Lords Sitting of 23 May 1916

GREAT CENTRAL AND SHEFFIELD DISTRICT RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the South Eastern and London, Chatham and Dover Railways Bill [H.L.] do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Great Central and Sheffield District Railways Bill [H.L.]; read, and agreed to: All petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.
SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
COLCHESTER GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
Miscellaneous, No. 16 (1916)—Further Correspondence with the United States Ambassador respecting the treatment of British prisoners of war and interned civilians in Germany (in continuation of "Miscellaneous, No. 19 (1915)," [Cd. 8108]):
National Health Insurance—Interim Report of the Departmental Committee on Approved Society Finance and Administration, and correspondence thereon:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Shops Act, 1912—Order made by the Council of the County Borough of Huddersfield and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, affecting a certain class of shops within the Borough:
Indictment (Criminal Informations and Inquisitions) Rules—Rules, dated 23rd May, 1916:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

THE OPERATIONS IN MESOPOTAMIA.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD ISLINGTON): My Lords, the noble Marquess opposite asked me yesterday whether, when the Papers with regard to the operations in Mesopotamia were presented, the private correspondence that had taken place between the Governor-General and the Secretary of State would be included. I was not then in a position to give any definite answer. I have made inquiries with regard to the point, but I can only now go as far as this in giving him a reply. For the purpose of these Papers the large mass of correspondence, both official and private, regarding the operations in Mesopotamia is being examined at the India Office with a view to considering what documents can properly be published consistent with the public interest. That examination has not been concluded, and the consent of the different Departments concerned will have to be obtained. Pending the settlement of these points, it is impossible for me to say what documents will or will not be included. But I may say that the Government have no wish to conceal anything that can properly be made public, and that the national interests—and here they must be guided, of course, by their expert military and political advisers—are the sole consideration which will govern their decision.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The question was really put by my noble friend Lord Midleton. But we are advised that unless the documents to which he referred—namely, the private correspondence between the Viceroy and the Secretary of State—are in some cases included, the Papers will probably be insufficient to enable your Lordships and the country to arrive at a just conclusion as to the circumstances.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the examiners. (No. 39.)

SWANSEA HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
The Lord BALFOUR—Appointed to take the Chair in Committee of the Whole House this day.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
  Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BUXTON SCHEME CONFIRMATION) BILL. [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendments proposed by the Committee made: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.

  IRVINE'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH in the Chair.]
  LORD WRENBURY: My Lords, when this Bill was recently before your Lordships' House sitting in a Judicial capacity I was asked by my noble and learned friends who were sitting with me to look into the variations of the settlement which the parties proposed. I have done so, and the parties have agreed as to the variations of the settlement, and also to an Amendment as regards the access of the husband to the children of the marriage. The Amendments which I have to move are agreed to between the parties, and are simply to give effect to the variations in the settlement, which will enable a great many of the recitals in the Bill to be struck out; and there are also drafting Amendments.
  Moved, That the Amendments be agreed to.—(Lord Wrenbury.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.

  STANDING ORDERS RELATING TO APPEALS.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BUCKMASTER): My Lords, the Motion which stands in my name is a Motion asking your Lordships to vary one of the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House and to repeal another. They both relate exclusively to Judicial business, and I trust that I shall be able to satisfy your Lordships that the proposed alterations will be of great benefit. The first of the two Standing Orders dealt with by the Motion is the Order which limits the time for presenting appeals. The time allowed in which to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal to your Lordships' House now stands at twelve months; it is proposed to change that period to six months.
  The times fixed for presenting appeals have varied in a remarkable degree. At one time there was no fixed period at all; at another the period was five years; and ever since 1876 the period has been one year, and it has been within the competence of your Lordships' House, if you thought fit, to alter that period by Standing Order. I think it may be that the experience of any of your Lordships who have had the misfortune of litigation will lead you to agree that one of the greatest anxieties which litigation involves is never knowing the time when it will come to its final conclusion. I must say that it has often appeared to me that, apart from the cost and trouble which litigation involves, the greatest anxiety which a litigant can suffer is in never knowing the length of time within which his troubles are coming to an end. At the present moment if a judgment is obtained in favour of a litigant in the Court of Appeal, twelve months may elapse before his opponent need take any steps whatever to bring the matter before your Lordships' House; and after he has taken that step, it is then open to him, owing to the liberality and indulgence with which applications relating to matters before your Lordships' House are always dealt with, still further to prolong by six or twelve months the time before which the appeal is heard. To my mind that is a great hardship upon the litigant who holds the judgment in the Court of Appeal. During the whole of this time he can never be at rest; he can never know whether the litigation, which he had hoped was ended, is not going once more to break out. Cases have come within my own knowledge where

  73
  nearly the whole of a man's fortune has hung upon the hazard of the judgment of the Court; and it is, I think, a great hardship that the period during which this uncertainty should last should be prolonged beyond that which is amply necessary for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of justice. I trust that your Lordships will think that six months is a sufficient time in which a litigant who has had a judgment adverse to him can make up his mind whether he is going to pursue his action into the final Court.
  I should not have brought this matter before your Lordships' House without taking steps beforehand to ascertain—what I feel sure your Lordships would desire to know—the way in which such a proposal as this is regarded by the legal profession. It is, of course, almost impossible to ascertain how it is regarded by the public outside except by ascertaining how the legal profession view it, and there has been a most remarkable unanimity of opinion in favour of the alteration which I am asking your Lordships to make. The Lord Chief Justice of England, the Master of the Rolls, and every member of your Lordships' House who takes part in the Judicial business of the House—apart from one great and notable exception, whose dissent I sincerely regret, Lord Halsbury—approve of the proposed change. The Bar Council have unanimously passed a resolution in favour of it, and the Incorporated Law Society have done the same. From Scotland I have obtained the approval of the Lord President of the Court of Session, the Dean of Faculty, the Deputy Keeper of the Signet, the President of the Incorporated Society of Law Agents, and the President of the Incorporated Society of Solicitors. I have also attempted to ascertain the opinion in Ireland, and I find that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, the Attorney-General, and the President of the Incorporated Law Society are in favour of this proposal. I may add that there is not one single body or person whom I have approached who has to do with the administration of legal affairs who is not in favour of this proposed change, with the one great and venerated exception whose name I have mentioned. I therefore trust that the proposed alteration is one which will commend itself to your Lordships' favourable notice.
  The second alteration deals with an Order which has been part of the Standing
  74
  Orders relating to the Judicial business of your Lordships' House for a long time. It is certainly in part antiquated, and I trust that your Lordships will think that it is altogether obsolete. It provides that where a judgment has been given against a person who is either in prison, or a lunatic, or an infant, or a married woman, a further time should be given within which his or her right to appeal may exist beyond what may be defined as the period of disability. If you take the obvious case of the married woman, at the present moment this provision is clearly absurd. A married woman has to-day exactly the same power of litigating with regard to her separate estate as a man; and that when she has a judgment against her in the Court of Appeal she should be able to wait until she becomes a widow, and then within a certain period after that time appeal against the judgment in your Lordships' House, is so unreasonable that I hope your Lordships will not think that this right should continue any longer.
  With regard to the other cases, the position stands in this way. Both infants and persons of unsound mind are always represented in their litigation here by a next friend or guardian ad litem. In any case in which an infant's interest is involved, it is nearly always associated with the distribution of an estate. If the next friend or the guardian ad litem of the infant thinks that the judgment is wrong, he can always make an application to the Court for leave to take the matter further, and if the Court thinks it is a case which should be taken further, the case can be so taken. But to allow an infant to have one year after he has come of age for the purpose of challenging a judgment might produce the gravest uncertainty with regard to the distribution of the property. Let me assume that there has been litigation about a separate estate, and that the estate has been distributed under the order of the Court of Appeal. It certainly would be a harsh thing if, at the expiration of what may be a period of fourteen or fifteen years, the matter should be once more challenged and the judgment of your Lordships' House invited to say that the distribution was wrong and that all the people should give back the money they had received. I venture to say there is no reason to-day why there should be preserved in favour of the infant the right which the Standing Order as it stands preserves, and I therefore ask your Lordships, if you think that I have

  75
  justified the changes, both to permit the alteration in the first Order and to expunge the second. I feel that I ought to apologise for troubling your Lordships at a time when the mind of every one is set on far greater issues with a small matter which relates only to a special branch of your Lordships' work, but I believe that the reform which will be effected by these changes will be useful, and I trust that I shall not have been needlessly occupying your Lordships' time.
  Moved, That Standing Order No. 1, regulating Judicial Proceedings in this House, be amended as follows:
  Time limited for presenting appeals.
  ORDERED, that no petition of appeal be received by this House unless the same be lodged in the Parliament Office for presentation to the House within [ONE YEAR] six months from the date of the last decree, order, judgment, or interlocutor appealed from, or, in the case of decrees, orders, judgments, or interlocutors pronounced before the 1st day of April 1916, within one year from the date of the pronouncement of the said decree, order, judgment, or interlocutor.
  [IN CASES IN WHICH THE PERSON ENTITLED TO APPEAL IS WITHIN THE AGE OF ONE AND TWENTY YEARS, OR COVERT, NON COMPOS MENTIS, IMPRISONED, OR OUT OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND, SUCH PERSON MAY BE AT LIBERTY TO PRESENT HIS APPEAL TO THE HOUSE, PROVIDED THAT THE SAME BE LODGED IN THE PARLIAMENT OFFICE WITHIN ONE YEAR NEXT AFTER FULL AGE, DISCOVER-TURE, COMING OF SOUND MIND, ENLARGEMENT OUT OF PRISON, OR COMING INTO GREAT BRITAIN OR IRELAND. BUT IN NO CASE SHALL ANY PERSON OR PERSONS BE ALLOWED A LONGER TIME, ON ACCOUNT OF MERE ABSENCE, TO PRESENT AN APPEAL, THAN FIVE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE LAST DECREE, ORDER, JUDGMENT, OR INTERLOCUTOR APPEALED AGAINST.
  PROVIDED THAT THIS STANDING ORDER SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF SESSION IN SCOTLAND AGAINST A FINAL INTERLOCUTOR OR INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 1907; BUT NO SUCH APPEAL SHALL BE RECEIVED BY THIS HOUSE AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 1908.]
  N.B.—The words in small capitals and between brackets are to be omitted, and the words printed in italics are to be inserted.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, notwithstanding that the mind of the country is absorbed in the war the administration of justice must go on, and I think that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is well justified in his statement that he has the concurrence of practically the entire legal profession, judicial and otherwise, in the step which he invites your Lordships to take. It is, I think, very satisfactory that we have reached a state of things at last in which there are no arrears of business either in this House sitting in its Judicial side or in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and that is not due to the falling off of business caused by the war. In the Privy Council, for some reason or another, there is more business than I recall at any other time. India, notwithstanding the war, is litigating so far as appeals are concerned more than ever; and from other parts of the Empire business is flowing in. And in this House the amount of business is substantial; yet there are no arrears. Why? Partly because a considerable addition has been made within the last few years to the Judicial strength of this House. Two noble and learned Lords sit here as additional Law Lords under Statute, and two more—my noble and learned friends Lord Parmoor and Lord Wrenbury—have, with the greatest public spirit, devoted their time as a gift to the State to doing the work of Judges just as much as if they were officially appointed and salaried.
  The result of this has been to bring into play another measure on which my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack is to be congratulated. He passed the other day unobtrusively a Bill through Parliament which enabled the Judicial Committee to sit in more than one Division. The result is that, although the amount of business there is very large, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is sitting in two Divisions; and it can do so because of the addition to the Judicial strength of which I have spoken. There are, therefore, three Supreme Courts of the Empire at present sitting—this House, the Division of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which is dealing with the affairs of the Empire other than India, and the Division which is devoting itself to Indian business. As regards this House, it is not an exaggeration to say that anybody who desires his appeal disposed of here can have it done in a fortnight if he is ready with his

  77
  documents. Practically there are no arrears.
  I think such a state of things is without precedent, and it is a very desirable state of things; and the change which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack now proposes to make will bring the procedure into harmony with that condition of things. Gross and cruel injustice used to be done by appeals to this House not coming on for years, partly because of the long time which was allowed to appellants in which to elect whether they would appeal or not, and partly owing to the arrears. The second point has been disposed of by the machinery of which I have spoken, and the first point will be dealt with if your Lordships see fit to approve of this proposal. I certainly trust that my noble and learned friend will have the full assent of the House in taking the steps which he proposes.
  On Question, Motion agreed to: The said Standing Order amended accordingly, and to be printed as amended. (No. 40.)

