Lords Sitting of 16 May 1916

IRVINE'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read: Counsel called in: Witnesses examined: Moved that the Bill be now road 2a; agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly.
LORD HARDINGE OF PENSHURST.
The Right Honourable Sir Charles Hardinge, K.G., G.C.B., G.C.S.I., G.C.M.G., C.C.I.E., G.C.V.O., I.S.O., late Governor-General of India, having been created Baron Hardinge of Penshurst, in the County of Kent—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD STRABOLGI.
The House being informed that his Lordship was attending with his writ of summons, the Lord Chancellor explained to the House his Lordship's descent: Then his Lordship was called in and took the Oath and then took his place on the Baron's Bench.
ST. JOHN'S CHURCH, KINGSTON-UPON- HULL BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
ABERDARE AND ABERAMAN GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
Workmen's Compensation (Industrial Diseases)—Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending the provisions of Section 8 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906:
Royal Observatory (Edinburgh)—Twentysixth Annual Report of the Astronomer Royal for Scotland:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Lighthouses, &c. (Local Inspections)—Reports to the Board of Trade by the Trinity House of Deptford Strond, the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses and the Commissioners of Irish Lights, of their inspection of local lighthouses, buoys, and beacons in 1915:
Shops Act, 1912—Orders made by the under-mentioned local authorities and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, affecting certain classes of shops within their respective areas—

Council of Borough of Swansea;

Council of Borough of Eastbourne;

Council of Borough of Lewes;

Urban District Council of Rowley Regis:

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

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 35.)
SMALL HOLDING COLONIES BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to provide for the acquisition and management of land by the State for experimental Small Holding Colonies, and to extend the powers of acquisition and management of land by certain Government Departments under the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, and for other purposes connected therewith—Was presented by the Earl of Selborne; read la; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday the 25 th instant. (No 36.)
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL. [H.L.]
To be read 2a on Thursday next.
SUMMER TIME BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read la, and to be printed. (No 33.)
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended for the remainder of the week (The Lord President (M. Crewe); agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

SUMMER TIME BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, taking advantage of the Motion which has just been made by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Second Reading of the Summer Time Bill. This Bill is a modest attempt to establish a closer correspondence between the hours when people are awake and at work and the hours of daylight. In principle, no doubt, that correspondence is supposed to exist already. We thank the wise Providence who gave us—
… earth and heaven, darkness and light; Who for toil the day has given, for rest the night.
That is the principle to which we all pay lip service, but in practice we are very far from abiding by it. We are in practice the slaves of conventions, which lead us to misuse both the light and the darkness. At one end we treat the hours of daylight as if the sun had not risen; at the other we spend millions upon artificial light which, because it is artificial, is inferior to and is obviously much more extravagant than sunlight, which costs us nothing. It has often been said that if in this country any one were able at five o'clock on a summer's morning to lift the roofs off the houses he would see that, in spite of bright daylight, the greater part of the population was sound asleep with closed shutters; that if, again, he were able to perform a similar operation at ten o'clock in the evening, he would find a great part of the population using artificial light in order to make up for their own mismanagement earlier in the day. The object of this Bill is to introduce a small measure of additional Common sense into these arrangements.
This question is, of course, very far from being a new one. Indeed, one was reminded of its antiquity by a very interesting letter republished in the
1040
Observer of last Sunday and written by Benjamin Franklin in the year 1784. That letter puts the whole case almost for daylight saving, and I would like to read to your Lordships two sentences from it which seem to me to sum up the whole question in a nutshell. Franklin was then living in Paris, and his letter was addressed to the people of that city. He ended his letter in these words—
"They are as well instructed, judicious, and prudent a people as exist anywhere in the world, all professing, like myself, to be lovers of economy; and, from the many heavy taxes required from them by the necessities of the State, have surely an abundant reason to be economical. I say it is impossible that so sensible a people under such circumstances should have lived so long by file smoky, unwholesome, and enormously expensive light of candles if they had really known that they might have had as much pure light of the sun for nothing."
That really is, in a few words, the case for this Bill. Your Lordships may be aware that this question came before a Committee of the House of Commons in the year 1908 That Committee reported in favour of the measure which I am now proposing, or of a similar measure. In 1909, another Committee of the House of Commons reported against the Bill by a majority of one; but it is to be noted that their adverse opinion was founded not so much upon the merits of the case as upon the fact that there existed a great diversity of opinion with regard to the measure and that it was likely to cause inconvenience to many important interests. The House of Commons as we know it to-day has taken a much more courageous view of the question, and the Bill which I am asking your Lordships to read a second time was read a second time in that House without a Division.
One may make some rather interesting conjectures as to the ill-success of this proposal in its earlier days. That ill-success was probably due, in the first place, to apprehensions that we should disorganise our own business arrangements at home, and also to the apprehension that it might lead us into complications with other Powers with whom we are in business relations. I shall say a word about that part of the case in a moment. But I imagine that the real obstacle to the change was to be discovered in what I should almost call the innate conservatism of the national temperament. We do not like changing our habits, still less do we like

