522
power to abstract water on former occasions without any compensation water being provided for, and he quoted that as forming a precedent why they should not afford any compensation now. It seems to me that this rather adds insult to injury. I view with a great deal of suspicion the fact that unless compensation as a principle is given for the abstraction of water it will be taken that having passed this measure in this form a precedent has been set up in regard to future cases. That seems to me to be the real governing principle, and it is on that principle and on that principle alone that, if the noble Lord divides, I shall think it my duty to vote with him in favour of the insertion of this clause. I do not understand that the noble Lord opposite is accurate when he says that the effect of inserting this clause will be to reopen the whole question. On the other hand, the clause will have a very limited effect indeed.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: My Lords, as I have lived all my life on the Dee I should like to say a word in this discussion. We look upon this as a matter of whether or not this reservoir is worth while. There is an association, which I founded in 1871, of proprietors on the Dee, and it has done most successful work in taking the nets off the river. When the question of opposing, this Bill came before us we were not harmonious as to whether we as an association should oppose it. But a large number of the proprietors—I was not one of them—agreed to put forward as a syndicate their opposition to the Bill before the Commissioners in Aberdeen. They fought this question and heard the evidence that was given, and they were satisfied from the evidence that the reservoir which was proposed and the giving of compensation was not worth the cost that it would involve. Lord Balfour and Lord Portsmouth said in an airy manner that this proposed reservoir would cost only about £30,000. I know that the estimate of what the reservoir would cost, apart from the purchase of the land, is four or five times more than the sum quoted by the noble Lords, for no reservoir would he of any use unless it contained 200,000,000 gallons of water. Your Lordships should realise that the ordinary flow of the River Dee is 500,000,000 gallons a day, and the lowest quantity that ever flows in the summer has been taken at 120,000,000 gallons. These 3,000,000 gallons which it is proposed to abstract will only lower the river, as Lord

523
Southwark said, by three-sixteenths of an inch. As one devoted to salmon fishing and an ardent supporter of salmon fishing on the River Dee, I cannot in my heart call upon the town of Aberdeen to go to the enormous expense of building a useless reservoir simply for raising the River Dee three-sixteenths of an inch in order to hope that salmon would get up. The fact is, the taking of this extra 3,000,000 gallons will have no effect whatever on the river, and I therefore oppose the insertion of this clause.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord opposite (Lord Balfour) will believe that I am perfectly sincere when I say that there is nothing. I dislike more than differing from him upon any point as regards Private Bill procedure, and, even further than that, differing from him on any point as regards salmon fishing. I do not think I could argue seriously upon which of the two points I would most desire to be in agreement with him. But I am sure there is no disagreement between the noble Lord and myself as regards what I would call the general policy with reference to compensation water. That policy has been before Parliament for years, and it is perfectly understood on all sides. I would remind your Lordships, though it is a very small point, that compensation water is not entirely a fishing question. It is also a milling question. I am not certain, if we came to analyse the question, whether the mill-owners twenty or thirty years back when this question was first discussed were not a more powerful element in arguing with Parliament than the owners of riparian and therefore fishing rights. That is a matter of history. But it must be borne in mind that compensation water is supposed to compensate mill-owners as well as fishery-owners; and there are no mills, I find from the evidence, on the Dee.
The noble Lord referred to the distinction that has been made by the promoters between impounding schemes and abstraction schemes, and I am bound to say that I think the distinction is a fair one to make. You are obviously injuring and endangering a river more when you put a barrage or a dam right across it somewhere up near its source and take water, than when you approach the river nearer the sea and abstract a certain portion of the water there. Therefore I am not afraid of what the noble Lord called the innovation if you
524
allow this Bill to go through in its present form. As a matter of fact, I find from what attention I have been able to give to the evidence—and I think I have read most of it, and I have discussed it all—that twenty-seven cases were claimed to exist in which water is abstracted without compensation water being given. I am bound to say that none of those twenty-seven cases is in Scotland. I do not therefore wish to press the precedent point too hard, because nobody knows better than the noble Lord opposite that in the course of those traditions which I am happy to think I have inherited from him it is an absolutely unbroken law in the private discussions that take place as regards the Committee stages of your Lordships' Bills that no Scottish precedent is ever allowed to be quoted for an English Bill. I therefore do not wish to press the precedent point too far when I am quoting English precedents in the case of a Scottish Bill. But be that as it may, these twenty-seven cases were quoted and eleven of them were actually named in the course of the several hundred pages of discussion at the Inquiry at Aberdeen, the report of which I hold in my hand. I have no hesitation, on the general precedent point, in saving that I do not think your Lordships will be doing a very dangerous thing in allowing this Bill to go through in the form in Which it comes before this House. The Wishaw and Arbroath precedents in Scotland have been referred to, but I do not think they can possibly be claimed to be on all fours with this Dee case. I am informed that in those two eases a very large proportion, if not almost the whole, of the summer flow of the river was taken, whereas in the ease of the Dee there is taken the Very small amount which has been specified to your Lordships.
One other point and then I leave the question of merits alone, because they have been discussed fully by the noble Lords who have spoken. The noble Lord opposite is a little nervous—and I am sure he is right to be nervous on the facts that, evidently have been placed before him—that this is merely a small bite, that the Corporation desire to get this precedent in their favour, whereupon they will shortly come to Parliament and ask Parliament on this precedent to give them a great deal more of the water of the Dee than they are now asking for. The evidence taken at the Inquiry at Aberdeen does not contain

525
an index, and I have not been able to refer to the matter, but I have something on time points remaining my mind as existing in the speeches of counsel for the Bill. I am sure your Lordshipsill will allow me to quote what was said by Mr. Macmillan, K.C., the counsel who led for the Bill, who quite clearly wiped out any fear that we need hold on that point. He said—
"Having in view the figures which I have given you, we think power to take 3,000,000 gallons is a reasonable submission to make, because with the 11,000,000 gallons of water—"
Your Lordships recognise the 11,000,000 gallons as the 8,000,000 they already take plus the 3,000,000 they are now asking for—
"with that abundance of water we shall be able to look forward to a period of thirty or forty years, during which that supply would adequately supply the interests of the city. We do not want to state figure in the least in excess of what is reasonable, but that figure is an appropriate margin for as to work upon."
If that statement of the learned counsel is true, and no doubt it is true otherwise it would net have been made, I think the noble Lord need not be nervous on this point.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but what is the security that lie offers us that the Corporation of Aberdeen will not throw over Mr. Macmillan as they have already thrown over Mr. Balfour Browne?
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: The security is that this statement of their learned counsel will be quoted to Parliament. Beyond this, I do not want to go into the merits. But I wish to point out that there are nearly 400 pages of proceedings at the Inquiry at Aberdeen. This Bill was heard by the Commission, and the Standing Order which has been referred to has been absolutely carried out. The Standing Order instructs all Committees—and it applies to Commissions—to consider whether or not, compensation should be given. "Shall inquire into the expediency of making provision" are the words of the Standing Order.
I am bound to remind your Lordships that if the parties are not satisfied with the one Inquiry they get under this Scottish Bill procedure they have the remedy in their own hands—namely, they have the power to ask the first House in which the Order is introduced to give them a Joint
526
Committee to hear their case. I have no doubt the statement of facts put before us by the noble Lord opposite is perfectly true, and the opponents have been unfortunate. They evidently desired to move in the House of Commons that their case should be re-heard; but they did not do so, evidently through the innocence of Parliamentary procedure in the mind of the hon. Member to whom they confided their interests. But that does not do away with the difficulty we are in. Is it possible for your Lordships now to review all the six days of the proceedings of the Commission because the Tribunal properly appointed by Parliament cannot do so? I do not deny that there are eases when it is very desirable that proceedings in Committee should be reviewed on Third Reading. I myself have been a member of a Committee which has given a decision upstairs that has been thrown over on Third Reading, and no doubt many of your Lordships have had a similar experience. Your Lordships will remember the controversy that centred round the case of electrolytic action, where the Committee gave the Petitioner, a little more than it was the practice of Parliament to give, and I remember several cases where after the Committee had done that, the House threw them over and restored the Bills to their original shape. But the House, recognising that they cannot hear the evidence, do not reverse the decisions of Committees unless it is very obvious that stone strongly laid down principle of Parliamentary practice has been overthrown or departed from; and I cannot advise your Lordships that that has happened in this case. I am quite unable, therefore, to advise your Lordships that this case was not well heard by the Commission, which arrived at a unanimous decision. As I have said, I am sorry to disagree with the noble Lord opposite, but I certainly would support the decision which has been come to in Aberdeen and would advise your Lordships to support the Commission too. I, like many of your Lordships, have enjoyed the hospitality of this river and had many enjoyable hours upon it in the course of proceedings which, although not in connection with Parliament, were certainly not un-Parliamentary; and if that hospitality is offered to me again I am not nervous that anything your Lordships may do this afternoon will endanger the prospect to which I look forward.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, the House may like to know the attitude of His Majesty's Government on this matter. The Government will support the Order as it stands, as they consider that there is no case for a reversal of the decision arrived at by the Inquiry.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD STANMORE: There are seven Amendments in my name which are all purely drafting Amendments, and if the House will permit me to do so I will move them en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Clause 1, page 4, line 23, leave out ("1915") and insert ("1916").
Clause 1, page 4, line 25, leave out ("1915") and insert ("1916").
Clause 2, page 5, leave out lines 5 and 6.
Clause 19, page 22, line 27, after ("hereinafter") insert ("in this section").
Clause 20, page 30, line 19, after ("hereinafter") insert ("in this section").
Clause 22, page 42, line 4, after ("Corporation") insert ("by this Order authorised")
Clause 22, page 42, line 6, leave out ("by this Order authorised").—(Lord Stanonore.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Bill passed and returned to the Commons.