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL. [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD ISLINGTON: My Lords, this Bill, to which I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to-day, is a supplementary Bill to the Government of India Act of last year. It may be in the recollection of your Lordships that the Government of India Act of last year confined itself strictly to the consolidation of the various Acts of Parliament that had been passed in previous years in connection with the administration of India. No Amendment was allowed to be inserted in that Bill which could in any shape or form entail an alteration of the law, the only Amendments that were included being those which may be characterised as clearing away ambiguities and making the existing law clear and intelligible to any one who read it when consolidated in one single Act.
  This Bill advances the position a stage further. Its object is to make certain Amendments, most of them of a minor character, but at the same time entailing an alteration of the law and therefore to that extent beyond the scope of any Amendment in last year's Act. I do not feel that it is necessary for me to occupy the time of the House by dwelling at any length upon the various provisions of this
  78
  Bill. There are one or two clauses in it, however, which I think may be of interest to your Lordships, and which have a not inconsiderable importance in the future administration of India. I will allude to them as briefly as I can.
  In the first place there is Clause 2, paragraph (d), which is a proposal of substance, because the several Legislatures in India have long acted on the assumption that they could enact various provisions barring the right to sue the Secretary of State in Council in civil Courts in regard to the rights of Government, particularly in connection with revenue and with land. A recent decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has denied that they possess these rights under the existing law, and the effect of this decision is that many provisions which bar, or which in effect have the power to bar, suits in civil or revenue Courts against Government are now void; and similar provisions, of course, cannot be enacted in the future. It is essential that the Legislative Councils in India should have power to enact provisions of this kind in suitable cases, and it is proposed to amend the law accordingly.
  Then Clause 3 proposes a provision which both His Majesty's Government and the Government of India consider of importance. It gives power under careful restriction to open both civil posts and military commissions to rulers and subjects of Native States and of territory adjacent to India such as Nepal and Afghanistan, and to members of frontier tribes. Under the existing law these persons are debarred from holding any such appointments because, technically speaking, they are not British subjects. On the other hand, the process of naturalisation is not suitable in their case. The time has arrived when it is generally admitted that a procedure should be provided to make these persons eligible, equally with British subjects born in British India, for office under the Crown. Many of these persons are to-day serving, and have on many previous occasions served, in the Army, and have done both loyal and gallant service for the Empire This proposal will, I feel confident, give satisfaction to the rulers of these States and adjacent countries, many of whom, I might point out, freely employ to-day British subjects within their own territories. The native States, although they enjoy a large measure of local autonomy, have always been proud to consider themselves

  79
  as a component part of the Empire; and I might add that in Nepal and in the other native States, which comprise a third of the Empire of India, there has been for years past furnished to our Forces some of the finest and most reliable of our fighting material. Provision is also made in this Bill to allow selected subjects from these States to compete for appointments in the Indian Civil Service, and to permit both rulers and subjects in those countries to be nominated as members of a Legislative Council. These extensions of the law are significant of Indian development, and are, I feel confident, in full accord with modern Indian sentiment.
  One word as regards Clause 4, which is of importance because it authorises restrictions to be placed on the admission to the Civil Service of naturalised aliens or their children. At present any naturalised person is eligible to compete for the Indian Civil Service. This provision affords a wider latitude than that which controls appointments to the Home Civil Service, such as the War Office, the Admiralty, or the Colonial Office, where a man is not ordinarily eligible for appointment unless he is a British subject and the son of a British subject. In regard to appointments to the Foreign Office it is still stricter, because the man must be a natural-born British subject and have been born within the United Kingdom or the self-governing Dominions of parents who have also been born within those territories. It is proposed now—and I think, in view of all that has passed recently under the influences of this war, it is an important provision—to declare that admission to the Indian Civil Service of British subjects who, or whose parents, were not born within His Majesty's Dominions shall be in future subject to such restrictions as the Secretary of State in Council may prescribe. This will insure what, as I have said, is of importance in the light of modern experience—namely, that only those should be eligible in the future for the public administrative service of the Empire whose sympathies are genuinely those of a British subject.
  Clause 5 removes a difficulty in that it will afford the opportunity in the future of Executive Councils obtaining, if they so desire, the services of an eminent banker or merchant upon their body. These appointments are only for five years; there is no pension attached to them, and
  80
  therefore under the present law it would be difficult, if not impossible, to expect any eminent business man to sacrifice his business for so short a period. The experience and advice on these councils of business men may be found of great advantage, and I hope that this opportunity will from time to time be seized in the coming years, when commercial and industrial developments should play in India so important a part.
  Clauses 8 and 9 are merely to explain the method of the construction of this Bill, and I will only say one or two words of explanation upon them. The First Schedule of the Bill proposes a series of Amendments of the Act of 1915. These are mostly of a minor character, and we are only carrying out in form a precedent which has frequently been adopted in previous Acts. This series of Amendments is merely placed in this way with a view to convenience of method in the construction of the Bill. The Fifth Schedule, which came under considerable comment when the Consolidation Bill was going through this House last year, enumerates the provisions of the 1915 Act which may be repealed or altered by the Governor-General in Legislative Council. Some noble Lords on that occasion desired that the whole of this Schedule should be repealed, but, as I pointed out at the time, there were certain provisions which it would be inappropriate to omit from the Government of India Act. I think that an examination of the amended Schedule as it stands now, with all the omissions, will satisfy your Lordships that all that is necessary, and only what is necessary, has been left in the Schedule, and that what cannot appropriately be left in the hands of the Governor-General in Legislative Council has now been omitted.
  Clauses 1 to 5 and the First Schedule to which I have already alluded are so drawn as to admit of Amendments, the Amendments that are proposed being incorporated automatically into the text of the 1915 Act, so that when this Bill has passed through the Houses of Parliament and is placed upon the Statute Book these clauses and this Schedule will be omitted from this Act and will be attached in proper form to the sections of the Act of last year. The remainder of the Bill will stand upon the Statute Book in its present form or as amended by either House. This is necessary because, in the case of Clause 6, that clause amends the

  81
  Foreign Jurisdiction Act and is therefore applicable to other countries; and Clause 7 deals with the East India Loans Act, which has not been consolidated. The Bill has been carefully examined by the Advisory Committee, and may be said to be the outcome of their work. In the course of the consideration of the Bill by that Committee, the various Amendments that were moved and discussed last year by noble Lords in this House and by hon. members in another place came under careful consideration. If they have not in the main been admitted to the Bill, I can assure your Lordships that it is only after due consideration in each case; and I shall be glad to explain at a subsequent stage of the Bill the reasons why in any particular case an Amendment has not been introduced. There are, however, some instances where provisions have been inserted which will in the main meet the views submitted last year by noble Lords.
  I think, and I hope your Lordships will agree, that it will be to the advantage of a Bill of this character that before it comes under examination in Committee of this House it should be studied by the Joint Select Committee. My noble and learned friend who presides over that Committee has been good enough to assent to the Bill being referred to them, and my noble friend Lord Muir-Mackenzie will move the reference of the Bill to that Select Committee at a subsequent stage. I do not think it is necessary for me at this stage of the Bill to say more in regard to its provisions. It may be said to constitute a definite advance in the political development of India, and it will, I believe, be accepted in that sense by Indian opinion. I commend it now to your Lordships' approval, and I shall be grateful if the House will give it a Second Reading this afternoon.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Islington.)
  THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, it may be within the recollection of some of your Lordships that when the Consolidation Bill was under discussion last year I raised the question of whether Peers were eligible for appointment to the India Council. It was then held—I think rightly and naturally held—that a discussion of this kind could not properly take place with reference to a Consolidation
  82
  Bill. The noble Lord who has just spoken promised that the question would be considered, and I raise it again now with the object of inquiring whether the matter has been considered by the India Office, and, if so, with what result.
  My reason for raising this question originally was that a case in point had absolutely occurred. When I returned from Egypt nine years ago the noble Viscount who then presided at the India Office, Lord Morley, did me the honour of speaking to me on the subject of being appointed to the India Council. I may say that, independently of the state of the law, I do not think that the negotiation would have come to anything, because for my own part I felt a reluctance, which I think your Lordships will well understand in the circumstances, of appearing in any way to sacrifice my liberty of political action; and although I do not think a member of the India Council would be debarred from expressing his opinions in this House on general subjects, he certainly would to a certain extent be restrained from expressing any opinion on Indian subjects which was at all adverse to the Government. But what gave the coup de grâce to the proposal was the text of the law.
  I think there is a great deal of ambiguity as to what the Legislature of 1858 meant, but there is no ambiguity whatever as to what they said. I think I am right in saying that they laid down that no Member of Parliament should be appointed to the India Council. In ordinary colloquial language, when we speak of a Member of Parliament we allude to a member of the House of Commons, but technically, of course, a Peer is quite as much a Member of Parliament, and if the matter ever came before a Court of Law it would unhesitatingly be held that Peers were debarred from being appointed to the India Council by reason of that law. As regards the intentions of Parliament, I do not profess to have looked up all the old debates to see exactly what happened, but I certainly think there is a good deal of ambiguity as to what was meant. Speaking from recollection and also from what I have always heard, Lord Stanley (afterwards Lord Derby) who was then at the India Office and who exercised great influence in the framing of the Act of 1858, had a very strong opinion on this particular point, and it was under his inspiration that this particular clause was introduced. His motives