1041
changing them under instructions from Acts of Parliament. Such changes are always a facile prey to ridicule, and it is easy to make cheap jokes at the expense of a Daylight Saving Bill. Besides that, I think many people were probably convinced that there was something impious, almost sacrilegious, in laying hands upon an institution so venerable as Gree wich mean time. To many of our fellow-country Greenwich mean time probably looks like something that stands upon the same level as the British Constitution or the Thirty-nine Articles. But I need not remind your Lordships that our arrangements for describing time are purely the result of a series of conventions. Local time, as we have it in the provinces, does not, of course, bear any correspondence with true or solar time. Local time, instead of varying all over the country, is made to accord with Greenwich mean time. On the other hand, Greenwich mean time is, I am informed, itself the result of a convention. I confess that I always imagined that noon at Greenwich was determined by the fact that the sun was at that moment over the Greenwich meridian; but I learn on further inquiry that the sun himself is by no means to be trusted in these matters, and that all careful astronomers base themselves not upon the movements of the sun but upon certain movements of the stars. I venture, therefore, to think that we need have no scruple whatever in laying hands upon an arrangement based upon such a foundation as that.
In these days we take a rather stricter and more matter-of-fact view of these problems. The real justification of a Bill of this kind, particularly when we ask Parliament to agree to it in time of war, is that it is a measure which conduces to efficiency and economy, and there can, I think, be no doubt whatever that this Bill will have those results. Our proposal is that in the five summer months we should push on the clock by one hour, and thereby encourage people to begin the day and the night earlier than they have hitherto been in the habit of doing. The arguments in favour of the proposal seem to me fairly obvious. It is, of course, the case that the hours of daylight are limited, and it seems to follow that it is our duty to turn them to the best account that we can. I understand that the result of this Bill will be that during the summer months 130 additional hours of daylight will be available in consequence of
1042
it. It is not less true that this Bill will have extremely valuable results in that it will give art additional hour in the evening when the days are long for purposes of creation. All of us must have been struck of late years by the wonderful increase in the number of parks, open spaces, and recreation grounds in the vicinity of London and of all the larger cities, and it is surely no small thing that we should be able by an arrangement of this kind to put it in the power of the people who frequent these parks and recreation grounds to use them for an additional hour every day of their lives during the summer. I think the same argument applies not less strongly in another case—that of the people who have gardens or allotments in the country, and whom most of us have often seen perhaps at the end of a hard day's work in the fields enjoying their short spell of leisure by working in their own little plot.
With regard to the question of economy, I will not take upon myself to name to the House the sum which it is believed will be saved to the country by this change in the law. The estimates must obviously be very conjectural. I have seen it placed as high as £10,000,000 a year, but I should be sorry to assume any responsibility for that or any other figure. It is quite clear, however, that if we can get people to consume sunlight instead of electric light and lamp light, the national bill for illuminants must be reduced to a material extent. I may mention another reason for which I think the change may be made without any misgiving. Foreign countries, which at one time apparently paid as little attention to this question as we did, are now most of them adopting a change of this kind. In the French Chamber of Deputies a resolution in favour of it was unanimously passed. Holland is also about to adopt the change. Denmark has adopted it; and I understand that in Germany and Austria something of the same kind is about to be done. These precedents are, of course, very valuable, not only because they are precedents but because they show that we need no longer have the same apprehension that we used at one time to entertain—the apprehension, I mean, that by altering the time here we should find that we were out of accord with the people with whom we are in business relations abroad. At home the Associated Chamber of Commerce have advocated the