DISCHARGED SOLDIERS AND THEIR UNIFORMS.
LORD ST. DAVIDS LORD ST. DAVIDS rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether arrangements could be made by which soldiers discharged from the Army owing to wounds or ill-health should be allowed to wear their uniform till the end of the war, or that, if this is for any reason inexpedient, they should at least be allowed to return to their homes in uniform after leaving hospital.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have put down this Question at the request of members of the Red Cross societies who are taking an active part in the work of the war hospitals. They have told me that there have been many cases where men who have been discharged from the Army out of hospital have felt acute distress at the thought that they would not be allowed to wear their uniform home, but would be obliged to return to their native place in civilian costume. I can understand that
528
there might have been a reason for this decision at the beginning of the war, when no doubt uniforms, like everything else, were scarce, but I can hardly think there can be any very strong case for it now, and I would ask the sympathy of the War Office in regard to this. It is a very small matter and only one of sentiment, but I venture to think that sentiment is a thing you ought not to reject and disdain at any time, especially in a case like this where it is the sentiment of wounded men who have been bravely fighting in the King's uniform and who would like to continue to wear that uniform at any rate until the end of the war. I would ask the War Office, if they cannot consent to let these men wear the uniform until the end of the war, at any rate to make the arrangement, which could obviously be done without much difficulty, that they should be allowed to wear it upon their return home after discharge. This is a time when in the case of young men—and these men are young—civilian costume in this country is not popular, happily; and I venture to say that it is very rough on a discharged soldier who has been fighting until he can fight no longer, that he should have to go to his home in a garment which may lead some one to think he is a conscientious objector. That is a fate to which no wounded soldier ought to be exposed, and I ask the sympathy of the War Office in regard to this little matter.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I can quite appreciate the feeling of the noble Lord who has put this Question and also the views of those on behalf of whom he speaks, but I am afraid I shall have to show that there are disadvantages in his proposal which, perhaps, he has not quite considered. His proposal would affect men who are discharged—that is to say, who are no longer soldiers—and therefore not subject to any discipline, and in such cases there would be disadvantage in their wearing uniform. The door would be opened to cases of fraud and misuse of the uniform, and we have had already unfortunately experience, as your Lordships know, of a good deal of fraud being made possible and perpetrated by a number of people who make bogus use of uniforms and pass themselves off as officers or men of His Majesty's Forces. Then, again, the uniform under the conditions of civil life would, in the absence of supervision, quickly become dirty and shabby and a discredit. It would

529
be impossible to see to mending and to keeping the uniform in order or to collect it or make fresh issues, nor could public funds be employed for the purpose in the case of discharged soldiers.
As regards the men from hospital the noble Lord, I am sure, will believe me when I say that the War Office are naturally most sympathetic to those men who have done and suffered so much, and in no way do they underrate the sentiment to which the noble Lord alluded. But the general objections apply equally to men leaving hospital, and it would he almost a matter of impossibility, certainly a matter of the greatest difficulty, to get recovery of the uniform when it was cast aside. It is therefore considered advisable to adhere to the custom of withdrawing the uniform and giving a suit of plain clothes to the discharged man free of charge. But perhaps the noble Lord is not aware that any possible slur such as he has suggested is obviated because armlets are supplied to men discharged under the conditions suggested in the Question.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: I do not think the noble Lord has answered my second suggestion. I quite see the objections to allowing men to keep their uniforms which could not be repaired, and the difficulty of recovering them at some later date, say one or two years hence. But surely those objections would not apply to the case of a man when he returned home. The noble Lord says that a discharged soldier is given a new suit. Would it not be easy to arrange for the man to go home from the hospital in his uniform, and after he arrives, say the next day, for some one to attend at his home and give him the new suit of clothes spoken of? Such a course, I feel sure, would not cause any trouble.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the noble Lord opposite (Lord Sandhurst) is quite right in the decision he has announced that the Government have made. I see great difficulty in allowing a man who is under no discipline to wear the uniform. For instance, if the Provost-Marshal or any of his police find such a man drunk in the streets, what course is to be taken? Is the man a civilian or a soldier? I think it is almost impossible to get over that difficulty.

EMPIRE DAY.
VISCOUNT MILNER VISCOUNT MILNER had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether there is any reason why the Union Jack should not be flown from all Government buildings in the United Kingdom on Empire Day as it is in the self-governing Dominions.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the subject of my Question seems a very trifling matter, but I hope I may be able to show your Lordships that it is much more important than it looks at first sight. However, I have received an intimation from the noble Marquess the Leader of the House that it would be convenient to the Government if I postponed my Question for a few days. In the circumstances I ask your Lordships' leave to put it down for next Wednesday.

SOLDIERS' SAVINGS.
VISCOUNT MILNER: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether permission may not be granted to soldiers serving abroad to remit sums now standing to their credit, and to make weekly allotments to the Post Office Savings Bank, through the company pay lists and regimental paymaster as they arc now permitted to remit to wives and next-of-kin.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, here is another Question which looks a very simple matter. I think the object of the proposal which I venture to make is one which will commend itself to all your Lordships. It is simply the facilitation of thrift on the part of soldiers serving in the field. We hear a great deal about thrift in these days, but in this House, at any rate, we have not yet succeeded in bringing about any practical measures for its promotion. I expect we all agree that it is difficult to drive people to economise if they do not want to do so; but it is a very different matter when our efforts are confined to giving opportunities for thrift where people are themselves anxious to save. That is all that the suggestion contained in this Question aims at.
I may say that I would not have raised this matter if it had not been brought to my notice, not once but several times, as a matter of real practical importance by commanding officers at the Front.