  83
  were twofold. One was that he thought that by introducing Members of Parliament to the India Council there might be a considerable risk of political jobbery invading the domain of the administration of India, and the other was that he wished to keep the Government of India wholly free from Party strife and Party contention of all kinds. Those were very laudable motives.
  A certain amount of light is thrown upon the intentions of the Government of the time by the fourth volume of Lord Beacons-field's Life which has just been published. In 1858 a correspondence ensued between Lord Beaconsfield and Lord Stanley, then Secretary of State for India. Lord Beacons-field wished to bring political partisans, I think we may say, into the India Council. Lord Stanley was entirely contrary to that view; and the arguments which Lord Beaconsfield introduced were so highly characteristic of that distinguished statesman that I will venture to read to your Lordships an extract from his letter to Lord Stanley. It is dated August 9, 1858. Lord Beaconsfield wrote:—
  "Patronage is the outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, and that is Power. The feeling of the House of Commons was that the lay appointments should be reserved for public men in our political life. You have crammed the Council with Indians…. I entreat you to think well of this matter. An overscrupulosity in public life often leads to arrangements which are less justifiable than a course of conduct which, at first blush, might seem more coarse and obvious."
  I think that if Lord Beaconsfield had had his way we should not have had many instances of inward and spiritual grace, but a good many signs of want of grace. But Lord Stanley, with his sturdy common sense, brushed aside these plausible but somewhat specious arguments and held to his guns, with the result that Members of Parliament were excluded.
  There is no doubt, I think, that the Legislature aimed more at excluding members of the House of Commons than members of your Lordships' House, and it was very natural that this should be so. It is almost a necessity of the existence of a member of the House of Commons that he should be a political partisan. I do not mean to say that Party feeling does not at times run strong in this House. But there are many individual members of your Lordships' House, especially those who have lived a good deal abroad, who are so independent as to let Party ties lie very
  84
  lightly upon them. In present circumstances it would require legislation to make the change, and the question is whether that legislation should be undertaken. On the whole, after reflection, I rather share the view which was expressed from the opposite Benches when I brought the question forward before—that the matter had better be left alone. It would, of course, be possible to solve the question by proposing an Amendment that both members of the House of Commons and members of the House of Lords should be eligible for seats on the India Council, but that would be a serious change, and I hardly think it would commend itself to your Lordships' House or to the country in general. Therefore for my own part I am prepared to acquiesce in the view which I believe is held on the Front Ministerial Bench opposite, that the matter should be left alone. I may say that I do so with some reluctance. On the last occasion when the matter was raised the noble Earl, Lord Curzon, expressed a good deal of sympathy with the view that Peers should not be excluded from the India Council; and I think the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, although he fully recognised the practical difficulties of doing anything, said there was something in the proposal. But I do not think it would be worth while to raise a contentious principle of this sort, and therefore perhaps the best thing would be to leave it alone. I merely make these remarks to explain why, as I raised the question before, I do not wish to press it further.
  There is one other point in connection with this Bill to which I should like to allude, although it is really a point more for the Committee stage, but I trust it will be referred to by the noble Lord and others when the Bill goes to the Select Committee. I allude to Clause 4 (2A) which lays down that the Secretary of State shall be empowered to make rules placing restrictions on admission to the Indian Civil Service of British subjects who or whose parents were not born within His Majesty's Dominions. The word "parents" makes it look as if the Secretary of State can make regulations only in cases where both parents were born outside His Majesty's Dominions. My own view is that he ought to have full power to make regulations where only one parent was born outside, and I hope that point will be considered when the Committee stage is reached.
  LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, it was with great pleasure that I heard the noble Marquess the Leader of the House say the other day that this is an important Bill, though I rather think that anybody who read the explanatory Memorandum attached to the Bill might arrive at another conclusion. The Memorandum says that its main object is "to make certain minor Amendments." I think that any one who heard the speech of the noble Lord who introduced the Bill will come to the conclusion that there are more than minor Amendments in the Bill, and that there are some changes of real importance. The special change to which he referred—the opening out of the Public Service to Indians not born in British India in certain conditions—is a great change. I think it is a wise change, and I thoroughly welcome it. But there are two or three other points in the Bill which seem to me to require careful consideration. One point may affect considerably the relations between the Government of India and the Native States of India. There is another which must, I think, affect the position and the powers of the Council of the Secretary of State. Experience shows that what seem small administrative adjustments may in certain circumstances prove of the greatest and most vital importance. The Inquiry which took place after the Crimean War into the losses and sufferings of our troops there came to the conclusion that among the causes, perhaps one of the most important, was the relations between the Treasury and the Supply Departments of the Army. Had those relations been defined in some Bill in your Lordships' House it would probably have been thought that there was nothing whatever in the matter. To take a recent illustration, if the relative functions of the Viceroy and of the Chief Secretary in Ireland had been somewhat differently defined, it may be that some things would not have happened at all or other things would have happened quite differently. Therefore in a Bill of this nature it does seem necessary to scrutinise carefully the possible results that may arise in administration of this kind. I hope, therefore, that the Bill will be carefully considered by the Joint Select Committee before it comes to your Lordships to be finally passed.
  LORD MUIR-MACKENZIE: My Lords, it is quite clear that this Bill is about to be read a second time. I venture to say that it would be of advantage that a Bill such as
  86
  this should go to the Joint Committee which your Lordships set up several years ago for dealing with Consolidation Bills. That Committee last year produced an Act of Parliament upon which these Amendments are proposed to be made. Many of these Amendments were mentioned before the Committee, and approval of them was felt; but it was quite clear that they ought not to be included in a Bill which was for pure consolidation, the whole force of such Bills being that they are certified to both Houses of Parliament to represent the law, and nothing but the law, as it is. The Amendments in this Bill are numerous, and many of them are very small. If they were all small, it would be clearly an advantage that they should go to the same Committee, which would dovetail them in and produce a satisfactory Bill. But it has been shown to-night that there are some amendments of the law in this Bill which cannot be looked upon as mere matters of form, or as of a trifling character. For that reason I suggest to the noble Lord who has brought in this Bill that it would be an advantage that there should be associated with the Joint Committee one or two of those members of your Lordships' House who are familiar with India and will know the exact bearings of the Amendments which have been proposed. For instance, there is my noble friend who has just spoken (Lord Sydenham). I would also mention Lord MacDonnell, who would be very useful on that Committee; and, of course, the noble Lord himself who is in charge of the Bill. The objection to such a proposal as a rule would be that under the constitution of Joint Committees you have to have an equal number from the other House, and a further addition would, of course, make a large Committee; but this is an exceptional occasion, and I think that by doing something of this sort a very satisfactory tribunal would be created for dealing with this Bill. At the proper time, if the noble Lord will allow me, I should like to move that the Bill be referred to the Joint Committee; and at the further stage I think it would be well that the three Peers I have named should be added to the Committee.
  EARL LOREBURN: My Lords, my noble friend has anticipated an observation I was about to make in the same direction. It is right that your Lordships should appreciate what is the nature of the Committee to which this Bill is proposed to be

  87
  referred. The Committee, I am sure, will very willingly do their best. But this is a Committee selected with a view to consolidating the law as it exists, and not with a view of investigating what laws ought to be passed. The Committee is strong in legal capacity. We had the advantage last year of the presence and advice of a good many distinguished Indian authorities, four or five gentlemen at least, who had large experience of India on the Council and otherwise. It seems to me that if this Bill is sent to this Committee as an exceptional measure the Committee ought to be strongly reinforced. I say "strongly reinforced," and I, for my part, would very willingly give up my place on the Committee, and I think that most of the members of the Committee would say the same. Not that any of us wish to avoid discharging this duty, but we ought to have strong Indian opinion among us to enable us to discharge it properly.
  On Question, Bill read 2a.
  Then it was moved that the Bill be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills (Lord Muir-Mackenzie); agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  MILITARY SERVICE BILL.
  Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments, read.
  Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Sandhurst.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I rise to put a question to my noble friend Lord Lansdowne with reference to what passed in your Lordships' House yesterday. I then ventured to ask him whether he was able to add anything to a declaration which had been made in another place by the President of the Local Government Board with reference to the relief of men who are at the head of businesses. I pointed out that this was a very vague statement on the part of my right hon. friend in another place, that I was afraid it would have formidable consequences if it were left as it stood, and that I knew of my own knowledge that it had been misunderstood in several quarters already. Everybody must have sympathy with these business men in the circumstances, and if any method can be found by means of legislation to mitigate the position in which they may be placed by being forced to serve, I am sure your
  88
  Lordships' House and Parliament would be ready to consider it favourably. But that is quite a different thing from relieving them from serving altogether. It is because I know that the statement by Mr. Walter Long has been misunderstood that I venture to ask my noble friend at this stage whether he can add anything to what he said on this subject the other night.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I have made inquiries into the circumstances under which the pledge to which my noble friend refers was given to the House of Commons by my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board. During the course of the discussion of the Bill great stress was laid upon the hardship that might in certain cases be occasioned to men in sole responsibility for and dependent upon businesses who were liable to find themselves called to serve in the Army, and my right hon. friend undertook to deal with this matter by Regulation. My noble friend opposite knows that under the principal Act Regulations with reference to the functions and procedure of the Tribunals can be issued by the Local Government Board, and that such Regulations may contain instructions to the Tribunals given with the special object of securing unanimity of practice. It is under that clause of the Schedule that the Local Government Board propose to proceed.
  The Regulation which will be issued must be read by the light of the second section of the principal. Act, in which my noble friend will find a provision to the effect that exemptions may be given on the ground that serious hardship would ensue if the man were called up for Army service owing to his exceptional financial or business obligations or his domestic position. Of course, I cannot give my noble friend the exact text of the Regulation which will be issued, because that is still under consideration; but its general effect will be something of this kind—that if it could be proved, of course to the satisfaction of the Tribunal, that serious hardship would arise because the man was the sole proprietor of the business, his family being dependent on the business for support, and if it could be shown that it was impossible to make other arrangements for carrying on the business in his absence, the case should be treated as coming within the scope of the section of the principal Act which I read