1043
measure. The Committee which is now watching over for the Government the question of the consumption of coal attach great importance to it and have recommended it to us. The Post Office raise no objections; and I am given to understand that the Stock Exchange, whose mysteries I have never been able to fathom and which was at one time very adverse to the proposal, now at any rate regards it with equanimity. I need not say more of the arguments in favour of the Bill.
With regard to the arguments against the Bill, I will only say this. So far as I am able to see, the only practical inconvenience which is likely to be occasioned to any one at the moment of transition will be a very slight and momentary inconvenience. It comes to this, that people will be expected to get up a little earlier at the beginning of the summer season, and they will not get back the hour of sleep that will be owing to them until some time in the month of October. With that exception, the transition from the old to the new system ought to present no material inconvenience; and I think it may be fairly argued that to any one who has been in the habit, for example, of passing from this country to Ireland, where the mean time is different, or, still more, to any one who has travelled across the Continent of America and found himself obliged to alter the time of his watch as he went on, this slight disturbance will not appear very formidable. I believe it is the case that there are some industries in which the alteration of the time may cause some inconvenience. That is likely to be the case in regard to the fruit-picking industry; and, to some extent, also, in regard to the dairying industry; but I would only say, as to that, that these are people who have been already to a considerable extent accustomed to turning night into day, and who probably will not greatly mind if they find a few additional hours of work before sunrise imposed upon them. But, at any rate, I venture to say that any of these local or special inconveniences ought not to be weighed in the balance as compared with the general advantage to the whole public which we believe will result from the passing of this Bill.
It is sometimes asked why it is necessary to legislate at all, why you cannot leave
1044
people to make these changes for themselves. I am sure that any one who pauses for a moment to reflect will realise that no change of this kind can be carried out unless it is made general and universal. Why did we resort to Greenwich mean time. Because of the inconvenience of having one time in one part of the country and another time in another district. Just in the same way social arrangements of all kinds would be absolutely impossible if there were a kind of go-as-you-please system in force, under which some people could adopt the new arrangement of time while others adhered to the former plan. A change of this kind obviously ought not to be imposed upon the country if there were any reason for supposing that the country was reluctant to accept it. All the evidence which is in our possession leads us to suppose that the country is ready to accept it; certainly that it is ready to accept it in view of the condition of things under which we are living at this time. This Bill, as your Lordships know, will have effect only while the war lasts. It may therefore be regarded in the light of an emergency measure, and as an experiment. If the public are dissatisfied with the results produced, the Bill can easily not be renewed at some future time.
I have only one word more to say. It is this. On account of the number of notices which will have to be issued to persons concerned all over the country it is most important that, if the Bill is to come into operation, as we hope it will, by Sunday morning next, no time should be lost in passing it into law. It is for that reason that we have adopted the unusual course of asking your Lordships to take both the First and the Second Reading this evening; and it is for that reason that we shall put the Bill down for Committee to-morrow, in the hope that if the House approves of the Bill it will be allowed to pass through the remaining stages on that day.
Moved (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Lords, the closing words of the speech of my noble friend opposite will have explained to your Lordships, what I do not think any of you had realised till that moment, that we are discussing, not the First Reading, but the Second Reading of this Bill. That remarkable circumstance has