531
what they tell me is that those soldiers at the Front who have no near relation at home to whom they make allotments very often do not know what to do with their money. They are most anxious, in many cases, to make some provision for themselves after the war is over. They have very often abroad really no opportunity of spending their money. I have been told that their disregard for the money for which they have really no use is so great that in many cases when they are changing a silver piece and find difficulty in getting change, which difficulty is, no doubt, often artificially created, they go away without troubling about it.
There is a great deal of waste of money on the part of soldiers at the Front simply because they do not know what to do with the money they have got. The Army is now a very large one, and this is a matter where hundreds of thousands of people are concerned. Surely it is a very important object to encourage saving on the part of the men at the Front, because one of the greatest difficulties in the future is going to be the total lack of ready money on the part of men discharged from the Service until they can get employment, which, as we all know, will be difficult to obtain immediately when the war is over. It may make the greatest difference to thousands of men whether they have a few pounds in their pockets then or not, and it seems to me that it is a matter of great importance to enable them, if they desire to do so, to save money during the war. They have not got the opportunity at present. Of course, they can make an allotment in favour of a relative, and if it is a near relative, well and good. But it is not particularly attractive to a soldier to stake an allotment to some distant next-of-kin about whom he does not care. What he wants to do is to save a little money for himself against the daywhen he will certainly need it.
What can the soldier do at present? He can either keep the money in his pocket, which he is very unlikely to do, or else he can buy a postal order and send the money over here. But that is not easy for a soldier in the trenches. Besides, there is this further discouragement, that at present if he is in France he has to pay I do not know how many francs for his £1 at home—I mean he loses heavily on the transaction. My proposal is simply that a man should be able to make an allotment to himself, just as he could make one to a
532
dependant, and that the allotment so made should be invested for his benefit in the Post Office Savings Bank at home. The idea is to enable the man, without any trouble, without any of those complications which are often so difficult and puzzling for a man of slight education, to save money in a simple way. I dare say there are difficulties about it, but I cannot conceive that the difficulties can be very great, and the object is so very important that really I think, unless the difficulties are quite insuperable, an effort should be made to get over them.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I desire to support very strongly the arguments which the noble Viscount has placed before you with regard to this question. Owing to the great liberality of the Government, the excellent rations the soldier gets, and he many societies who are looking after him and send him tobacco and various comforts, the men really do not feel it necessary to purchase many articles in France; and when they come home with a comparatively large sum of money, although they are well received and looked after at the railway stations, in some cases they get into bad hands and then unfortunately their money disappears. I think that the gallantry in action of our men at the Front is only equalled by their extraordinary good conduct when they come home. You see a few cases of spurious a men who have never belonged to the Service who dress themselves up in uniform and commit crimes; but how seldom have you seen in any newspaper a report of a man belonging to His Majesty's Service who has come home from the Front and committed some civil offence in England? I am sure it would be a great advantage if this request of the noble Viscount could be accorded to the soldiers. There may be technical difficulties with which we are not acquainted. I can only say that from what I have heard there is a very strong feeling amongst the officers of the Army, and principally amongst the regimental officers, that the men under their command should have the facilities asked for.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, the noble Viscount has asked a Question of very great interest regarding the soldier and his pay as it effects him to-day, and the Question has a bearing on a soldier's financial position on his discharge or at the red of the war. I may say that the Secre

533
tary of State is at one with the noble Viscount in wishing to give facilities for the saving of money, and he agrees that the plan should be as simple as it can be made. This matter has been a subject of very careful consideration between the Secretary of State and the Postmaster-General, and hope to be able to show that to some extent at any rate the Secretary of State has anticipated the wishes of the noble Viscount.
Perhaps I may mention two points of history in this matter. At one time, as I have no ditabt the noble Viscount is aware, a Military Savings Bank was instituted, but it was never very popular. It did not turn out a successful banking operation, for after few years of its existence the annual withdrawals greatly exceeded the deposits. Therefore in consequence of this, and owing to the increased facilities offered by the Post Office Savings Bank, in 1896 this Military Bank was closed to new depositors. As the noble Viscount is aware, a soldier serving abroad may make remittance free of charge through the regimental paymaster to his wife or a friend either of whom can invest it in the Post Office Savings Bank. This, however, has not proved an attractive method, for soldiers do not care to invest their savings in the Post Office Savings Bank, but that facility still exists. For instance, a man drawing 5s. or 6s. a day and wishing to send his wife 2s. a day or 14 s. a week could do so by an automatic process, and his wife would receive it from the Post Office. But to have a system by which very small sums weekly would be universally dealt with would involve an enormous addition to the already immense amount of clerical work; and I am told that at present there are 15,000 clerks employed in regard to soldiers' pay and relatives' allowances.
A consideration of the whole subject seems to show that there are two objects to be aimed at—(1) an inducement to the soldier, whether at the Front or elsewhere, to save; and (2) a ready access to money on arrival from the Front. Arrangements have been made by which the soldier serving at the Front or elsewhere may through his squadron or company officer invest in War Saving Certificates or Exchequer Bonds. Of course, Exchequer Bonds would apply to some of those soldiers who, like motor drivers, and so on, are in receipt of something like 6s. a day. Noble Lords know that a War Saving Certificate can
534
be purchased at 15 s. 6d. which at the end of five years, at compound interest, is worth £1. At the conclusion of the first year's deposit the 15 s. 6d. is worth 15 s. 9d., and thereafter interest is earned at the rate of 1d. per month, the money remaining invested until the man is discharged or until the end of the war. Each soldier will be provided with a book; and as well as taking care of the soldier's money at 5 per cent. for him, the Post Office as a precaution against loss or robbery will take care of the book for him while the soldier continues in the Service. This, perhaps I may point out, is applicable to soldiers at home as well as abroad. I hope the noble Viscount will see that there are advantages in this scheme. It is safe, Depreciation cannot take place; the deposit would be paid out in full to the soldier or his relative if no interest is payable; and the rate of interest is high. The capital with the interest is returnable On discharge or at the end of the war when the soldier is likely to need it the most—that is a point which the noble Viscount made in his speech—and it is hoped that squandering of funds on festive occasions, and so on, may be thereby prevented. It is further hoped that these advantages may induce soldiers to save, whereas the facilities for investing in the Post Office Savings Bank did not thus succeed.
Stress gas laid by the noble Viscount or the noble and gallant Field-Marshal upon the fact that the soldier should have this information put before him so that he could understand what to do. In reply to that I may say that leaflets have been issued setting forth the advantages of the scheme in simple language, and officers commanding have, through an Army Order, been directed to see that the leaflet is brought to every man's notice and that he realises its contents. I mentioned a second point, which is that money should be readily accessible to the soldier on his arrival on leave. As has been pointed out by the noble and gallant, Field-Marshal, there have been, unhappily, cases—at least I am told so—where soldiers returning on leave with a considerable sum of money have been met by ruffians well versed in the confidence trick, and their money has been taken from them. But I am glad to say that now—I am speaking of my own personal knowledge, not from the War Office—these soldiers are met by members of a most admirable force known as the

535
National Guard, who wear uniform; and they are the same individuals who have been performing most valuable service to enable hospitals to be ready for bomb raids, and so on. In regard to money being readily accessible, it is known that many soldiers dislike travelling with a considerable sum of money; indeed, it is undesirable that they should. To obviate this, and to meet their immediate requirements, a number of paymasters have been detailed to he at the stations so as to furnish money to these men in such modest sums as they may require. I may add that should these proposals fail of success the Secretary of State will again consider with the Postmaster-General whether any more attractive plan can be devised. I may have seemed to have travelled a little outside the limits of the Question put by the noble Viscount, but I have ventured to do so because the subject is one of such extreme interest and importance. I hope the noble Viscount will see that, although we have not gone quite as far as he desires, at any rate a great attempt is being made to meet the wishes he has expressed.

NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS, ETC. (EXPENSES) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, this Bill, to which I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading this afternoon, is a short and comparatively simple measure consisting of two clauses. The first clause provides that towards meeting the expenses of the Statutory Committee constituted under the Naval and Military War Pensions, &c., Act, 1915, there shall be charged on and issued out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or the growing produce thereof in the year ending March 31, 1916, the sum of £1,000,000, and that the said sum shall form part of the funds at the disposal of the Statutory Committee, and, so far as not immediately required, may be invested by the Committee in such manner as the Treasury direct. Under the second clause the council of any county or borough or urban district for whose area a local committee has been established under the principal Act—that is, the Naval and Military War Pensions Act of last year—may make such payments as they think fit towards the administrative expenses of any such local committee and of any district
536
committee appointed under that Act in their area.
Although the Bill is short and, as I think I am justified in adding, simple in character, it would not be respectful to your Lordships, after the large share which you took in framing the principal Act of last year, if I did not venture to offer a few observations as regards the scope of the present measure. As your Lordships well know, in the first instance Parliament decided that the basis of the system for pensions for widows of non-commissioned officers and men should be what is called a flat rate. Whatever the pre-war circumstances of the deceased soldier or sailor, as the ease might be, it was decided that a pension of 10 s. a week should be allotted to the widow until she was thirty-five when an extra 2s. 6d. a week was added, making 12 s. 6d. a week, and at forty-five a further 2s. 6d., making in all 15 s. But once the basis of the flat rate had been adopted it became evident to all interested in this matter that there must be many cases of great hardship unless some supplementary grant or supplementary pension could be provided for the relief of widows who previous to the war had been in better circumstances, and it was the view of Parliament and of the country that cases of exceptional hardship should be met beyond the flat rate. I do not think that your Lordships will expect me to labour this point, for it was discussed at great. length in both Houses of Parliament during the debates on the principal Act last year.
After the Bill of last year had been placed on the Statute Book it was obvious that the Statutory Committee of the Patriotic Fund, which had been set up as the main authority for the grant of supplementary pensions, should be financed. Your Lordships remember that there was no provision in the Act of last year for financing the Statutory Committee. Assurances were given both in this House and in another place by members of His Majesty's Government that a Bill would be introduced at the earliest possible opportunity to arrange for the financing of that Committee. The Bill now before your Lordships has been brought in to fulfil the pledges then given; and, as I have said, under Clause 1 Parliament is invited to make a grant of £1,000,000 as part of the fund at the disposal of the Statutory Committee.
Your Lordships may naturally ask—the question has been put in another place—by what method of calculation the estimate of