  89
  just now dealing with cases of special hardship. The instructions will, of course, be carefully worded; and if my noble friend followed what I said just now he will have noticed that it will be a sine qua non that the Tribunal shall be completely satisfied that all the conditions are fulfilled. I do not think he need have any apprehension that there will be anything approaching an indiscriminate release of the whole of this class of men.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know whether, by permission of the House, your Lordships will allow me to say a few further words. Although I quite followed what my noble friend said, yet the scope of his words is still very wide. I would beg him to remember that the word "business" does not mean only a great business, but means every little shop. If it is intended that the head of every shop, if he cannot get his business carried on otherwise, is to be relieved, then the Government have made yet another big hole in their Bill. I hope that is not meant. I trust that when the President of the Local Government Board comes to draft the words they will be very restricted; otherwise I venture to think that the Government have not realised the full extent of what may happen.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think the point is that it will be necessary to satisfy the Tribunals that there really is a case for relief, and I should hope that we might trust the Tribunals to interpret the instructions in a reasonable spirit.
  LORD HARRIS: Could the noble Marquess say whether this Regulation will be made retrospective, whether it will apply to cases that have already been passed by the Tribunals? I understand that the Regulation is intended to be a fresh instruction to the Tribunals as regards the class of case described by the noble Marquess. I know that it is the fact that cases have been already dealt with which certainly come under the description given by tie noble Marquess.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: A lot of them.
  LORD HARRIS: The Tribunals had to settle the point one way or another under the Act as it was, without the new instruction. It is very possible that cases
  90
  of hardship have been dealt with, but they were dealt with without the advice that is going to be given by the Government. Therefore the Tribunals may have sent men into the Army who, if their cases had come forward subsequently to the passing of this Act, might have been dealt with differently in consequence of the instruction which is now going to be issued.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My noble friend said that a number of these cases had already been tried and decided by the Tribunals "one way or another." The object of this Regulation is to prevent their deciding them in one way or another, and to ensure something like uniformity of administration between one Tribunal and another. But the reason why something like a new departure in this respect is necessary now is that as the unattested married men are to be brought within the scope of the Act the number of cases in which the man will prove to be responsible for and dependent upon his business is likely to be considerably increased. I do not know that I can answer off-hand the question whether this new Regulation will have a retrospective effect. I am not quite sure how that stands.
  LORD HARRIS: I can assure the noble Marquess that plenty of these cases have been settled already.
  LORD HAVERSHAM: The general instructions which we have received from the Local Government Board are that if a man is indispensable to his business he is not to be taken.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Not indispensable in the case of all businesses, but indispensable to businesses which are of national importance. That makes all the difference.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My noble friend mentioned the word "indispensable," and I used it the other evening. Had I been careful I should have avoided the use of the word "indispensable," because it has a technical meaning. In regard to the new instructions the real test, will be the test of hardship.
  LORD HAVERSHAM: It is the same in agriculture. We are told not to take a man if the farm would be left derelict thereby.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Hear, hear.
  LORD HAVERSHAM: My Tribunal has always acted on the basis that if a man's business would be broken up he should not be taken. I will take a concrete case. Supposing that in a county town there is a good saddler. That man probably has a branch established in another village. We do not consider the branch establishment as being important to the inhabitants of the village, because they can go to the larger shop in the county town, so we make no allowance for the branch establishment. I think the whole thing turns on the general rules laid down by the Local Government Board. I am sure the noble Marquess opposite will agree that it is impossible to judge without knowing the local circumstances. These are judged best by the Tribunals themselves, acting under instructions from the Local Government Board, and they endeavour to judge the cases in the best possible way. My belief is that they have acted with entire impartiality—at least those I know have—with a desire not to distress a man and not to break up the business he has built up, and where he is indispensable he is not taken for military service. I do not think you can lay down any distinct rules unless you know the local circumstances.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, there is an Amendment standing in my name which I do not think requires many observations. It is on Clause 4, and I will explain to your Lordships the exact meaning of it. Some of us made an appeal to the Government, in cases where a further appeal had been unreasonably refused by the Intermediate Court to the Central Tribunal, that some remedy should be provided. Many cases are known to us where an appeal has been unreasonably refused. My noble friend opposite said that the President of the Local Government Board proposed to deal with the matter in the following way. He proposed to consider in his own office the circumstances of any cases submitted to him; to send them, if he thought necessary, back to the Appeal Tribunal asking if they had any observations to make; and, if he was not satisfied with that explanation, to ask them to retry the case. But upon investigation it appears that there is no provision in the
  92
  principal Act under which a case could be re-tried, and therefore I have ventured to put down a subsection enabling regulations to be made directing a re-trial.
  Amendment moved—
  Clause 4, page 3, after subsection (4) insert as a new subsection:
  "(5) Regulations made under the second schedule of the principal Act may provide for permitting the rehearing of a case by a tribunal in cases specified by the Regulations."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  VISCOUNT BRYCE: My Lords, I may perhaps take this opportunity of asking the noble Marquess (Lord Lansdowne) whether he can add to the statement which he made bearing upon this topic on Thursday last. He then said—
  "The President of the Local Government Board is prepared to go even further, and, if it seems necessary, to call for the production of the evidence so that it may be examined; and if, after such examination, he is satisfied that there is a prima facie reason to suppose that the case has been improperly decided, he will then reserve to himself the power of asking the Tribunal to re-hear the case."
  And the noble Marquess added that the President would act in these cases where there was a representation made by a "substantial authority."
  I invited the noble Marquess at the time, as did my noble friend Lord Courtney, to explain what would be considered a "substantial authority," but he was not able then to give any further explanation. I think I may therefore venture to ask him whether he is now in a position to enlighten us a little further on the subject. The matter is one of considerable interest, and this will afford a safety valve through which some of the complaints which have hitherto been made may relieve themselves. I need hardly say—it is, of course, obvious to us all—that if anything can be done to relieve the sense of irritation which seems to exist in some quarters it will be well done. It has been often said, and said with truth, that it is important not only that justice should be done by the law, but that everybody should recognise that justice has been done. Anything on the lines indicated by the Government that will give an opportunity for remedying any case of hardship which has slipped through the Tribunals, or any case where an appeal has not been granted that ought to have been granted, will, I am sure, have a beneficial effect.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: It is quite true that I stated the other day that the President of the Local Government Board was prepared to examine cases in which it was represented to him—I used the expression "for substantial reasons urged by a substantial authority"—that the decision of the Appeal Court had been a mistaken decision. My noble friend asks me whether I am able to define what I meant by "substantial authority." I cited two examples of what seemed to me to be illustrations of the interpretation that might be put upon the words. In one case I mentioned a representation coming from a local authority. Last night I mentioned the possibility of a representation proceeding from the head of one of the Departments of the Government. I cited my noble friend Lord Selborne, who takes a great interest in the case of the agricultural employees. My noble friend asks me to go further, and produce something like a catalogue raisonné of substantial authorities.
  VISCOUNT BRYCE: I did not mean that.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: That, I venture to say, would be perfectly impossible. I go further. I think, from the point of view of my noble friend and those who think with him, that it would be a great mistake to define too precisely what is meant by a "substantial authority." The effect of such a definition would be to rule out all representations unless they proceeded from some one who came within the list of substantial authorities. I am sure I do not misrepresent my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board when I say that he would not lightly brush aside any representation coming from no matter what source if it seemed to him to be serious and in all respects entitled to consideration. It might come from an individual; it might come from a body. But I am quite sure that in the interests of the people whom my noble friend desires to protect it would not be wise to fetter the discretion of the Local Government Board too narrowly by attempting to define exactly the kind of authorities from whom such a representation would be received.
  VISCOUNT BRYCE: The noble Marquess has answered my question in the amplest way, and complete satisfaction ought to be given by what he has said. I was far from desiring that a list should be made
  94
  out, because that would be open to the obvious difficulty that it would exclude cases that were not mentioned. What the noble Marquess has indicated is quite satisfactory.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I quite recognise that, Mr. Walter Long (who was in charge of this Bill in another place) having given this pledge, it is necessary to redeem it, and that to redeem it this particular Amendment is necessary. But I confess I view it with the greatest possible regret. It means two things. It means, in the first place, even more delay in securing men for service with the Colours. Secondly, it means the interference by local authorities in individual cases with a view of getting those cases re-heard, and the result will be even greater congestion of the Local Tribunals than there is at the present moment. I presume that we have to pass this Amendment because of the pledge of the Minister in charge of the Bill, but I must again express my sincere regret that it is thought necessary to make it.
  VISCOUNT GALWAY: My Lords, I also want to protest against any attempt to interfere with the Local Tribunals or with the Appeal Tribunals by a Government Office in London. Those of us who have been entrusted with the duty of serving on these Tribunals have done so from a stern sense of duty; but it has been clearly understood up to now that all we should get from the Local Government Board or any other authority in London were recommendations as to what we should do. In no way whatever were they to interfere with our free judgment—a judgment which I think we are entitled to give, because the Local and Appeal Tribunals have local knowledge. I enter a strong protest against interference by Government Departments. The Local Government Board on one occasion admitted that they had no right to interfere with our decisions, and that our judgment could only be altered by a Court of Law, to which, of course, anybody has an appeal. This Amendment will not only lead to great delay, as Lord Derby has said, but it will also lead to great dissatisfaction amongst the Tribunals themselves. A great many of them will feel so humiliated that their decisions should be referred to various clerks in Government Departments in London that this will affect the position of all the Tribunals in the country.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Amendment does not propose that the Local Government Board shall reverse a decision of an Appeal Tribunal. The utmost it suggests is that the Appeal Tribunal shall be asked to reconsider their decision, and if they like again to come to the same decision they can do so. I agree that it would not be a suitable arrangement that the Local Government Board should sit as, in effect, a Court of Law over the Tribunals. All they have to do is to say, having regard to all the facts of the case, whether they think the Tribunal should reconsider their decision.
  LORD SANDHURST: In saying that the Government accept the Amendment, I might point out that no doubt in very many cases the Tribunal will be able to satisfy the Local Government Board that their decision was right, and that the facts had been wrongly put forward; and it would not be anticipated that there would be a general re-hearing of cases which had been to the Tribunals.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SANDHURST: I move a drafting Amendment in Clause 10, to leave out the words "with or without hard labour." These words are unnecessary owing to the general provision in Section 16 of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, which enables a Court to inflict imprisonment with or without hard labour in all cases where imprisonment can be inflicted. The subsection in which the words proposed to be left out occur was inserted in an Amendment in another place. The Amendment would not be worth making except for the fact that the words do not occur in subsection (1), which represents the original clause; and if the Amendment is not made, it is thought that some inferential argument might hereafter be drawn from the discrepancy in the language of the two subsections.
  Amendment moved—
  Clause 10, page 5, line 22, leave out, ("with or without hard labour").—(Lord Sandhurst.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, may I ask a question about the operation of Clause 12, which has given rise to doubts in some quarters. That clause gives very large powers of transferring men to the
  96
  Reserve; but there have been withdrawn from the Colours not far short of 40,000 men under the "direct application" or the "bulk release" scheme. Those men remain under military control, but they have certain special privileges. They are entitled to draw the district rate of wages or their military pay, whichever is greatest, and their wives are entitled to separation allowances. If those men were transferred to the Reserve they would lose those privileges, and probably cherish a grievance. Further than that, the military authorities might lose sight of them and the Munitions Department would lose them. I understand that there has been a certain amount of anxiety in the Munitions Department as to whether these powers could be exercised in the case of these men. Therefore I ask the noble Lord whether he can say what will be done in this case.
  LORD SANDHURST: The Secretary of State for War desires me to say that the matter is under consideration.
  Moved (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Sandhurst.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL KITCHENER): My Lords, on this the final stage of the Bill it may be appropriate for me to say that its smooth and rapid passage through your Lordships' House will prove most beneficial to the Army. As soon as the measure has received the Royal Assent we shall be able to regulate the flow of recruits to the Colours, and get rid altogether of those sudden fluctuations in recruiting which were so prejudicial alike to military and industrial interests. Further—and I emphasise the point—the process of recruiting will now be carried out with the minimum possible inconvenience to the men themselves.
  The idea has apparently been prevalent in certain quarters that for some wholly inexplicable motive the military authorities are prone to crowd and even to congest the ranks with men physically unfit to bear arms. No suggestion could be wider of the truth. Under the provisions of this Bill we can call up men for medical re-examination; but this power will be used not to absorb the physically unfit, but to secure the physically efficient. Some of these men are undoubtedly sheltering themselves behind certificates acquired in an