1045
arisen from the fact that at the beginning of business, on the Motion of the Leader of the House, as is usual when we are asked to legislate nowadays, our Rules were suspended; and we have been called upon to legislate upon a Bill which technically we have never even seen. That is the present position. Indeed, there was a moment of extreme anguish—not witnessed by many of your Lordships—when we were almost on the point of reading the Bill a second time before it had actually reached your Lordships' House. For some reason it lingered in the passage, and was only delivered just a second or two before my noble friend rose to his feet. I cannot take this Bill very seriously, and therefore I cannot pretend to use tragical accents in describing how your Lordships' House is being treated in the matter of legislation.
The Bill itself is an experiment. My noble friend explained at the end of his speech that it is a temporary measure to be passed for the period of the war. It is recommended upon general and upon special grounds, and the special grounds are that it will contribute to economy and efficiency, which are so much required at this moment. For these reasons, if for these reasons alone, I think almost all your Lordships would be willing to give the Bill a trial. Anything which ministers to economy, considering the situation in which we are placed, ought to be, accepted by your Lordships' House even if it is trivial and even if it is inconvenient. With respect to the rest of the case, my noble friend anticipates all sorts of wonderful results from the passage of this Bill. I cannot say that I am equally sanguine. I do not believe it will prove of very great permanent advantage to the life of the people.
My noble friend said that, as far as he had access to any evidence, there was a general consensus of opinion in favour of the Bill. He did not tell us what the working classes thought about it. That is what I should like to have heard. As regards the upper mid middle classes, I do not think they ought to come to Parliament for a Bill of this kind. If they want to go to bed earlier or to get up earlier, why do they not do so? Personally I have not much sympathy with a Bill of this kind so far as they are concerned. But if this change really would be an advantage to the working classes, that would be, a great argument because they are not free agents in the matter; they cannot alter their hours to suit themselves, but are
1046
bound by all sorts of conditions which make it incumbent upon them to trust to general rules. My noble friend did not mention any evidence of the wishes of the working classes. He did not tell us of any view expressed by the Trade Union Congress, or of any resolution passed by a Trade Council. I dare say there is such. I do not urge the point strongly because, for my part, I should not suggest any opposition to the Bill, on the ground which I put forward at the beginning of these few remarks—namely, that if it is felt by the Government that this Bill will minister to economy in this time of war then I think it should be tried as an experiment. But let it be quite understood that it is an experiment. Do not let it be said when the war is over, if people have found the change an inconvenient one, that there will be any inconsistency in going back to our old adherence to the clock. I am sorry that my noble friend, who generally speaks respectfully of every one, spoke rather disrespectfully of the sun. He said the sun was no more to be relied upon than the British Constitution.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: No; I did not say that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Not quite so low as that?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My noble friend has mixed up two different parts of my speech. What I said was that some people had come to think of Greenwich mean time as if it were on a par with the British Constitution or the Thirty-nine Articles.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I will not say anything about the Thirty-nine Articles. But any one who places any reliance on the British Constitution at this time of day is likely to be very much disappointed. So far as this Bill is concerned, I do not think that in any quarter of your Lordships' House opposition will be offered to it as a temporary measure. My noble friend said that it is important that it should be passed at once, that certain notices have to go out by Sunday. There always are these desperate reasons why your Lordships' House should legislate at breakneck speed. The notices, no doubt, are prepared and ready to be issued, all dated for Sunday, and therefore it is no good crying over spilt milk. If, therefore,

1047
your Lordships are willing to pass this Bill into law in the course of to-morrow, I do not think any of us on this Bench will resist it. But we cannot, pretend to approve of procedure which makes legislation somewhat of a farce.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I have not had an opportunity of seeing this Bill, which it is stated is a temporary measure. But I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether it can be extended merely by Proclamation or by Order in Council, or whether for the purpose of extension it will have to come back to the Legislature. Although Constitutional matters are not regarded as of much weight nowadays, I entertain great objection to legislation of this kind being extended by Proclamation. I do not know whether that principle is embedded in this Bill, and therefore I have ventured to ask the noble Marquess a question on the point.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the answer to the noble and learned Lord's question is this. In Clause 2 it is laid down that the Bill is to be in force in the year 1916 between the two limits of time mentioned. Then the clause goes on to provide that His Majesty may, in any subsequent year, by Order in Council made during the continuance of the present war, declare the Act to be in force during that year. Therefore the Act can be renewed for one year only, and then only if the war is still in progress.
May I say a word with regard to what fell from my noble friend Lord Salisbury as to the views of the working classes? I am not able to produce to him any authoritative statement proceeding from ally great body of working men, but I am able to tell my noble friend that the Labour Members in the House of Commons supported the Bill—there was no Division against it—and my noble friend, who knows the House of Commons better than I do, knows quite well that the Labour Members are not likely to support any measure which is calculated to outrage the feelings or interfere with the convenience of their constituents. I should be inclined to go further and say that obviously this Bill is advantageous to the working classes, because they are the people of all others who are likely to gain by getting the extra hour of daylight in the summer evenings.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But they lose an hour's sleep in the morning.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Their day will not really be any longer. They will spend a certain amount of time in the open air instead of indoors. There is only one other point. I have heard it suggested that this Bill might be the occasion of much more overtime work being done; but there, again, I think one may safely trust the working classes of this country to see to it that they are not deprived by any side wind of the advantage which this Bill undoubtedly gives them.
LORD HINDLIP: My Lords, the noble Marquess referred to the industry of fruit-growing as one which would be placed under some disadvantage by this Bill. I should like to point out that these people will in wet weather lose probably an hour in the morning if not two, but they are going to lose very likely another hour in the evening. It has been the habit of the railway companies to close their goods yards in fruit-growing districts at rather an early hour, and if they close them an hour earlier still after this Bill becomes law the hardship inflicted on this industry will be very great. In the past it has been extremely difficult to get fruit to the railway goods yards in time; and I would ask the noble Marquess whether the Board of Agriculture could not bring some influence to bear on the railway companies so as to secure that in fruit-growing districts the goods yards may be kept open for a reasonable time.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am obliged to the noble Lord for his suggestion, and I will make representation on the subject to the President of the Board of Agriculture.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