537
£1,000,000 has been arrived at; and I can only repeat what was said in another place that an extraordinary, nay an insuperable, difficulty exists at this moment in making even a rough estimate of what sum will eventually be required to finance the Statutory Committee. I need not take up time by repeating such observations as that this tremendous war is still raging and that it would be futile for anybody to attempt to predict when peace is likely to be signed. But it does make it extremely difficult, to form even an approximate estimate of the sums that will be eventually required to finance the operations of the Statutory Committee. There are certain figures at the disposal of the Government which I can give to your Lordships' House—they were given a few days since in another place—with a view of in some measure indicating on what basis this sum of £1,000,000 has been suggested as a grant under this Bill. The total number of widows of non-commissoned officers and men reported by the Army Council up to March 1 last, is 41,500. Of those 23,106 are actually in receipt of pensions, and 18,394 are receiving the separation allowances which, as your Lordships know, are continued to widows for a period of twenty-six weeks after the notification of the death of their husbands so as to give time to look into all the circumstances. There are in addition 4,180 naval widows who have received pensions, and 420 are receiving separation allowances.
The Statutory Committee, I am given to understand, have arrived at the conclusion, after much debate but I believe unanimously, to endeavour to make up the income of widows who have children dependent on them to two-thirds of their pre-war income, drawing the line at £2 a week—that to say, they feel that it would be impossible for the State to give a higher income to a widow than £2 a week. All pre-war incomes of widows, therefore, will have to be written down to £3 a week. Even then these pensions will be treading very closely on the heels of the pensions given to the widows of officers of the lower grades. It is hoped by the Statutory Committee that they will be able, in addition, to give in the case of continued ill-health certain additional help, and they are also sanguine that they will be able to offer certain advantages with regard to the education of children in addition to these pensions. I ought to say that, besides widows and orphans, there are at this moment about
538
50,000 dependants of soldiers and sailors who are receiving separation allowances. Further, there are 30,255 men who are receiving Chelsea Hospital pensions and grants for partial or total disablement. Of these, final pensions have been granted to 5,470; provisional pensions have been given to 1,356; and 23,429 conditional pensions have been granted which will have to come up at a future date for review.
After what I have said I think your Lordships will be inclined to agree that this sum of £1,000,000 must be looked upon as what it is the fashion nowadays to call merely a token vote. Mr. Haves Fisher, who was in charge of this Bill in another place, used these words—
"We all think this is not the last million that the State will give or asked to give for such a purpose."
He added that it must be looked upon in the nature of an experimental Bill, and that it was even possible that the organisation of the Statutory Committee as settled under the Act of last year might. ultimately prove to have been experimental only. But what I am surely our Lordships will agree to is the fact that some grant to finance the Act of last year is urgently required. This is really a truism, for the Prince of Wales's Fund has fixed June 30 next, only three months from now, as the date beyond which it will not be responsible for helping to finance separation allowances and grants to widows and families of soldiers and sailors. The Prince of Wales's Fund has already advanced for these objects no less than £3,000,000, and in that connection I may perhaps he allowed to say that your Lordships' House will feel unanimously with the country that a deep debt of gratitude is due to the illustrious Prince, not only for gallantly serving his country at the Front, but for having previously given the weight of his name to this Fund which has been the means of relieving hundreds of thousands of deserving and necessitous cases which at the outset it was impossible for the State successfully to undertake. I ought to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that under the Bill the £1,000,000 grant may be invested by the Government in short-dated Treasury Bills, but I understand that probably the whole of the money will require to be spent very shortly.
I come now to Clause 2, which gives power to local authorities to rate themselves for the administrative expenses of the local committees within their area. It

539
is hoped that this plan will conduce to the economical working of the Act by enabling the local public offices and local public officials to he placed at the disposal of the administration of the Act. It is felt certain that very large sums of money will flow into these local districts out of the Exchequer in the shape of supplementary pensions and grants, and so on, to soldiers' and sailors' widows resident in the area, to disabled men whose homes are in the area, and in other ways, and it is therefore not unfair to ask in return that the ratepayers of the locality should bear some share of the administrative expenses of the Act within their area. Moreover, these grants from the Exchequer will, or may, relieve ratepayers in many instances from contributing towards the maintenance of persons who would otherwise he obliged to fail upon the rates.
I believe that all your Lordships are not agreed that it is expedient that recourse should be had to the rates under this Bill, but there are, I think I am right in saying, only two possible alternatives. One is that the Exchequer should bear the expenses which it is suggested under this Bill might come out of the rates; and the other, that the benevolence of the public should be invoked, that voluntary subscriptions and donations should be invited for these purposes. I am instructed to say, as regards the first of these alternatives—namely, that the Treasury should bear these expenses—that, in the opinion of those responsible for this Bill, this is more than the State can be fairly asked to do. It is unnecessary for me to point out the enormous and increasing burdens that almost every day are being piled on the taxpayers of this country. With regard to the second alternative—namely, that of asking for voluntary subscriptions to carry out this object—I am afraid it is certain that such appeals would be unsuccessful. The benevolent public, so far as I am aware, is not very fond of subscribing to objects or committees that consist of elected members, and I am afraid the fact, however disagreeable, must be faced that any invitation to the benevolent voluntarily to contribute towards these administrative expenses would be a failure; and in view also of the indisposition of the Treasury to finance the administrative expenses of the local committees, the only alternative is that they should be financed out of the rates. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hylton.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, after listening to the Bill as expounded by the noble Lord the first thing that strikes one is this, Why is this Bill introduced? Why was not this clause—which gives, as the noble Lord has said, £1,000.000, not because it is going to be sufficient but simply as an experiment—inserted in the original Bill? Your Lordships will remember that the moment any reference was made to finance in the case of the original Bill the Government were absolutely silent and refused to give us any information whatever. It was pointed out to them, I might almost say dozens of times, that there was no finance in that Bill. I must say of all the Bills that I have heard discussed in Parliament never was there a Bill with so little foundation for it. Now this Bill is introduced, and £1,000,000 is given. It is to be given experimentally. It is to be given "as part of the funds at the disposal of the Statutory Committee." Therefore, of course, no part of that fund will go to the local committees; that is quite clear. The Statutory Committee having this £1,000,000 and it being clear that if more money is to be found some at all events will be found by the Exchequer, I want to ask. Does the noble Lord expect that if the local committees go round to collect money there will be any great response? He is extremely sanguine if he expects that any large amount will be received.
The noble Lord tells us that this Bill proposes to enable the local committees to rate their area. Will he point out to me the words that do that, because I do not see in the Bill any single word which enables a local committee to rate its area. It is quite true that subsection(3) of Clause 2 says that any payments authorised by this clause may be made out of any fund or rate out of which the expenses of the council making the payments are payable. But that does not confer any power of rating. Further than that, I would remind the noble Lord that the essential foundation of the original Bill was that there was to be no compulsory power. The Statutory Committee had no compulsory power, and the local committees had no compulsory power. All that is said in the Act of last year with regard to the powers of the local committees with regard to money is in Section 4, paragraph (g), under which they may