  97
  unsatisfactory way or under a temporary condition of ill-health. The terms of this Bill will enable us to make use of the men who were discarded on account of physical disability for active service but who are suitable for home service, clerical work, and the like. In a word, the Bill, in purport and in effect, makes directly and unmistakably for equality of sacrifice in the national cause. The Army Council will, for their part, use every endeavour to render it as easy as possible for the men to be called up. We shall keep the groups open for voluntary attestation until the appointed date.
  There is no doubt that the Armies in the field will welcome this measure with intense satisfaction. Generals and Staffs will be able to count with moral certainty on their receiving the necessary drafts and reinforcements, and the rank and file will be encouraged by the thought that all their countrymen at home are prepared to support them to the utmost of their power. Our Allies also will, I believe, recognise in our acceptance of obligations which are undoubtedly such a marked departure from our national traditions that this country is prepared to throw into the scale without reserve the whole of our resources against the common foe. The conviction deeply and universally felt that we have engaged in a just war and the patriotism of our people gave us, under the voluntary system, a far larger Army than we could ever have contemplated. This Bill will enable us to maintain its numbers in a manner and to a degree not hitherto possible, and thus take our fair and full share in the great conflict on the issue of which our position as a nation and the future of our race depend.
  LORD WEARDALE: My Lords, before the Third Reading of this Bill is actually put to the House I may, perhaps, be permitted to state that my views with regard to the principle of this measure remain unchanged. But I quite recognise, the first Bill for compulsory military service having been passed in the month of January last, that the principle having been once conceded there was no possible means of arresting its progress to the full fulfilment which we see to-day. I confess that I received very little comfort from the assurances that were then received from the Prime Minister and other members of the Government with regard to the
  98
  earlier Bill not being the thin end of the wedge. Unfortunately I have had some experience, and I understand the inner meaning of the phrase "Wait and see." Therefore I was under no illusion as to what was likely to follow after the first Bill became law.
  I willingly recognise that during the progress of this Bill though your Lordships' House the members of the Government, more particularly the noble and gallant Field-Marshal the Secretary of State for War, have given assurances which will be extremely satisfactory to those who regard this measure with great repugnance. The conscientious objectors do not constitute a very numerous class and they do not enjoy the sympathy of a large body of people, but there are conscientious objectors who are worthy of all sympathy because they are truly and genuinely conscientious objectors. Those people, according to what has been stated by the noble and gallant Field-Marshal, are about to be, in the cases where it is satisfactorily proved to the Courts-Martial that they really come under the category of conscientious objectors, delivered over to the civil authority for treatment. That seems to me a very satisfactory concession, and I welcome it on behalf of those who are opposed to the principle of this measure. I also believe that much will be done to ease matters by the instructions which I understand are about to be issued by the Local Government Board. The Local Tribunals are to be instructed as to what is to be done in those distinct cases of hardship where poor struggling men who have created a small business by their own exertions are taken away from it and their businesses very often shut up as a consequence. Nobody can deny that this is a serious evil which we ought to try to meet.
  I desired to make these few observations in order to express the view which I still entertain that this is an unnecessary Bill. I take what I believe to be the valued authority of the Military Correspondent of The Times, Colonel Repington, who says that under the first Military Service Act only 187,000 men have been called to the Colours. That was not largely in excess of the number that I ventured to speculate would be added by any process of compulsion. Had the country known what we know now—namely, that 5,000,000 men had come to the Colours under the

  99
  call of patriotism alone, and that the requirements of the War Council were only for 200,000 more men and for a gradual enlistment every month—I believe that the patriotism of the country would have been equal to the occasion, and that we might have maintained the voluntary principle, so precious to many of us, and obtained all the recruits we required for the service of the country. It would have been a fine thing for this country to look back upon. It was said that it was necessary to make this concession in order to satisfy opinion abroad. Opinion abroad was entirely mistaken. If they had known abroad what we know now, if they had been aware of the enormous numbers who had come to the Colours, public opinion abroad would have taken a very different view.
  I regret one Amendment which has been consented to by the House in the present measure. The Amendment to Clause 6 will, I fear, raise apprehension in the industrial world that industrial compulsion is in a sense involved in the passage of this measure. I do not believe that the Labour representatives in the House of Commons will for a moment accept that Amendment, and I regret, as I say, that it has been accepted by the Government and by this House. I thank your Lordships for allowing me to make what I know is a belated, and perhaps solitary, protest in favour of the voluntary principle, to which I am firmly attached; and I believe that history will show that it might have been preserved.
  LORD HARRIS: My Lords, the speech of the Secretary of State gives me an opportunity of making an appeal to him on a point on which I have already spoken to him privately. I hope he will do everything he can not to lose touch with the county connection. The Territorial Army unquestionably is based upon it. The county regiments revere it, but I am sorry to say that under the present system of the allotment of recruits it is being lost. I told the noble and gallant Earl the other day that I apprehended that considerable numbers of recruits from our county were being sent, not to their own county battalions, but to others. I am going to send him in a day or two some returns which he has allowed me to ask for from the depots in Kent which will show that as many as 800 to 1,000 recruits are being
  100
  sent out of the county to other county battalions, whilst about the same number are being brought into the county from elsewhere. I cannot see the advantage of that. You are losing touch with one of the most valuable traditions that has animated the Army during the South African War and during this war, and I hope, if it is possible to make the change now, it will be done before it is too late.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, may I be allowed to endorse what the noble Lord has said, and to beg that as far as possible the county connection between men and their regiments should be kept up. I have seen in the last fortnight a case where this was not done; and I can assure the Government that it has given rise to a great deal of heartburning, not only amongst the men, who find themselves amongst men from a totally different county, but still more amongst their friends and relations in Lancashire. I know, of course, that there may be occasions when the military situation demands the course that has been taken, but I sincerely hope that as far as possible the county connection with regiments will be kept up.
  I have only one word to say on the Third Reading itself, which is again to bring before the notice of His Majesty's Government the great desirability of co-ordinating the work of the Local and Appeal Tribunals and that of the assessors who are being sent down to each county to deal with the financial liabilities of the men. Unless you can get some co-ordination, which does not exist in the least at the present moment, you will have confusion and delay. It could not be in any way dealt with in this Bill, but I hope that His Majesty's Government will give this matter their consideration.
  EARL KITCHENER: I can assure noble Lords that no one believes more in the county association principle than I do. The War Office will do its utmost to keep regiments together in that way. They have behaved in a noble way on the field of battle, and we hope that the association will continue.
  On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons, and to be printed as amended. (No. 41.)

  THE AIR SERVICE.
  LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU rose to move to resolve—
  " That this House considers that the development of aviation for purposes of war can no longer be efficiently carried on under the present system of the divided control and responsibility of two separate Departments; and that the time has now arrived when the supply of men and materials should be concentrated under single control, at the same time leaving the executive power over naval and military aircraft with the Army and Navy as at present."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to-night with a sense of unusual responsibility. Owing to circumstances which I need not discuss here, there was a breakdown to a certain extent in the discussion of this matter in the House of Commons last week. That is all the more reason, I think, why we should consider this question in this House, and debate with great attention the Motion which I have placed on the Paper. There is another reason. Since the late Order in Council was passed it has become difficult to discuss this very important subject outside the walls of this Chamber. I am one of those who believe that the Government do not intend in reality to screw down the safety valve too far, because I think they realise that if they do they would only give rise to a sense of great public dissatisfaction. But it is, of course, on the floor of this House that this subject as part and parcel of the general policy of the Government must be discussed.
  The last time that I spoke in this House was just after the noble Earl, Lord Derby, had invited me to join the Committee which has since ceased to exist. I may explain to your Lordships that at that time I made it clear, in a letter which I wrote to the Prime Minister, that I joined because I believed—and the noble Earl below me believed too—that out of that Committee might arise the foundations of something much more powerful which would have a distinct influence over the future of the Air Services of this country. But, as the noble Earl himself said in this House when describing the powers of that Committee, it was quite clear that it was a Committee which was to deal almost entirely if not wholly with the question of the allocation of machines and engines between the two Services. I resigned from that Committee
  102
  for reasons slightly different from those of Lord Derby. In my letter to the Prime Minister I pointed out that I had joined the Committee because I thought that it was going to be the nucleus of something bigger, but that I found it impossible that it could ever become what I desired it should become. In reality and practice the Committee turned out to be useless except for the very limited purposes included in its Terms of Reference. Since that time there have been many events bearing on this subject.
  When I spoke in this House a little more than two months ago I made certain statements which are going to be the subject of inquiry elsewhere by a Judicial Committee. I am going to that Committee most willingly and as a matter of courtesy. I hold very strongly, however, that any criticisms which we on this side of the House have to make of the Government on this or any other matter should be answered across the floor of this House. After all, where are you going to stop if the precedent is to be established that a member of this or of the other House who makes criticisms of a Government Department is to be liable to be asked to explain those statements before a Committee set up by the Department he is criticising? It is quite clear that if that were always to be the case there would be no freedom of debate, and people would not be free to assert that which they know or which at any rate they believe to be true.
  This Judicial Committee consists mainly of gentlemen who do not pretend to be experts, but I have every confidence in their impartiality. Although they have been rather chaffed for being lawyers, a lawyer may yet be an impartial and honest person; and I am quite prepared to submit anything I have said to their dissection and examination—although I know that to a certain extent, not being a lawyer myself, I may be going into a den of lions. But still I remember that I have always this, the fairest and finest tribunal in any country to appeal to; and your Lordships will bear me out when I say that at any rate in my past utterances on this subject there is very little which has not come to pass, and that I have never failed to prove any statement I have made on the floor of this House.
  I can quite understand that in this matter His Majesty's Government are in a difficulty.

  103
  Frankly one cannot expect the noble Marquess (Lord Lansdowne), who so often answers for His Majesty's Government, to understand the intricacies of aviation. Neither can the noble Marquess the Leader of the House be expected to go into technical questions. I admit that is a difficulty. But I do say that in an important debate of this character the noble and gallant Field-Marshal and the noble Duke who represents the Admiralty ought to take up the cudgels to some extent on behalf of their Departments. I rejoice to know that in future we shall have the noble Earl, Lord Curzon, who has taken an immense interest in this question and who will shortly become no doubt an expert on it, to reply to criticisms. That is one of the advantages, I think, of the proposed Air Board.
  There might be other ways of getting out of this difficulty of replying upon technical points. We might suggest to the Government that Admiral Vaughan Lee, the Director of the Naval Air Service, might be made a Peer. I could find all kinds of fancy names for him. On the other hand, Sir David Henderson might contest a vacated seat, say for East Kent, Lowestoft, or even for Newcastle. He might then enter the House of Commons and be able to extend criticisms to certain hon. members there. But I do not think, in all seriousness, that that would be a practicable thing. But I would like to make this one observation before I leave this subject. I have heard National Service, which we have seen passed this afternoon, advocated from those Cross Benches by Lord Roberts. If Lord Roberts had had on occasions in the past to submit his case to a Committee appointed by the Army Council to investigate his statements, I think he would very often have been condemned; but, as we now know, he would have proved perfectly right. Notwithstanding, I am prepared to go before this Committee. I intend to treat them with every respect and to give them every kind of information; and I shall be very much surprised if the verdict of the Committee is not favourable as far as my share in this matter is concerned.
  Now I come to the Air Board which has just been appointed. Let me say that already I think this step has justified the part which I and others have taken in urging this matter upon your Lordships' House and the country. I would say at the outset that I am delighted that the noble Earl opposite (Lord Curzon) and Lord
  104
  Sydenham are going to be members of this Air Board. As regards the noble Earl, I have known him for many years. I have seen his work in India, and I have great confidence in him. So far as I am concerned I ask myself, What should I do? It is clearly my duty to support Lord Curzon in every way I can, and if I have any knowledge of a special kind to place it unreservedly in his hands. Lord Sydenham also has great experience, and as Governor of Bombay he achieved a marked success. I am sure that those two noble Lords, the only two really independent members of this Board, will be able to do great service to the country in the functions they are about to perform. I know it has been said that the noble Earl opposite (Lord Curzon) is somewhat autocratic in nature. But he is a man of great character, and, what is more, of great imagination. I am delighted to think that he is autocratic in nature, for his tendency to exercise autocracy may be of great benefit in the work which he has to do.
  As far as I can make out from reading diligently the speeches made in the other House, it seems to me that the Air Board is the Derby-Montagu Committee, if I may use the term, with some added, and I grant important, powers. First of all, it has a Cabinet Minister as its chairman. That is a great advantage. Secondly, so far as I understand, it can lay down an air policy; and it seems to me a somewhat melancholy comment on the want of foresight which has been displayed in this matter that now in the twenty-second month of the war we should be beginning to lay down an air policy. That fact alone would justify anything I might have done or said in the direction of getting a better administration of the Air Service.
  I wish the noble chairman of the Board every success, but I want to point out to him where I am afraid he will be handicapped, though I hope he will escape from his shackles and prove himself a man in more ways than one. I will take this example. Lord Curzon, we will say, disagrees with the Air Board. What does he do then? Say that on an important question of policy, long-range bombing, the question of the construction of hangars, whatever it may be, he disagrees with his Board. I will not say whether he would be right or wrong. He would make representations to the Admiralty or the War Office. But these two great Departments