DISABLED SOLDIERS.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can now state precisely what provision will be made for disabled soldiers upon their discharge from hospital pending the payment of their pension.
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I do not desire in putting this Question to detain your Lordships with any lengthy remarks, because I have already felt it my duty to address the House more than once upon this point. Shortly stated, the situation is this. When soldiers are discharged from hospital disabled—that is to say, discharged not only from hospital but from the Service as well—there is an interval before their pension is fixed and begins to be paid. That interval ought to be short, but it is sometimes long. In any case it is absolutely necessary that some provision should be made during the interval for the soldier's livelihood and for the livelihood of his dependants. Certain concessions have already been made by His Majesty's Government, but we all thought they were inadequate. I am given to understand that, having taken time to consider the matter, the Government are prepared to go further than they have done hitherto. I therefore put this Question to my noble friend in order to give him an opportunity of stating exactly the position which the Government take up at the present moment, and how far they are prepared to go.
LORD BERESFORD: My Lords, this is the third time that this matter has been brought before the notice of your Lordships' House. On March 15 I asked my noble friend opposite whether disabled soldiers received pay until such time as the pension was awarded. The noble Lord replied—
"Pension dates front the time of discharge. There should be no period of time during which a man is not in receipt of pay or pension."
I further asked my noble friend whether the gratuity of £2 awarded under Royal Warrant No. 1117 was given to the men. He replied—
"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 20s. in his pocket on discharge, even though the account is in debt. All men should be settled up with on discharge."
I may point out that the position is still very unsatisfactory. I give every credit to the Chelsea Hospital Pensions Committee for doing their best, but it appears to me that they are totally understaffed.
I would like to state a few cases to your Lordships. Private H. Walker, late of the Scots Guards, was discharged on April 28. On May 11, although he had written to the
1050
paymaster for arrears, he had had no money, nor even an answer to his letter. He has had no money since his wife's separation allowance stopped on April 28. This man had twenty years' service. The next case is that of Private F. J. Ardley, aged 20, of the City of London Regiment. He was wounded in the spine, and is paralysed in one arm and one leg. At the end of March be was discharged from the London General Hospital; yet on April 26 he had not received back pay or pension, and was without any means at all. His father is in the Army and his mother is living on the separation allowance. The next case is that of Trooper J.J. Impleton, of the 1st Life Guards. He had been receiving 25 s. a week—now reduced to 10s. a week—and ls. 3d. a week for his child for life. This is all he has to live upon. I may mention that his left leg has been amputated, and he is suffering great pain in the stump. Then there is the case of Private H. A. Clarke of the 8th Royal West Kent Regiment. He lost a leg at Loos; he was discharged from Millbank Hospital, but has not yet had any pension. The only money he has received was £2 paid on February 23, since which time he has not received a penny or any reply to his letters. Private Samuel Wood, of the 1st Lancashire Regiment, was discharged from the London Hospital, and sent to the "Star and Garter" with injured spine. He is very worried about his wife and children. It is five weeks since his wife drew the separation allowance. He has no pension, and nothing to send to his wife. The last case with which I will trouble the House is that of Private H. Power, of the 8th Manchester Regiment. He has received no pay since his discharge on March 16. He is now in the Lewisham Military Hospital with asthma. He tried to get civilian clothes, but had not the 17 s. 6d. to allow him to pay for them and return his khaki. If he got pay and arrears of pay he might be able to push along until he secured employment. At the present moment his wife is penniless, and he is still wearing his uniform.
Though the Chelsea Committee is very much overworked, I submit that it is our duty in both Houses of Parliament to see that these things do not occur. These men were told that they would never suffer for their patriotism, and that, if wounded, they would get a good pension and be well looked after. I can vouch for the eases which I have read out, and I hope my noble