541
"solicit and receive from the public contributions towards any such purposes as aforesaid." I ask, What Clause is there in this Bill that gives the local committees power to raise a rate?
LORD HYLTON: Clause 2, subsection (3).
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: What part of it? Read the words.
LORD HYLTON: Clause 2, subsection (3), runs—
"Any payments authorised by this section may be made out of any fund or rate out of which the expenses of the council making the payments are payable, and may be made subject to such conditions (if any) as in time application of those payments as the council making the payments think fit to impose."
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: But that does not give power to rate.
LORD HYLTON: This point was raised in the House of Commons, and the Minister in charge of the Bill said that this question had been very carefully considered by some of the legal authorities on rating, and that they had agreed that this section did carry out what the general body of county councils would desire.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: That may be correct, but I must say it is the first time that I have ever heard of a power of rating being conferred by words such as those which have just been read. With regard to the larger question of pensions, the noble Lord says that if more money is required it can only be provided by the Exchequer or otherwise. There is no doubt about that. But he says that it certainly cannot be provided out of the Exchequer. Why not? The subject of pensions is not a local one at all. If the, established rates of pensions are insufficient, let the Exchequer raise them; let the Exchequer give larger pensions. These pensions are to be given, not by the localities, but by the Patriotic Fund. If you suppose that you will get any money collected in the localities in that way I must say I think you are very sanguine. Everybody will say, "If I subscribe this money, who is going to get it?" Why, the persons who are selected by Mr. Hayes Fisher, or whoever the chairman of the Patriotic Fund is. It was one of the great objections that were raised to the
542
Actwhen it was before this House last year, that the local committee of the Patriotic Fund was not a public body and had no authority. We said at that time chat making the Royal Patriotic Fund the administrators of these additional pensions would certainly increase the difficulties of collecting money, and I must say that I cannot see that this Bill mends the matter in any way. If this Bill was going to be introduced, the Government ought to have known what they intended to do. If they had made up their minds as to what they intended to do, then they ought to have put this in the original Bill, and it could have been discussed at that time. But they were then ignorant and if they now say that they introduce a proposal to give £1,000,000 to the Royal Patriotic Fund and that this is not to be regarded as their final offer, I think they are inviting defeat for themselves.
To attempt to rate localities to increase pensions seems to me to be an utter absurdity, even if it is a possibility, which I respectfully doubt. Let me point out again that this is the first time that anything has been said about compulsory rating for the purpose of increasing pensions. It seems to me a very great mistake. Moreover, I question whether, in this Bill which is ostensibly to administer the Act or to explain the administration of the Act, it is legally competent to introduce a provision to make a rate. I object entirely to that, and I hope that the noble Lord will assent, when we come to Committee to leaving out all reference to rates.
LORD DEVONPORT: My Lords, I think the time is not far distant when the criticisms of many of us on this principle which the Government have adopted in relation to these pensions will be found to have been true in substance, and in my opinion and I believe in that of many others, it will work out that the Government will have to admit themselves that this is an obligation belonging to them and to them alone. They must shoulder it and give over the pretence—it is a pretence—that funds will be forthcoming from somewhere on a voluntary basis to save them from carrying out the full share of their obligations towards these men who have fought for us. Just look at the Preamble of the Bill before us. I maintain that it is an incorrect description of the Bill. It describes this sum of money as "a grant in aid of the

543
funds at the disposal of the Statutory Committee." We know perfectly well that the Statutory Committee has no fund of its own. It is not a "grant in aid"; it is the only wherewithal that this Committee has to carry on its business. I think the Preamble is misleading. If I heard the noble Lord correctly, he said that appeals to voluntary sources would, in his opinion, be unsuccessful. Is that correct?
LORD HYLTON: That was only with regard to Clause 2. The Government, I believe, anticipate that the public will still be willing to support the Patriotic Fund in the same way as they have in the past.
LORD DEVONPORT: So that hazy anticipation still holds good. I was going to congratulate the noble Lord on the growth of mind which had taken place during the last few weeks on the part of the Government, but I misunderstood his meaning. Therefore we now stand where we were six months ago. The Government hold the view that they are going to glean from voluntary channels substantial sums of money towards this work. I am sorry they cling to that belief, for I am sure They will be disappointed. The noble Lord, in describing this £1,000,000, used the expression "token vote." From that expression I should conclude that the government at the back of their minds are reconciling themselves to the situation that they will have to find every copper. That is the real situation; they will have to find every shilling of grants to make the supplementary pensions a reality.
This £1,000,000 is the only sum of money we have in front of us to deal with. I want to say a word or two as to its adequacy, or rather inadequacy. The noble Lord told us, and the information was given in another place the other day, that there are 50,000 widows of non-commissioned officers and men of the Army and Navy reported to the authorities up to March 1. We also know that there are 50,000 dependants other than widows and orphans; some, of course, are in receipt of separation allowances or small pensions, and others in receipt of neither. We also know—it is singular that these round figures are all practically on an equality—that the number of men discharged as unfit through wounds and disease amounts in round figures to
544
50,000. Of these, 35,000 have been granted pensions or allowances; the remaining 15,000 have so far either been refused or their cases have not been dealt with. These figures in themselves indicate that this £1,000,000 will very soon disappear. It will disappear in the next few months. The noble Lord gave one reason himself that will bring about a disappearance of this money. He referred to the fact that the Prince of Wales's Fund has been financing separation allowances for some time, and that the advances made by that Fund amount at the moment to the huge sum of £3,000,000. I do not know whether recoupment is to be made to that body, or whether the amount is to be regarded in the shape of a gift. I scarcely think it can he the latter, because that would be altogether contrary to the appeal that was made by the Prince of Wales at the time his Fund was collected. It was to be on behalf of civilian distress. There has, I am glad to say, not been much, if any, civilian distress, but there may be later on. The only point I want to make, in passing, is this. It is unthinkable that this £3,000,000 can be treated as a definite gift; it will have to be refunded from some source or another. But quite apart from the question of refunding, the Prince of Wales's Fund Committee have given notice that after June 30 next they cannot continue making these advances. The advances amount to £80,000 a week for these extra separation allowances, mainly, I believe, in connection with additional concessions made by the Government to meet rental conditions of the soldiers' and sailors' wives. That £80,000 a week will become a liability of the Statutory Committee. Now if £80,000 a week is going out on behalf of one liability alone after June 30, what chance is there of this £1,000,000 going very far towards providing pensions and supplementary allowances on behalf of those for whom it is supposed to be operative?
I was going to ask a question as to the basis of this grant, whether it was intended to be an instalment, or whether it was a final amount in quittance of the State's responsibility. But I already conclude from what the noble Lord said that the State will from time to time be making supplementations. I thought of asking that question because of what fell from the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, last year. He said in definite language that the re

545
sponsibility of the State was in connection with the flat-rate pensions, and that the supplementations Were to be looked for from funds collected and at the disposal of the Statutory Committee; and he went on to say that if the State should have to make a grant they would make it in one large final sum. He used the words "lump sum," and scouted the idea that the Government year by year would be making contributions. And he gave his reason, which was this, that once the public got to understand that the public purse was behind this Fund they would, of course, cease subscribing. That was the justification for the attitude which the noble Marquess then assumed. It has now become quite apparent that the public are not going to subscribe, and that it is to the public purse that we shall have to look for the finding of the money that is necessary.
In moving the Second Reading of this Bill Lord Hylton referred to the fact that the Statutory Committee had come to a decision as to the basis of the supplementary pensions, and that they had decided to make up the income of the widow with children to two-thirds of the pre-war income that her husband was earning. But, as the noble Lord said, they fixed a limitation. I do not disagree with it. They were bound to fix a limitation. They regard the income susceptible to the two-thirds treatment as being limited by £3 a week. Thousands of men have gone to the war who were in receipt of incomes of £3 to £6 a week and many of much higher incomes, and however desirable, it would be a financial impossibility for the State. to shoulder to the fullest extent the burden of guaranteeing to the widow two-thirds of the income which the man was enjoying before joining. It is therefore based on two-thirds of £156 a year, which brings it down to £2 a week. That will throw an enormous charge on the Statutory Committee. Therefore instead of £1,000,000 being granted by this Bill, instead of our adopting this course and granting by instalments money in this way, it would be far better for the State to do now what it will be compelled to do six or eight months hence—namely, make this a charge on the Non-effective Votes in the Estimates, and then whatever sum is required will be provided for. That is a system which I am perfectly certain the Government will have to adopt sooner or later.
546
There is, of course, bound to be an inequality in this basis of pension. At the present moment there are widows who, on the flat-rate basis, are or will be in receipt of a larger weekly income than they and their families were enjoying when their husbands were alive and at work. That is one of the anomalies. I am not criticising it; it is one of those anomalies that were bound to happen. But the point I lay stress upon is that inasmuch as the Statutory Committee have come to this decision—I think a very generous decision—the amount of finance that will be required to make this work will be very much larger than is contemplated in this Bill.
The noble Marquess will remember that in our discussions last year the Government finally made an announcement—I think first of all in another place, and secondly here—that the Bill we were dealing with then was only a temporary measure, that they were converted to the idea that a much bigger Bill was necessary in the direction of establishing one Pensions Board to deal with all pensions granted by the Admiralty, the War Office, Chelsea, and so on. An indication was given to the House of Commons to the effect that the Bill would be introduced in the spring of this year; in fact, I think the Government's spokesman went so far as to say "within six months" from the date when he was speaking, which was about last October. In reply to a question which I addressed to him during the Report Stage of the Pensions Bill of last year the noble Marquess (Lord Lansdowne) rather discounted any definite period. He pointed out that the contemplated Bill would be a colossal one and would probably excite a good deal of controversy, and that it would be impossible for the Government to fix any near date as to when it would be introduced. I was perfectly satisfied then with that view. But I venture to ask him now what steps, if any, are being taken to give effect to the pledge that a comprehensive Bill should be introduced at an early date so that we may be rid of the temporary measure and have in substitution something far better. It will be useful if we can have some information on that point, because it is evident and will become more evident as time goes on that the temporary basis, the hand-to-mouth basis, on which we are working is one that is bound to fail, and that sooner or later,