  105
  would be advised by the very people who had disagreed with him on the Air Board. Now we go a stage further. He would then appeal to the War Committee, on which he would meet Mr. Balfour and Lord Kitchener, who are naturally also advised by the same technical experts with whom the noble Earl Lad already disagreed; and they would sit upon him also. As the next step he would take his case to the Cabinet, and then, perhaps, he would meet still greater difficulties—I hope I am not putting myself within the scope of the law by discussing the Cabinet—but in the Cabinet he would have to face the criticism of the heads of the two great Departments who had blocked his way upwards. I do not think that is a workable system. I want to see the noble Earl master in his own house. If this Air Board is to do any good at all, it seems to me that the noble Earl should be not only the head of a great supplying department, as he will be, but that he should have power to order supplies and base them upon the needs of his policy.
  I notice that since I put this Motion down a fortnight ago there has been a distinct acceleration in many directions. It is the result of what is called "pressure." I do not say that the Government had not got it under consideration, but the pressure certainly stimulated their decision. Just as three or four days before I spoke in this House on March 9 Sir David Henderson was added to the Army Council and promoted, so a few days before we have these debates in this House and in the other House the Air Board makes its appearance. I am quite aware that the Cabinet have had some very thorny subjects to discuss, and this may or may not be in their opinion as important as many others which they have had to consider. But I do wish to say on behalf of those who complain—and there are some in official circles who complain about this subject—that we have found our justification. Our action has already done some good, and I hope that what is now to be done will be productive of further good.
  This question of aviation has been the subject of many Committees. There was the Committee to which the noble Earl (Lord Derby) and I belonged. That did some good; I know instances in which it did decided good. Then there is Number 2 Committee, as I will call it, which is investigating the affairs of the Royal Aircraft Factory. I should not be
  106
  surprised if that Committee reported in a sense favourable to the view I hold—namely, that the Royal Aircraft Factory has been conducted in an unsatisfactory way. Then there is this Judicial Committee, before whom myself and other members of this House are going to be asked to explain what we have said. Then there is the noble Earl's Air Board, which is the Government's last and final word for the moment at any rate. What we want in regard to all these matters is to judge them by one test—How far do they help us to win the war? Raking up the embers of the past, stirring up controversies which have very nearly died down, is a bad policy. I am not going to be guilty of it myself. But if I have to go into details before this Judicial Committee I shall tell the Committee—and I am sure your Lordships will agree that I am right—that every word I say before them I shall hold myself free to repeat across the floor of this House. Hearings in camera may have some advantages, but if these Committees are to be set up to judge us on what we say in the House, we must always reserve the right to which I refer.
  In regard to what is to be done in the future, I am quite aware that I and others who think like me will have to justify fully our demand for a unified system of administration and for what we want to see set up—namely, an Imperial Air Service. I am always open to be convinced that there are difficulties in carrying out any very large change in time of war. I know that to be the case. But in this matter I think the Government may well take their courage in both hands. We have had many instances during the war of the Government being accused of being, and being in reality, too late. On this occasion let them try and be, if they so regard it, too soon, just to see what it feels like. I do not believe that in most cases there is as much risk in being a little previous as in being a little too late. Even if a mistake were made in giving the Air Board more power than it possesses to-day. I do not believe that that would be running half as grave a risk as we should be running by going with timid and faltering steps along the path which eventually we will be bound to take.
  I detect in Government utterances of late a certain note of anxiety. I am glad to detect that note. It shows that the Government are beginning to realise that

  107
  this is a very serious question. Already a step has been taken which has my approval and also that, I am sure, of the noble Earl, Lord Derby, because it is a step which we both advocated when on the Committee. The Royal Flying Corps have taken over de Keyser's Hotel. I congratulate them or doing it. It shows a desire for freedom from the trammels of Departmental influence, and I hope it shows that Sir David Henderson and his colleagues have in view the possibility of the Air Service being cut more and more adrift from Departmental trammels. I should like to see the Royal Naval Air Service do something of the same kind. I should like to see a Fifth Lord added to the Board of Admiralty—an Air Lord to represent on that Board the views of those interested in naval aviation. There are other hotels which might be taken. They might take, for instance, the Hotel Victoria; possibly even the Savoy. I suggest that the Royal Flying Corps' hotel might be called the "Sky-scrapers' Arms," while that taken by the Royal Naval Air Service might be called the "Skimmers' Rest."
  Eventually a fully fledged Air Ministry must come out of this; and when that Ministry comes—and I think it will come much sooner than most people think—it will come owing partly to the efforts of myself and people who think like me, but it will also come from the inevitable pressure of circumstances, because the more you see of this war the more you realise that it is the combats in the air and what aircraft can do that may decide it. Then sooner or later the Imperial aspect of the Air Service will arise. I know that already Australia has taken the matter up, and that a great many of the leading men of Canada are seriously considering the idea. Thus the Air Service cannot be a Service for this country only. It must be an Imperial Air Service, and it must have its counterpart in the great Dominions. All over the world the question of the supremacy of the air is being anxiously debated. In America, for instance, there is a Bill now before Congress dealing with this question. Individual States in America are organising air services, and they have got a long way already with the personnel. All over the civilised world you see increased attention being paid to this subject. I say deliberately, so far as my opinion is worth anything, that the first nation which
  108
  achieves anything like supremacy in the air will have an immense advantage in war over any other. I am not going to reveal or even discuss what might be done had we that supremacy at the Front; but I say again without fear of contradiction—and I am going to prove it when I go before the Judicial Committee—that we have not got that supremacy at the Front. I do not agree with Mr. Bonar Law's declaration in the House of Commons the other day that we had supremacy at the Front and have maintained it ever since. I prefer the more sober declaration of Mr. Tennant, who said in the House of Commons on March 28—and I think this is a very fair description—that at the moment the majority of the German aeroplanes are probably faster than the majority of our own owing to their higher engine power, but that this state of affairs was being gradually altered. I think Mr. Bonar Law went far beyond what he was justified in saying.
  Then eventually you will have all your frontiers to protect by your Air Service. I am proud to say that I have taken part in helping India to get aeroplanes. Some day when I am more free to do so I will read you a telegram which was sent to me when I was at Simla last year through the War Office intimating that the needs of India were not Imperial needs and that there was no necessity to have aeroplanes on the North-West Frontier. I have kept that wire as a curiosity to show the narrow view of some of the great Departments of State. I look forward to the day when the frontiers of India will be patrolled by aeroplanes, when they will go up over the Khyber and Malakand Passes to discover where the enemy exist and whether they are coming down from the hills to attack the peaceable settlements below. I think the time will come when they will be used all over Australia for police purposes. They will guard your gateways of Empire at Singapore, at Malta, and Gibraltar; they will fly over the prairies of Canada as your frontier police there, as elsewhere. It is clear that the policing in time of peace of every frontier will be the work of the aeroplane. Later on, of course, we shall come to a time—I have not the opportunity of going into it this evening—when for commercial purposes, at any rate for mails and passengers, aeroplanes will become, quite common things of the day.
  If you look at my Motion on the Paper you will see that it declares that—
  "the development of aviation for purposes of war can no longer be efficiently carried on under the present system of the divided control and responsibility of two separate Departments."
  I think that is absolutely true. I do not know whether the Government will accept this Motion to-night, but if there is a Division I shall be proud even if I am in a minority of one, and I think the names of those Peers who vote with me will form a roll of honour in future years. I realise that it is difficult to move a Government Department. We all know the saying, "Now is the appointed time"; but in a Government Department, as a rule, "now" is never the appointed time. The result is that, whether you look back upon aviation or upon any of the great movements of the past, it has been the official world which has been the last to accept the facts of the day. We might have had the whole of the Wright inventions in this country for a paltry sum of money. I am going to explain that to the Committee. The same kind of official complacency and neglect, I am afraid, exists to-day in other quarters. In a time of war this state of mind is more serious than it would be in time of peace, because there is a great risk in delay. We are only on the threshold of great developments in aerial warfare. No one can tell how far it is going. No one dare say that it will not have an increasing influence upon the fortunes of the war. You cannot afford to wait much longer. It is my firm belief that the first nation which organises its Air Service, which co-ordinates production and intelligently sets to work to make the third arm a great arm and a great influence in the Army, will be the nation which will eventually out-distance its neighbours.
  The more we look at this war the more we see that it is fast becoming a war of exhaustion and stagnation. We cannot deny that every nation is getting short of men; it is no good blinking that fact. Aerial warfare can be carried on with the least expenditure of personnel and the maximum of result. Supposing you had 5,000 aeroplanes at the Front; if they were, all two-seated machines they would want only 10,000 men. Of course, there would be reserve men and mechanics and the other people who attend to the machines; but with aeroplanes you could do more damage to the enemy with a
  110
  smaller number of men than you could do in any other way. That is a very important point, which I know the Air Board will not leave out of consideration. Sometimes in this matter one feels depressed, because one sees around one an acceptance of ideas with no real thought behind them. I feel at times, I must confess, like one who is standing at the curtained window of a room in which a sleeper lies in bed. I try to draw the curtains back and let in the dawn, and the sleeper turns lazily over and says, "Don't draw the curtains yet; it will keep me from sleeping." That has been the attitude of many people in official circles to whom I have spoken. They say, "What a horrid thing war in the air will be. Don't talk to me of it. Why cannot war go on in the nice old-fashioned gentlemanly and courteous way?" The enemy will not wait for us to accommodate ourselves to new ideas. What I have just said has been said since the beginning of time. When the bow-and-arrow was superseded by the flint-lock, and the flint-lock by "Brown Bess," and so on, everybody said "Give us the old-time gentlemanlike fighting." They will now say, "How horrible it is to be attacked from above." But that is the inevitable force of circumstances; we cannot postpone it, and we have to accommodate ourselves to this new state of things.
  There is no fortification throughout the whole Empire which is adequately protected from aircraft. You have to reorganise all that. Lord Sydenham, himself a distinguished Engineer officer, knows that every fort we have throughout the Empire is practically defenceless from above. What will have to be done? This leads me to so vast a vista that I cannot discuss it this evening. But it is clear that you must at once face this peril in the air and face it boldly, or we shall be left behind to our utter ruin. The longer the war goes on the clearer it becomes that we must pay more attention to this subject of aerial warfare. Whether you look to the daily increasing accounts of combats in the air or to the enormous strides which have been made in the development of aircraft you must see that this tendency is inevitable. You cannot successfully cope with that state of things so long as you have disorganisation and want of concentration and the present jealousy and friction between the two Services. I hope that the Air Board, under the noble Earl, will be able to do