1051
friend will be able to tell us something to prove that the Government are going to put a stop to this sort of thing. There may be many of these cases of which none of us are aware, for unless a man has a powerful friend he cannot get his case known. Consequently there may be many of these men suffering the greatest distress at the present moment. I hope that we shall get a satisfactory answer from the Government.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I can assure the House that the Secretary of State deplores the existence of these cases, the hardship of which is patent to us all; and if the noble and gallant Lord will be so good as to send me particulars of the cases he has mentioned I will look into them myself at Chelsea and see that as little delay as possible occurs in regard to relief. Some time ago when, at the instance of the noble Marquess opposite, I explained the system of pensions, there was one matter which rather perplexed him, and I was not in a position at the time to give any satisfactory reply. The noble Marquess will remember that I stated that a man who lost a leg received 25 s. a week for two months after discharge, but if he had lost an arm he received only 20 s. a week. The noble Marquess wanted to know why a leg was valued at more than an arm. That matter has been gone into, and I am pleased to inform the noble Marquess that an arm is now to be regarded as of the same value as a leg, and whichever of these limbs a man loses he will receive the 25 s.
I think I am right in assuming that this Question of the noble Marquess's arises out of one or two replies which I have given, and also owing to representations that have been sent to me from various sources as to delay in paying pensions when pay has ceased on discharge. I have been the recipient of a great number of these cases and have done my best to hurry matters up, sometimes, I am pleased to say, not entirely without success. But now I am glad to be able to tell the noble Marquess that the Secretary of State has made new arrangements by which the discharged soldier will be kept in touch with and a payment will be guaranteed to him every week from the date of discharge until the Chelsea Commissioners have settled his claim for pension. The main new departure is as follows. If by the date of the man's discharge the Pensions Issue Office have not received the decision as to pension
1052
from the Chelsea Commissioners, they will on the date of discharge issue to the man 10 s. if he has no dependants, and 20 s. if there are dependants, and the payment of this sum will be repeated weekly until the pension question is settled. When the Chelsea Commissioners have decided the pension, if it is more than the 10s. or 20s., as the case may be, the Pension Issue Office will refund the balance. That is to say, if the pension in the ease of a single man should be 15 s.—namely, 5s. more than the weekly temporary allowance of 10 s.—the extra 5s. will be refunded to the pensioner; but if the pension should turn out to be less than 10 s. per week, a refund on the part of the man will not be required. And, further, a man who has been waiting some time for his pension will receive the arrears of the 10 s. or 20 s. unless he has been receiving aid from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Help Society. But the soldier will not be called upon to refund money to the Soldiers' and Sailors' Help Society.
In reply to the point raised by the noble and gallant Lord opposite I may explain that when a man leaves, the officer in charge of the hospital provides him with plain clothes, advances £1 of the pay warrant gratuity that becomes due to him on discharge, and gives him a railway warrant to his home, which the man should reach twelve or thirteen days before his formal discharge. The officer in charge of the hospital notifies the soldier's paymaster, who arranges (1) for rations for the soldier between leaving the hospital and his discharge; (2) for a cash allowance instead of clothes if the man already has a suit of plain clothes; and (3) for his approximate balance of pay. If the soldier is in debt to the public no deduction is made from the rations or from the clothes allowance, so that the position will be materially improved.
The noble Marquess referred to the delays that had taken place at Chelsea. Nobody deplores those delays more than the Chelsea Commissioners themselves. But the work which has been thrown on the Chelsea Commissioners has been very heavy. Cases have come in at the rate of nearer 6,000 than 5,000 per week. Each case has to be tabulated, various references have to be made, and very often the papers are sent up incomplete; but when, which unhappily seldom is the case, the missing documents are not important, the case is proceeded with and adjudicated upon. To show how great has