547
sooner rather than later, the Government will have to treat these pensions by precisely the same method that they treat all other pensions—namely, by making them a charge on the Estimates. Then every one who can prove a right to a pension can get it without any question as to whether the money is there to provide it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, in the observations that I shall make to your Lordships I shall not say one word to discourage any inclination which the public may have to subscribe voluntarily to these purposes. Whatever we may think as to the policy of the principal Act passed last year, that Act is now part of the law of the land; and if I may venture to say so to the noble Lord who has just sat down I think it is not the part of a patriotic citizen to discourage subscriptions to this highly benevolent, object if the public are willing to give them. Nothing that I shall say will be in the nature of a discouragement in that direction. But I still think that the Government would be wise to form an estimate now of how much money is likely to be required for the purposes of pensions and supplementary pensions in consequence of the war. It does not follow that all that money must be provided by the State, but at any rate the public ought to know what proposition is really before them, what they have got to deal with. Merely to propose that £1,000,000 should be voted, which everybody seems to agree is insufficient, simply means that the Government have not had the time or the inclination to make up their minds as to what sum of money is really involved. I do not want to press my noble friend opposite to give figures to-day as to that sum, as very likely he is not in a position to do so. But before we part with this Bill that figure ought if possible to be mentioned, the approximate figure of what sum of money is required. It may then be possible under existing legislation or by means of future legislation to make some distinction between that which will be thrown upon the Exchequer and that which will be thrown upon private endeavour. It is far better to take the public into your confidence in such a matter. I will ask one question because of an observation made by my noble friend Lord Camper-down. I gather that this £1,000,000 will not only be expended by the Statutory Committee itself.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Oh, yes.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My noble friend thinks it may be so; but I gathered from the debate which took place in your Lordships' House a short time ago that the Statutory Committee would give grants to the local committees. If that is so, part of the money will go to the local committees. I may be wrong, but in any event I think before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House that point ought to be cleared up; because there does appear on the face of Clause 2 a rather ominous provision, to which attention has been already called, that the local authorities may make such payments as they think fit towards the administrative expenses to which the local committees may be put. I think that is a very wide power. What is the definition of an "administrative expense" under this Bill? I presume that what the Government intend is that the rates should defray the expense of offices, secretaries, and so forth. I shall have a word or two to say upon that in a moment. But the word "administrative" is far wider than that. I speak in the presence of those far better qualified to interpret an Act of Parliament than I am, but I should express considerable doubt whether "administrative expenses" would not cover everything that is required in order to pay for the administration of the Act. If that is so, it would seem to confer a power on the rating authority to use the rates for supplementing pensions. Now is that so? Many localities are very carefully administered, but others are not, and we may be conferring upon them unlimited powers of rating for the purpose of pensions and like things under this Bill. That is a very serious matter, which will require the careful attention of the Government before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House But even in the matter of what I may call administrative expenses in the narrow sense—those which have to do with offices, secretaries, and so on—I think there ought to be some limiting words. Any one who has been engaged in local administration knows how apt local authorities are to run into wholly unnecessary expense in matters of this kind. There is a sort of idea that one county ought not to do its work upon a less magnificent scale than its neighbour, and consequently princely offices are prescribed and numbers of clerks appointed, all of which is a very serious matter when

549
we consider the financial and fiscal condition of the country at the present moment. So that, even if the narrower interpretation can be properly put upon the word "administrative" in Clause 2, I still think there should be some limiting words introduced to protect the ratepayer.
I have one or two more questions to ask the Government, and I hope my noble friend will not think that I am taking undue advantage of this opportunity. But it is a rule consecrated by long tradition of Parliamentary procedure that when the Government come to Parliament for a grant of money they shall be asked all the questions which arise as to the administration of that money before it is granted. The one or two questions that I shall ask refer largely to the debates which took place in your Lordships' House a short time ago. I should like to ask first about the fees which are given—I will show the relevance of it in a moment—to medical officers for passing recruits. It is quite clear that the reckless way in which certain men have been passed into the Army will throw a heavy charge upon the pension authorities, and if it goes on that charge will become heavier. That is the relevance of the question. I speak under correction, but I believe that up to a short time ago, at any rate, the medical officers were paid not according to the number of men they examined but according to the number they passed. I believe it was originally 2s. 6d. per man passed, but I have been informed that the tariff has been reduced to 1s. But whatever the amount, it was to the financial interest of the medical officer to pass as many men as he possibly could. I need not point out what abuses that naturally produced. Your Lordships know as well as I do that the kind of men who have been passed into the Army in many cases has been a gross scandal, men who are of no advantage to the Army whatever, except that they help to multiply the recruiting figures of the Adjutant-General. They are no good when they get there, and they throw a great deal of expense on the country.
The next question is one with regard to which I am sure my noble friend will be able to help me much more readily. I should like to know what actual provisions the Government have agreed to in order to meet the case of men who have become unfit by the aggravation of a complaint which they already had when they went on
550
service. The case of men who have become unfit though perfectly sound when they went abroad is, of course, already met. But as to aggravation, as was pointed out in the recent debate on this subject, the man might have had the seeds of disease when he went to the Front but the circumstances and conditions of his service very much aggravated his complaint and made him unfit to earn his livelihood when discharged as medically unfit. At one time the pension authorities would not give anything in such circumstances, but I know that the Government have seen that this is not a defensible position and have made a concession in that respect. But I should like to know what that concession is, what is the precise rule in respect of aggravation.
The third question has to do with the case of men who are pensioned as being medically unfit. What payment is made to them pending the decision of the amount of pension? There again the Government have been willing to make a concession, but we should like to know what it is. My noble friend will remember that on the last occasion when we discussed this matter it was pointed out that men discharged from hospital as medically unfit were left, before their pensions were fixed, without any money, and some of them went to the workhouse. That was not, of course, the intention of the Government. But there was a concession to be mane about that, and all I want to know is what is the concession. My noble friend Lord Beresford considered that. the ordinary pay should be continued until the man's pension had been settled. I do not know whether that has been agreed to, but. I think your Lordships are entitled to know before this Bill is passed.
I also think we should be told the general scale upon which the pensions by the Chelsea Commissioners are fixed. There appear to be considerable anomalies about them. I do not want to weary your Lordships by going into figures, but I will mention one particular instance. The House is aware that the normal figure which it is supposed a man ought to have if he is totally disabled is 25 s. a week. At any rate that is the figure fixed when he is first discharged horn hospital and entitled to a pension, and if he can earn something then he gets so much less. I mention this as a mere example. Supposing be loses a leg in action, he gets the full pension of 25 s. a week at first. Sup