  111
  much; and I can assure the noble Earl that if he comes in contact with some of his official colleagues he will have the support of both Houses of Parliament and of the country as well.
  I tell you once more, my Lords, that you cannot win in the air with divided forces. I tell you with all the sincerity of which I am capable that before long every nation will be forced to create an Air Ministry by that sheer necessity which knows no law, which regards no precedent, and which fears no Government. The immense growth of aircraft in all directions will compel the creation of a new Department. The realisation that war is going to be more and more aerial in nature will be another reason. You need at home just as much as at the Front more concentration, more courage, more foresight. If you do not organise properly I tell you that before the end of the war, certainly within the lifetime of most of us here, this country will, live in a state of perpetual dread of air raids taking place, which may bring death and destruction to your borders. Is that a prospect which you can face with equanimity? I believe that this country and the Government will awake to this danger. I am confident that if we realise this peril now, the Air Minister of the future will have an easier task than the noble Earl has now. He will be able. I hope, to echo that verse of the Psalm, "Thou shalt not be afraid of the terror by night, nor for the arrow that flieth by day," for your guardian angels, your own aircraft, will preserve your homes inviolate. I beg to move.
  Moved to resolve, That this House considers that the development of aviation for purposes of war can no longer be efficiently carried on under the present system of the divided control and responsibility of two separate Departments; and that the time has now arrived when the supply of men and materials should be concentrated under single control, at the same time leaving the executive power over naval and military aircraft with the Army and Navy as at present.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
  VISCOUNT MILNER: My Lords, in rising to second this Motion I have no intention of inflicting a speech upon your Lordships. The last thing I should wish to appear to be is a jack-of-all-trades, and I am most willing to confess that I approach this subject with all the intense interest
  112
  which its immense public importance imposes upon all of us, but without any claim to be more than a layman on the subject. A number of noble Lords who are anxious to speak possess greater expert knowledge than I do, and I cannot imagine why none of them was willing to undertake the duty of seconding the Motion. I do so gladly for two reasons, which I will explain in a very few sentences. The first is the deep impression which I have of the importance and extreme urgency of the question, and the second is my conviction that the present opportunity is one which should not be lost for eliciting from the Government an authoritative statement of what their policy is and what the Board of which the noble Earl opposite is chairman is exactly intended to do. That is the practical point of importance at the moment, and it is in order to give him an opportunity of enlightening us on this point that the Motion is brought forward—at least that, in my view, is the most important object which the Motion can achieve. I hope we shall have a full statement from the noble Earl, in whose power and administrative ability we all have so much confidence. I hope that comparatively little time will be spent to-night in deploring the laches and neglect of the past, and that some progress will be made in seeing our way for the future.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I am afraid I come somewhat under the category to which the noble Viscount said he did not wish to belong, and I desire to be associated with him in not myself wishing to be a jack-of-all-trades; but having been connected with the previous Committee I hope your Lordships will not think it amiss if I make a few remarks on the subject of the Resolution which my noble friend has brought forward. If I may say so, I think the noble Lord did quite right to bring this Motion forward, for two reasons. First for the reason mentioned by the noble Viscount (Lord Milner), that it will elicit a further statement as to the policy of the new Board from the head of that Board; and, secondly, because it shows a difference from the criticisms made in another place in that this is a criticism on the part of Lord Montagu intended to be of service to the noble Earl, to the Board over which he is now presiding, and to the Service which we hope to see him reorganise. The noble Lord said he hoped the Government would accept his Resolution. So do I;

  113
  and I honestly cannot see why they should not accept it, because it seems to me only to express the view which they themselves have taken in appointing this particular Board. There may be one or two points on which they slightly differ, but the general principle of the Resolution seems to me to be one which the Government have already accepted, and accepted, as I believe, for the benefit of the country.
  May I give your Lordships a reminiscence? When I had the honour of being the Financial Secretary at the War Office under my noble friend Lord Midleton there was at the time in the Service a General officer whom personally I have always looked upon as one of the most brilliant officers that have ever been in His Majesty's Army. The noble Marquess will know him well—I refer to Sir Henry Brackenbury. There had been a discussion—I do not know whether my noble friend remembers it—at the time when there was a reckless fit of economy after the Boer War, on the subject of the provision of sheds, I think at Aldershot, for dirigible balloons. I had taken the line of opposing them as being an unnecessary expense. Sir Henry Bracken bury came to my room and insisted. I have never forgotten the words he used. He said—
  "I wish you would help me to get this through. I shall not lire to see it. You may. But I believe that England is more in danger from the air than she has ever been since the Spanish Armada."
  That seemed to me the most extraordinary foresight. I think I did support Sir Henry Brackenbury after that, but I am afraid I was rather in the position of the sleeper to whom Lord Montagu alluded. I turned over and went to sleep again, and did not take the active interest in the Air Service which the noble Lord himself has done.
  Although there have been spasmodic attempts to improve the Air Service, nobody looking back can say that there was anybody in the War Office or in the Admiralty who really took a big view of what was necessary for aircraft or put it forward as essential for our welfare; and really if I may say so—it is only fair to say it—it was left actually to a particular portion of the public Press to bring the whole question of aeronautics most prominently before the public. In my opinion if it had not been for that spirit of emulation which was secured by large prizes and which gave the opportunity to firms not to cater for the Army or Navy but to cater for
  114
  what I may call commercial and sporting purposes, I am perfectly certain we should not have been in the same position—even though it may not be as good a position as we wish at the present moment—for securing the aircraft that we have as a matter of fact got. I am certain that Lord Montagu would agree with me in paying a humble tribute to the way in which our airmen have performed their duty whether they be in the Royal Flying Corps or in the Royal Naval Air Service. The development that has taken place, considering the very meagre support received from the two great Departments, the Admiralty and the War Office, is extraordinary; and I think we ought to pay a tribute to those who, with very little encouragement, have done so much to make the Air Service the success it is at the present moment and to prepare the way for the far greater success that I think it will be in the future.
  As to the future, may I say that I, in the main, entirely agree with Lord Montagu. I am not going into questions of detail. I have not the technical knowledge that my noble friend has. I am speaking only as to the general principle on which the organisation of the Air Service should be run, And here, as my noble friend knows, I differ a little from him. I am not so certain as he is that the change can be made at the present moment. I may be right, or I may be wrong. I see the goal that we ought to aim at, but I am a little doubtful whether we could arrive actually at it at the present moment without disorganising the two services to such an extent as perhaps to nullify the advantage that might be gained. I am certain of one thing, that eventually the Air Service is going to play perhaps the most important part, I will not say in this war, but in the future defence of our Empire; and I am certain that any Government would be very ill-advised if it did not give to this Service all the consideration and all the assistance that it may require. There is no magic in calling the body a Ministry. There is no magic in having a Minister at the head as long as you have a body that keeps to what it wants and a head who is able to secure from the Government proper consideration and assistance.
  I wish to see amalgamation into one Service, with perhaps the two wings in a way kept apart—the Army and the Navy. But I frankly see the difficulty of carrying

  115
  out such a proposal at the present moment. Let me say why. You would have to alter the whole of the rates of pay, and you would have to alter, I believe, the discipline. I am not sure that you could bring men from the Admiralty under Army discipline, or the reverse. You would have to think out more carefully than is possible at the present moment on what system men would be taken into the Flying Corps. The Flying Corps cannot make a vocation in life for a man. Except for very few, the flying life of a man is comparatively short. The noble Lord will contradict me if I am wrong, but I should say that a flying man as a general rule will have finished his actual flying by the time he is thirty.
  LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: That is rather early. It depends very much upon the individual. Some men feel young at fifty; others feel old at thirty. I think that as a matter of fact there will be administrative work to do which will fit those sort of people.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I doubt whether you will have administrative posts enough to go round for the number of men who will have finished their actual flying.
  LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I have suggested several times that these men should to a large extent be used in the Anti-Aircraft Corps. Let the bird shoot at the bird later on.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: If you are taking men into the Service, it must be very carefully thought out beforehand what their future is to be. You cannot do anything so unfair as when a man is no longer fit for flying through no fault of his own then to turn him adrift without any vocation. So that this is a question which has to be thought of. I feel, therefore, that in this matter you must be content to go comparatively slowly as long as you go in the right direction, and personally I believe that the formation of Lord Curzon's Board is a step in the right direction.
  If I may, I will say a word with reference to the Committee of which I was for a time chairman. I accepted that post with a full knowledge that I was absolutely unacquainted with anything connected with the air, and the Reference that we had clearly showed me that it would be possible to
  116
  accept the chairmanship without such a knowledge, because our sole duty consisted, as far as I could make out, in preventing overlapping by the two Services in the competition for machines, and endeavouring as far as we could to provide for a further and a greater output. I endeavoured, on the first occasion after I was so appointed, to disabuse the minds of those who thought that the acceptance of that particular office meant that I had accepted the post of Air Minister. Later on my noble friend Lord Montagu—I happened not to be in England at the time, so was not able to be present at the debate—brought forward a Motion, and I think my noble friend Lord Lansdowne rather thought that I had underestimated the powers which the Committee possessed. Well, I thought after that, that probably I was wrong, and that I would see whether I had the powers which the noble Marquess thought I had. Lord Montagu then joined the Committee. I soon found that my own reading of my powers was right; and I was confirmed in that by a reference that I made to Mr. Balfour, the First Lord of the Admiralty, who took the same view as I did of these particular powers. My powers as regards an Air Ministry were nil, except to the extent of preventing overlapping which I am glad to say, owing to the common sense of those administering the Air Departments both of the Army and of the Navy, had already been overcome. Beyond that we had absolutely no power whatever. It was obvious, therefore, to my mind that we were, so to speak, serving under a false flag, and that it was much better to resign, as my noble friend and I did, and let the Government consider the desirability, indeed the necessity, of forming a Board with far greater powers; and if they could not then give the fullest powers, to be at all events prepared to consider the extension of those powers as might be thought necessary.
  Let me show, if I may, how little power there was. First of all we were told to co-ordinate design and co-ordinate the placing of orders for output. It is absolutely essential, if you are going to have coordination of design or to co-ordinate the placing of contracts, to have the designing branch and the contracts branch of the Army and Navy in the same building working with each other. But instantly that arrangement was proposed it was negatived. I was able to secure one small

  117
  advantage which I hope will be of benefit to the noble Earl. Sir David Henderson, who had far more power as representing the Army on the Committee than the Admiralty representative had, met me in every possible way, and at my request got the Army Council to appoint a Committee, of which at my suggestion Sir Richard Burbidge was the chairman, with Sir Frederick Donaldson and Sir Charles Parsons, to inquire into the working of the air craft factory at Farnborough, of which I confess I had not heard any too good accounts. But although I was chairman of the Committee, I could only get this Committee of Inquiry appointed by the good will of Sir David Henderson and the Army Council, although it was essential that such a matter should be inquired into. I hope, therefore, that the House will see that I did not resign from the Committee, in which I should have taken the greatest interest, without feeling that it was impossible to keep such a position without explaining to the country how powerless we actually were to perform the duties which they thought we were called upon to perform.
  The chief difficulty with regard to my Committee, and the chief difficulty, it seems to me, which my noble friend opposite (Lord Curzon) will find, is that there is no definite air service policy laid down as to what the Army wing has to do and what the Navy wing has to do, and regarding the question of such things as long-distance bombing, and so on. Until that is definitely laid down I defy any Committee to carry out properly the haphazard policy which seems to exist at the present moment. I am therefore delighted to think that this Air Board is now formed with the noble Earl, a member of the Cabinet, as its president, and I hope by that means it will secure at once a definite policy to which both wings, Army and Navy, can work with all the energy which we know they can display. Lord Montagu said there were only two independent members of this Board. That surely is wrong. If I am not mistaken, there are three. There is the noble Earl, Lord Curzon; there is Lord Sydenham; and there is Major Baird, who is to answer for the Department in the House of Commons.
  LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I did not include Major Baird, because to a certain extent he is an official. He is secretary to Mr. Bonar Law.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I do not think I should call that position official, and I should be prepared to accept Major Baird as a third independent person. But be that as it may, I hope the House will recognise, as I do, the great advance we have made in securing that in this House and in the other House there shall be Ministers directly responsible for the Air Service, to whom questions can be addressed and who can answer some of those rash statements that are occasionally made and prevent them spreading, and who will, I believe, be able to a very large extent to reassure the public, who are now undoubtedly—I will not say frightened; that is not the correct word—but somewhat uneasy with regard to the various statements that are being made detrimental to the Air Service.
  We have not had the advantage in this House as yet of hearing an exact statement as to the position of all the members of the new Board, but it seems to me that what happened on the Committee of which I was chairman is to a certain extent happening to the noble Earl's Board—that is, that the War Office representative has more power and is more in touch with the higher authorities in the War Office than is the Admiralty representative with the Admiralty.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): It is one of the conditions of the composition of the Board that the senior representative of the Admiralty is to be a member of the Board of Admiralty, just as General Sir David Henderson is a member of the Army Council. It was in that capacity that Admiral Tudor, the Third Sea Lord, attended yesterday the meeting of our Board.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I thank the noble Earl for his correction. I had understood from the statement made in the House of Commons that the representative of the Admiralty was only to attend the Board of Admiralty when air matters were discussed. As I understand it now, the two representatives have absolute equality of power. I confess that this to a great extent removes one of the objections that I entertained. May I, in conclusion, say that I am very glad that this matter has been brought forward, and is at last receiving the full attention of His Majesty's