1053
been the work, I may mention that some of the clerks at Chelsea have been working often up to three and four o'clock in the morning to expedite the cases. The noble and gallant Lord opposite said that more staff is needed. He is quite right. We want more room and additional staff. Construction has either begun or will be immediately begun to increase the accommodation, and a much larger staff will then be employed, which we trust will result in more prompt dealing with the cases. In the meantime there is this provision for ready money to be given to the soldier immediately on his discharge, and it will be continued until the pension is payable. It is hoped that in this way delays may he prevented in future, and that these men who have done such good service will no longer have this suffering imposed upon them.
LORD BERESFORD: My noble friend said that the money, a very large sum, advanced to the men by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Help Society will not be deducted from the man's pension when it is given. Are the Government going to refund the money to the Soldiers' and Sailors' Help Society?
LORD SANDHURST: I believe that some arrangement has been come to on this matter between the War Office and the society.

THE KUT FORCE.
THE EARL OF DESART THE EARL OF DESART rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are able, or expect shortly to be able, to publish the following information—(a) The names of the wounded and sick officers and men of the Kut Force who have been handed over to the British authorities; (b) The names of those who have died since the last publication of the losses in that Force; (c) The names of those who are now prisoners of war in the hands of the Turks.
The noble and learned Earl said: My Lords, I should like to say a few words before putting this Question. As we know, after considerable fighting at Ctesiphon and other places the Force under General Townshend operating in Mesopotamia was finally invested in Kut. For a time after that investment some information came out, but, if I am rightly informed, since about the middle of January of this year no, or very few, friends or relations of officers and
1054
men in Kut have received any information as to what had been the lot of individuals composing that Force. It held out, as we know, through its fortitude and gallantry, up to the early days of last month, and we had the news of the unhappy surrender about three weeks ago. We know that in the fighting at Ctesiphon and at other places before the investment a considerable number of officers and men were wounded. Some were sick; and there have been rumours—I hope not well founded—that there was a great deal of sickness in Kut during the investment. But since the investment we have received no information as to individuals.
Among the suffering from bereavement and loss which in this great war has fallen so heavily on the community, and on no body of men more than on members of your Lordships' House, I think perhaps the most trying is a long period of suspense with no knowledge as to the fate of those dear to people at home, and there is no doubt that this period of three months has been an extraordinarily trying time to those who have friends in the Kut Force. Now we know that those who are sick and wounded have been handed to the British authorities by the Turks, to whom in this respect I think one should pay a tribute in comparison with others of our enemies who, before the war, posed as the exponents of the highest specimens of the martial virtues, among which up till now we had included consideration for sick, wounded, and prisoners among enemies. There are also those who have been made prisoners of war, and whose names will be known if they are not already known. I do not for a moment suggest any blame to the Government or to any member of the Government because this information has not yet been given. I can well imagine the difficulties. They may not yet have been overcome.
I am sure that every member of the Government would desire to terminate at as early a date as possible the suspense under which the friends and relatives of these men have so long suffered. I will give a concrete case, and there must be others very much like it. A young officer with whom I am well acquainted was wounded in the fighting at Ctesiphon, and, like many of our officers and men, managed to carry on and fought continuously until the investment. After the investment he was seriously wounded, and the last news—not at all reassuring—which his