551
posing he loses an arm, he does not then get the full pension; he only gets 20 s. a week. I should like to know the defence of that sort of distinction. Personally I think I could earn my living far better without one leg than without one arm, especially if it were the right arm. This distinction appears to be purely arbitrary, and it is the kind of figure that astonishes one when one meets it. I think some member of the Government should be prepared, on the next stage of the Bill, to tell us the principles on which these pensions are awarded.
I apologise for having put so many questions, but they lead up to a point which I would venture to press on my noble friend, who always approaches this subject in a most sympathetic spirit. It is a subject which touches the hearts of all our countrymen. What I would like to press on my noble friend is that no undue hurry should be shown in pushing this Bill through Parliament. I think he will find that the questions which have been put by me and by other noble Lords will require some time to be inquired into in the Office before they can be answered; and if that is so, I think the next stage of the Bill should be put down for a time not too soon so as to give them a proper opportunity of dealing with these questions. If the Government take the Committee stage and the Third Reading to-morrow, it is evident that we shall get very insufficient answers to all these questions. I venture, therefore, to suggest to my noble friend that considering that there is nothing very urgent about the Bill itself, and considering, as I say, that the subject with which it deals does appeal to our feelings of pity and compassion in a very special manner, it would be only right that the Government should not ask us to pass the Bill without due consideration.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am the last person in the world to complain of my noble friend for putting any number of questions to His Majesty's Government upon subjects which are of great interest to all of us, both in and outside of this House; but I confess that the catechism with which his speech concluded rather took me by surprise. The series of questions which he put to me were questions which even a member of the War Office staff, I fancy, would have some difficulty in answering off-hand.
552
My noble friend first asked me a question in regard to the system under which medical officers were remunerated for the examination of recruits. I hesitate very much to attempt to answer that question, but this I think I may say with confidence—that my noble friend is misinformed if he believes that at the present moment, at any rate, the plan of paying these medical officers per capita merely on the number of recruits they pass is in operation. This also I am able to say, because I had a conversation on the subject not long ago with the Secretary of State for War. I know that the staff of medical officers whose business it is to examine recruits has been greatly reinforced of late by the addition of a number of extremely competent medical men for that purpose.
Then my noble friend asked me a question as to the manner in which we intended to treat the particular class of case which has attracted a good deal of attention—the case, namely, of a man who has broken down owing to disease not wholly due to but aggravated by his service. My noble friend asked me to state the precise rule by which we were going to be guided. Obviously it is impossible for me to quote the precise rule off-hand, and I am sure my noble friend did not intend to press me for it. But I shall be quite ready on any day, if the noble Marquess will put a Question down, to give an answer upon that point.
The third question asked by the noble Marquess had reference to the payment made to men discharged as unfit who it was suggested sometimes left the Army without a shilling in their pockets, and might, therefore, find their way to the workhouse. An answer was given on that point not many days ago by my noble friend who sits beside me (Lord Sandhurst). This is what my noble friend said—
"Pension dates from the time of discharge. There should be no period of time during which a man is not in receipt of pay or pension. In fixing the date of discharge a short interval of ten days is allowed, during which the man receives pay, to enable the arrangements to be made for the payment of the pension. The £2 gratuity on discharge is credited to the man's account by his paymaster and issued as part of his balance. It is provided that a man going on pension shall have at least 20 s. in his pocket on discharge, even though the account is in debt."
so that the noble Marquess will see that there is no such case as that of a man being turned out of the Army without a shilling in his pocket.

553
Then the noble Marquess asked me to give him some account of the principles upon which the pension given to a man who had lost an arm was different from the pension given to a man who had lost a leg. There, again, I must throw myself on my noble friend's indulgence. That is a perfectly fair question, and I suggest; that my noble friend or somebody who sits near him should put it down on the Paper and ask it whenever he pleases. But what I demur to is that the fact that my noble friend desires information upon all these points should be urged by him as a reason for not parting with this Bill until his questions have been answered. I will not say the questions are irrelevant, because no question is irrelevant which concerns the welfare of our soldiers and sailors; but let me remind the House what the Bill which we are discussing is. It is a Bill which depends upon and is supplementary to the Act which we passed last year—the Naval and Military Pensions Act, 1915—and I venture to suggest that we should confine ourselves, when we consider whether the Bill should be allowed to proceed or not, to a strict consideration of what is in the Bill itself. The noble Lord behind me (Lord Devonport) returned to the charge and reminded us of the opinion which he has very often expressed in this House to the effect that, instead of proceeding as we do under this Bill, we ought to have cast all these proposals on one side and boldly thrown upon the public purse the whole of the liability for these discharged and disabled men. That is a perfectly fair question to raise, but I venture to suggest that it does not arise on this Bill. This is merely a Bill to supplement in certain necessary particulars an Act which Parliament has already approved.
I will not remind your Lordships of the heavy duties which the Act of 1915 threw upon the Statutory Committee. They were desired to meet all these cases of supplementary allowances, of pensions in exceptional cases of hardship and of the training and care of disabled soldiers and sailors out of the funds at their disposal. We were constantly told that in the Bill of last year there were no funds placed at the disposal of the Statutory Committee. That was not quite true, because under that measure they were empowered to deal with certain moneys which came into their hands as the result of private effort. But at any rate the Bill now before your Lordships is intended to provide additional funds out of
554
which the Statutory Committee are to meet these numerous calls. We always contemplated that the resources of the Statutory Committee should be of two kinds—the resources that came to them from private benevolence, and other resources which the State was to provide. The noble Lord is correct in saying that in the debates of last year we declined to mention a particular sum as that which the State was to provide, but nothing could have been more distinct than the pledges given by my noble friend Lord Crewe and by myself to the effect that a sum would be provided from the Public Exchequer. The noble Lord said, Why did you not mention the £1,000,000 in the Bill of last year? We had exactly the same difficulty then that we have now, the difficulty of forming a reasonable estimate of the amount which might properly be provided. It was my noble friend Lord Camper-down who remarked upon this that from the moment we began to bring public money into the calculation it was idle to expect that any funds would be forthcoming from private sources. I think that was the point of his argument.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My noble friend may be right, but I do not agree with him. I am under the impression that private benevolence, which has stood us in such stead hitherto, will not fail us in the future. At any rate, we have to wait and see whether my noble friend is right or whether we are right. For the moment we intend to proceed upon the old lines, and to make the finance of the Act dependent partly on private contributions and partly on subventions from the State.
Then we are asked—I think very pertinently—whether there is any reason for supposing that this £1,000,000 which we are now providing is likely to suffice for the heavy calls which will be made. This £1,000,000 if looked at from one point of view is a large sum, but looked at in comparison with what we are spending every day upon the war it is a very small sum indeed; and I say frankly that I do not for a moment believe that this £1,000,000 represents the end of the claim which will be made upon the Public Exchequer for this purpose. I think it was my noble friend opposite who said, "Why cannot you go into the matter and provide

555
us with an estimate of the probable total of the demands upon the State for purposes of this kind?" I wonder whether my noble friend has quite sufficiently considered the number of absolutely unknown factors that enter into this calculation. The total which we shall require surely will have some reference to the duration of the war, and to the number of claims which, whether the war lasts a long or a short time, are in fact made upon us. It will depend to some degree at any rate upon the extent to which private generosity still stands by us; it will depend upon the scope of the programme which may be adopted for the relief of disabled soldiers and sailors; it will depend upon the administrative expenses of the Statutory Committee—another unknown quantity; and, as I think Lord Devonport told the House just now, we are committed to dealing on a more liberal scale than was at first contemplated with the allowances paid to widows. All these are elements entering into the calculation which are to a great extent unknown, and which, I must say, seem to me to render it absolutely impossible that anybody should come down to your Lordships' House and enter into a sort of engagement with the public that we are going to see this thing through for a certain number of millions of pounds sterling. I certainly do not recall any passage in any speech by Lord Crewe to which I ever listened in this House in which he announced that whenever we did ask for a sum of money from the Exchequer it would he a lump sum and one which was to be regarded as a final sum
LORD DEVONPORT: I assure the noble Marquess that the statement was made. I am sorry I have not the quotation with me, but. I was looking at it only six hours ago. It was made on the Report stage and also on another stage of the Bill of last year. I will get it and send it to the noble Marquess.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Thank you. I must now say two or three words on the point made by my noble friend Lord Camperdown in regard to the second clause of this He is greatly exercised in his mind because under that clause we propose that the administrative expenses of the local committees shall be made a charge upon the rates. My noble friend Lord Salisbury suggested that there might be some difficulty in deciding what
556
came within the definition of "administrative expenses" and what did not. The difficulty certainly did not occur to me. I should have thought there was a hard and sharp line between expenses incurred in the relief of distress and in grants to people entitled to grants on the one hand and office expenses and expenditure of that kind which comes under the head of administration properly so called on the other.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If my noble friend assures me now or on a future stage that that is so, I should, of course, accept it from him; but I should hesitate to let that term pass into an Act of Parliament without being quite clear what it does mean.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I shall be glad to look into that point, and I will have something to say about it at a future stage of the Bill. But what I wish to say a word about is the question of principle involved in throwing these charges, limited in my view strictly to administration, upon the rates. These charges must be paid by somebody if the ratepayers are not liable, who is going to pay them? Are they to come out of the funds at the disposal of the Statutory Committee? I say unhesitatingly that I think it would be unfortunate if it were to go forth that any considerable portion of the money placed at the disposal of the Statutory Committee for the purpose of providing for grants and supplementary allowances should be, as it would probably be said, frittered away in the expenses of local administration. Therefore I rule out the Statutory Committee. Then my noble friend Lord Camperdown says the Treasury ought to undertake the liability. The Treasury is reluctant to do so, I think rightly reluctant; and I will tell my noble friend why. If the Treasury accepted this liability it would mean one continual controversy between the Treasury and the local authorities as to the propriety of this, that, or the other item of expenditure; and quite apart from that, if we desire to have this business conducted upon strictly frugal and economical lines it is much more likely to be so conducted if the people who spend the money realise that they have no chance of getting it back afterwards from the Treasury. Independent of that, there seems to me to be every reason why this charge should fall upon the local authorities. The local authorities are very