1055
parents received was in the middle of January. Since then they have not heard anything. When the investment came, with the feeling of sorrow for the necessity of the surrender there was this amount of comfort—that relatives at home thought they might soon get news of those belonging to them. I am sure they will receive it as soon as it can be given. But it would be of some consolation to them if the Government were able to give an idea of the date at which relatives and friends in this country may hope to know whether those belonging to them are in our hands as sick and wounded, whether they have passed away altogether during the siege, or whether they are prisoners of war in the hands of the Turks. That is my only motive for putting this Question. It is in no sense an attack upon or criticism of the Government, who must be as anxious as we all are that the information should be given at as early a date as possible.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I am sure that all your Lordships fully sympathise with what has been said by the noble and learned Earl, and that the Secretary of State for War will be the very first to desire to alleviate the anxiety which all relatives must feel for those who are dear to them and who have done so well. The noble Earl has placed three specific Questions on the Paper, to which I shall be glad to give answers. At the same time I will carry in my mind what he has said, and will make it my duty to report it to the Secretary of State.
First the noble Earl asks for the names of the wounded and sick officers and men of the Kut Force who have been handed over to the British authorities. Four British officers were exchanged. Their names are Lieutenant F. G. S. McLean, Lieutenant W. A. G. Hinds, Lieutenant F. W. Portsmouth, and Lieutenant J. H. Bulloch. The two former belong to the Indian Army, and the two latter to the Norfolk Regiment. It is hoped to publish these names in the casualty list to-morrow. There were also exchanged one conductor, one chief petty officer, and one petty officer of the Royal Navy, 97 British rank and file, and about 970 native officers and other ranks. The names of the conductor and of the two petty officers have not yet been received. The names of some of the rank and file have been received and have been notified to the next-of-kin. A full list has been asked for, but has not yet arrived.
1056
Next the noble Earl asks for the names of those who have died since the last publication of the losses in the Kut Force. Deaths were notified as they occurred during the siege. An inquiry has been sent as to whether there are any deaths which have not yet been notified.
Lastly, the noble Earl desires the names of those who are now prisoners of war in the hands of the Turks. No lists of those taken prisoners have yet been received from the Turkish Government, but the United States Embassy have been asked by the Foreign Office to try to get lists as soon as possible, and it has been suggested that the officers who are prisoners should help in compiling them.

THE AIR SERVICE IN GALLIPOLI
LORD BERESFORD LORD BERESFORD rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is a fact that certain British and Australian military officers attached to the Royal Naval Air Service during the Gallipoli Campaign were mentioned in Despatches by their commanding officer and by the Vice-Admiral commanding the Eastern Mediterranean Naval Forces, and that their names were omitted when those of the Naval officers belonging to the same Service and mentioned in the same Despatches were published in March last; if so, what was the reason for such omission; whether a supplementary list of awards will be published relative to these military officers, and giving effect to the Vice-Admiral's recommendations; and, if not, what is the reason for differentiating in the matter of rewards between naval and military officers of the same Service mentioned in the same Despatches.
The noble and gallant Lord said: My Lords, I have put this Question on the Paper as there is a very keen feeling in the Naval Service, a chivalrous feeling, that these military officers who were working together with them at the same duty—a very hazardous and dangerous duty, executed with wonderful ability—should receive the same treatment. The Naval officers were mentioned in the Despatch by the Admiral, and I desire to know whether the military officers were mentioned in the same Despatch, and, if they were, why they were not gazetted and why they did not get the same reward. The Naval Service feels this, and justly

1057
so, to be rather a slur on their comrades in the sister Service who were doing exactly the same work and doing it with the same gallantry. My noble friend the Civil Lord of the Admiralty made a mistake when he answered my noble fiend Lord Sligo on this subject on March 22. The noble Duke said, "The Military wing of the Royal Flying Corps was not represented, except in the person of one officer." That is true. But there were officers taken from their regiments who had been working with the Navy for a considerable time. My noble friend said at the end of his remarks on March 22, "There will, I understand, be another set of Despatches published later, and no doubt due mention will be made of the work of the Air Service on that occasion." I would ask the noble Duke whether those Despatches are going to be published sooner or later, and I would also ask him whether he can answer the detailed Questions which I have put upon the Paper, more particularly whether or not these military officers were mentioned in Admiral de Robeck's Despatch, and, if they were, why they were not gazetted afterwards.
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I am afraid I am only able to answer the Question in the broadest terms. The list of names sent in by the Vice-Admiral was too large, judged by the scale generally adopted for other operations of the war. It was therefore returned to him to reconsider, and the list as gazetted was in accordance with final recommendations. Some names which were included in the first list were not included in the final list, but in all cases their services have been noted. This applies to both naval and military officers; there is no differentiation between them. I am not able to make a statement as to the further question raised by my noble friend, but I will make inquiry as to whether any further Despatches will be published in due course.
LORD BERESFORD: Thank you.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.