557
closely connected with these local committees. It is the local councils who have to make the original applications for the appointment of the local committees. It is the local council which is primarily responsible for the scheme which the local committee will have to administer; and it is the local authority which appoints a majority of the members of the local committee. Therefore the two bodies—the local committee and the local council—are in very close relations, and it seems to me entirely reasonable that expenditure of this kind due to administration and to nothing but administration should fall upon the local authorities and not upon the Treasury or upon the Statutory Committee. There is the further point which was made by my noble friend Lord Hylton, that the grant of these pensions and allowances is in some degree a relief to the ratepayers, who are to that extent interested in the matter.
I have endeavoured to notice most of the points which have been raised by noble Lords on both sides of the House, and I will only add this. We are, of course, in the hands of your Lordships' House; but I venture to think that there is really no reason why the passage of this Bill should be delayed in order that we should first answer the number of questions of detail which have been raised during the course of this discussion. We quite realise that these are questions which ought to be put and which we may be called upon to answer, but why it should be necessary to hold up this Bill until such time as every one of them has been examined I fail altogether to see. I put it to my noble friend that it is important that this Bill should go on, that this money should be provided, and that we ought not to delay the Bill a day longer than we can help, particularly if we can show that any information which is desired by noble Lords on the other side of the House could be given to them irrespective of debates upon the Bill itself.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, the noble Marquess has dealt very fully with the points raised, and I do not think my noble friends behind me desire to stand in the way of the Second Reading of the Bill to-night; but I cannot honestly say that I think the explanation given on some points is a complete one. Take the last point with which the noble Marquess dealt, the question of the power given to local
558
authorities to pay all the administrative expenses. He may be perfectly correct in saying that the local authority is the only body who can properly bear them, but I do not know whether he can produce a precedent—I do not remember one—for giving a local authority power to spend an unlimited sum in salaries without any control by the Local Government Board. It is not a usual provision; in fact, I very much doubt whether there ever was such a provision before. In the discussion which we had last night we were able to show that questions of staff assume sometimes inordinate proportions. In this Bill the Government are really asking Parliament, in a great hurry, to create a novel and very inconvenient precedent.
Let me remind my noble friend of what occurs under the Territorial Forces Act. There you have all the dignitaries of the county called in, with the Lord Lieutenant, to administer the Act, but they are unable without reference to the War Office even to fix the salary of their own secretary, and, as is well known, the War Office has exercised complete control in this connection. Why on earth should a local authority under this Bill be allowed, without any Departmental control, to appoint a secretary at, say, £500 a year, a number of clerks and the whole paraphernalia. It is no answer to say that this provision has been reviewed in the House of Commons for the pace at which Bills are put through that House entirely prohibits that consideration which has been given to Bills in the past. If we take the Second Reading of this Bill to-night, I hope that the noble Marquess will give us until next week for the remaining stages. I do not know whether we have the power to insert an Amendment, but most certainly if we have I shall move the insertion of a limiting clause providing that the local authorities shall be subject to the control of the Local Government Board, as they are under all other Acts. I would ask my noble friend opposite not to press us to go on with the Bill to-morrow. It only reached this House yesterday, and to ask us to hurry it through is really a negation of all that we pressed for at the beginning of the session. Your Lordships' House should not be subjected to being a mere registry of Bills which have been hastily passed in another place.
On Question Bill read 2a.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Would the noble Marquess say when it is proposed to take the Committee Stage?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I must consult with my friends about that. I shall put it down for to-morrow.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: But will it be competent to take the Committee stage to-morrow? If the Bill is put down for to-morrow and no result follows from the noble Marquess's consultation with his colleagues, will it be gone on with tomorrow?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNESurely it is possible to put the Committee Stage down for to-morrow, and before we commence the discussion, if my noble friend will ask the question, we will give him an answer.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow, and Standing Order No. XXXIX to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.

IRISH LABOURERS AND MILITARY SERVICE.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had the following Notice on the Paper—
To call attention to the position of Irish migratory agricultural labourers under the Military Service Act, and to move that such labourers should be provided with a certificate of exemption.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at this hour I will content myself with stating briefly my reasons for putting down this Notice and will refrain from moving the Motion with which my Notice concludes. The Central Chamber of Agriculture yesterday discussed once more the difficulty of labour. As your Lordships are aware, on the one hand we are urged by the President of the Board of Agriculture to sow more wheat and have more land under the plough, and, on the other hand, we are urged by Lord Derby to release a number of men. Your Lordships will remember that there has been a controversy between Lord Selborne and Lord Derby on this question. In the discussion which took place yesterday at the Central Chamber of Agriculture as to how we are to produce here more food for the people of this country and at the same time provide more men for the trenches, a well-known agriculturist, Mr. Patterson, who represents the Staffordshire Farmers' Club, raised the question of migratory labour from Ireland. Mr. Patterson stated
560
that, owing to certain answers that had been given in the other House by the President of the Local Government Board and the general feeling of uncertainty amongst Irish labourers, the men who had previously come over to work upon his land and whom he desired very much to obtain again were frightened to come over. They were afraid that they would be enlisted and sent out to serve in France, and that the exemption they had at present in Ireland did not hold good in this country.
I will state what has happened, and it is no doubt due to the fault of the particular labourer himself. One of the men working for Mr. Paterson last year—he had worked for him for some years—filled up his registration card and gave his address as that of the farm in England on which he was then working. Consequently he was treated as an Englishman. As he did not appear for the purpose of joining the battalion to which he had been posted, a warrant was issued for his arrest. He does not realise that it is his own fault in putting this English address instead of his Irish address on the registration card. The result has been that he has frightened other agricultural labourers in Ireland, and they will not come over because they are afraid that they, too, will be arrested. The question was raised in another place, but the President of the Local Government Board gave an answer which to the peasant mind—and no doubt the Irish peasant is just as suspicious as is the English peasant—does not convey an assurance that any Irish labourer coming over to work on the land in this country will not be arrested and forced into the ranks of the Army. The reply of Mr. Walter Long was given in a very guarded way. He said it was only his own personal opinion that migratory labourers would not come under the Military Service Act. All I am asking my noble friend who will reply is, if it is impossible to give an exemption certificate to the Irish labourers coming to this country—that would be the most satisfactory way of meeting the difficulty—to give a direct assurance from the Local Government Board that no Irish peasant coming over here will be impressed or treated as a deserter. I can assure my noble friend, on the authority of Mr. Paterson, that Mr. Walter Long's statement not being official but merely a personal opinion has had a detrimental effect upon the obtaining here of Irish migratory agricultural labour.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, the answer to the Question of my noble friend opposite is that these labourers, if, as may be supposed, they were on August 15 last ordinarily resident in Ireland and not in Great Britain, are not within the scope of the Military Service Act and therefore do not require certificates of exemption. The Act applies, subject to the exceptions in the Schedule, to unmarried men who were on August 15, 1915, ordinarily resident in Great Britain and within the age for military service. If an Irish labourer who was outside the Act comes over and becomes ordinarily resident in Great Britain, the Act will apply to him, and unless he gets exemption he will thirty days after he becomes so resident be deemed to be enlisted. With regard to what the President of the Local Government Board said in another place in reply to a similar question, I am not aware what effect that statement has had in Ireland. But I see that Mr. Walter Long said—
"The position of these men is absolutely secure and clear. Any Irish labourers coming over for
562
employment, either on farms or in any other capacity, will not come under the Military Service Act and will not be liable to be called upon for service. There is, therefore, really no doubt."
To that I am afraid I cannot add anything.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 2a (The Lord Hylton): Committee negatived, and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow. (No. 12.)

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Message from the Commons that they concur in the Resolution of this House communicated to them on the 22nd instant.
House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.