  119
  Government. I am glad that the noble Earl has been appointed to the chairmanship of the new Board. I am afraid I cannot offer him the same technical help and knowledge that Lord Montagu can, but he knows that anything I can do to assist him I shall be only too ready to do. There is one thing that I am sure he will allow me to say without thinking it impertinent, and that is that I wish him all possible success in his new office because I realise that his success in that office will mean success to our Armies in the field.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I intervene for a moment in this debate in place of my noble friend beside me (Lord Curzon), because as the hour is late and I am aware that there are other noble Lords who desire to take part in the discussion, I think it might profitably be adjourned, and then my noble friend, at a more suitable time of day, will be able to make the full statement which he is prepared to give to the House. I trust therefore, after I have said a few words, and, if time serves, other noble Lords have taken part, that the adjournment of the debate until to-morrow may then be moved.
  The noble Viscount (Lord Milner) stated that he had no desire to be regarded as a jack-of-all-trades. We, unfortunately, on this Bench are perpetually obliged to be jacks-of-all-trades and to do the best we can in a great many various capacities. But I have no desire to attempt to cover most of the ground that has been touched upon in the interesting speeches to which we have listened. Almost the only fault I had to find individually with the speech of my noble friend Lord Montagu was that he seemed, he himself being deeply, immersed in this subject, almost to assume that nobody on this side of the House recognises that it possesses any importance. He almost seemed to imply that the Government had shown and was continuing to show complete and most unworthy indifference to the future of the Air Service. My noble friend who spoke last gave us, I think, rather more credit for doing our best to bring about such improvement as we can, in particular by the appointment of the new Air Board with my noble friend Lord Curzon to preside over it.
  As regards the composition of the Board, there are one or two points which I think ought to be made clear. Lord Montagu
  120
  spoke of the position that my noble friend would be placed in if he did not agree with the other members of his Board. My noble friend cannot be placed in that position. This is not a Board that votes; it is advisory, as my noble friend knows, and there is no question of agreement or disagreement. If he disagrees with his colleagues, he has his own way. It is, of course, possible for the representative of one of the great Departments, assuming him to differ from my noble friend behind me, to take the case to the Secretary of State for War or to the First Lord of the Admiralty, and for the matter, at their instance, to be brought before the War Committee, whose decision in such a case is final. But there is no question of my noble friend being outvoted, as would appear from the way in which Lord Montagu put the case; and it is therefore not true to state that he is not master in his own house. He is absolutely master in his own house He is not completely master in other people's houses—the War Office and the Admiralty—but so far as his own Board is concerned he is supreme there, subject to the appeal to the War Committee which I have already described. Lord Montagu spoke of the appointment of the legally constituted Committee to consider certain statements that had been made. That Committee was appointed, as we know, in pursuance of a promise made by the Under-Secretary—
  LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: By Mr. Tennant.
  THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: By Mr. Tennant—precisely—in order to deal with certain charges of a somewhat rhetorical and definitely damaging kind which had been made against the Department in another place, charges which, if they were to be taken literally, were of a most serious character. I have no doubt that valuable information will be brought out in the examination before that Committee, particularly as my noble friend opposite says that he proposes to give evidence there. But it has no definite bearing on the work of my noble friend's Board, and it ought, of course, to be considered as an entirely separate matter. I have no wish to go back upon the past history of the Committee which has been alluded to by Lord Montagu and Lord Derby. I confess I had been under the impression that their resignation of their functions had been somewhat hurried and

  121
  might have been delayed or even altogether averted. I recognise the force of what both noble Lords said. They imagined when they joined the Committee that their functions would be somewhat more solid and far-reaching in character than proved to be the case. I do not know, and indeed I have no right to ask, whether either of the noble Lords made any attempt to get those functions enlarged in the direction in which they have been somewhat enlarged now that my noble friend behind me presides over the Board. But that is not an important point, except in so far as it may conceivably affect the opinion which may be held whether their resignation at the time was absolutely necessary.
  Lord Montagu said that what was required was an air policy, and my noble friend who spoke last said something to the same effect. So far as I was able to apprehend Lord Montagu's point of view, he seemed to bass his opinion of the lack of a policy on the fact that the whole Air Service is conducted by two separate Departments, and not sufficiently unified. I think it is important not to ignore the example of other countries. What has taken place in France has become pretty well known to the public through the issue of various pamphlets and papers which have been largely circulated, giving an account of the formation of an Air Ministry there and the subsequent abandonment of that plan in favour of a return to a Military Air Director. As regards the case of Germany I am imperfectly informed, but my impression is that in Germany, whose conditions are, I take it, more parallel to our own than those of any other country, the two Services are kept entirely distinct, working, no doubt, with a certain degree of co-operation, but not, so far as I know, under any combined authority except, no doubt that of the Emperor himself.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: Are they not under one common authority for supplies?
  THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am afraid I cannot answer my noble friend's question. I mentioned the case of Germany, as to which I found it hard to obtain information, more in the hope that some noble Lord might later in the course of the debate be able to tell us precisely what the position in Germany is. Lord Montagu said, very truly, that the one single test of the merit
  122
  of any system for the Air Service, as indeed for all other Services, is—How far will it help us to win the war? What is the plan that will show us the shortest road to victory? The noble Earl (Lord Derby) does not take precisely the same view of the possibility, or indeed the present advantage, of the completely unified Service that Lord Montagu does. He sees the practical difficulties in getting anything like a complete unification, which have no doubt occurred to most people who have considered the subject even superficially. There is the crux of forming an entirely new personnel wherein men cease to be either soldiers or sailors, losing all their pension rights, and losing, as the noble Earl pointed out, a vast number of opportunities which are open for men who have served in the Navy and in the Army. Those questions are obviously of very great difficulty, and it certainly does seem at first sight that to attempt to solve them in the middle of a war would be an act of great rashness, and one which, indeed, could only be justified by greater chances of success than appear on the surface likely to be attained.
  My noble friend Lord Montagu puts the future of aircraft very high. I remember that in his last speech we were all greatly impressed by the visions that he held out of the possibility of the main conduct of futures wars being in the air rather than by sea or on land. He takes, indeed, as wide and enthusiastic a view of possibilities of the future as did the hero of Tennyson's famous poem written 70 or 80 years ago, when he foretold something of what is going on now in the air above us. It is quite true, of course, that one of the difficulties which in ordinary peace times would attend the attempt to increase our Air Fleet on a very large scale does not now exist. In ordinary times the country is willing to pay a certain sum towards national defence, but it will not pay an unlimited amount. In the old days, when we had discussions about Universal Service one of the arguments which always seemed to be the strongest against it was that if £10,000,000 or £15,000,000 or £20,000,000 were going to be spent on the Army, there would be a movement pro tanto, or at any rate to some extent, to diminish the Vote for the Navy; and I have no doubt that if my noble friend's visions were realised and the Air Service became the prime object of attention for purposes of national

  123
  defence, both the War Office and the Admiralty Votes might be impinged on in order to bring the Air Fleet up to what my noble friend thinks adequate. It is quite true that now those considerations would not be borne in mind. If it were possible at this moment to create at short notice a large and overwhelming Air Fleet of the kind my noble friend hopes for, I have no doubt that the cost would not stand in the way, although, as we all know, we have to think, and we shall have to think as we go on, more and more, about the actual cost of carrying on the war even in the matter of military and naval supplies.
  LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I have pointed out in this House and elsewhere that you could build 1,700 aeroplanes for the cost of one Dreadnought.
  THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: It is quite true, as my noble friend says, that the cost of the machines and the cost even of a large machine is a mere flea-bite compared with the cost of even a small cruiser. But there are all the other problems of a large Service which, my noble friend knows, would add greatly to the expense. But, as I say, in these times, supposing it to be found possible to increase the Air Fleet almost indefinitely, I have no doubt that considerations of cost would not be allowed to stand in the way.
  One word as regards the terms of the Motion, which my noble friend Lord Derby seemed to think that it would be possible for us to accept. I fear that that is not possible. If the noble Earl will look at the terms of the Motion—" This House considers that the development of aviation for purposes of war can no longer be efficiently carried on under the present system of the divided control and responsibility of two separate Departments"—he will see that this suggestion goes considerably beyond what His Majesty's Government have done in appointing my noble friend's Board. I fear, therefore, that to accept the Motion on the understanding that it was merely a Motion of gratitude and praise to us for what we had done would be going beyond the mark. My impression is that my noble friend Lord Montagu means a great deal more. I am afraid, therefore, that it is not possible for us to accept the Motion, at any rate in the form in which he has put it on the Paper.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: Does not the noble Marquess think that the last part of the Motion modifies it to a great extent—" at the same time leaving the executive power over naval and military aircraft with the Army and Navy as at present"?
  THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am afraid it goes a great deal further. But no doubt my noble friend (Lord Curzon) will develop that more fully when he speaks to-morrow.
  LORD NORTHCLIFFE: My Lords, I should not trouble your Lordships at so late an hour did I not feel that in all these discussions we have a little lost sight of the urgent need for speed in these matters. I am sure, however, that this somewhat shadowy Board must develop into an Air Ministry. As one noble Lord remarked, "It will come from outside pressure." Personally, I have criticised the composition of this Board, but I entirely agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Milner, that we must sink our differences and give it the utmost support in our power. For that reason I am attending the Board on Friday.
  There are several things to my mind absolutely essential for the success of the Board. The first is that it should have its own Board of Inventions. At the present time, to my knowledge, doubtless owing to great pressure at Victory House, inventors who may have revolutionary and beneficent schemes under consideration have to wait for weeks and even for months before they can get a decision. It happens that the particular machine we are discussing to-night was invented, not by aeronauts, but by two young men who were bicycle repairers. They published their scheme to the world, they communicated with all the great aeronautical societies of the world, and no notice was taken of it. In the same way it is more than possible that one or two or three of the great revolutions necessary for the flying machine may be in the mind of some person in this country to-day, and we must remember that this machine is infinitely more important to us than to any other nation in the world. This machine has entirely changed the position of our kingdom from being an island to being part of the Continent. We cannot, therefore, model our Air Ministry on that of any other country. I would urgently suggest to the noble Earl who is undertaking this very arduous task that one of the first

  125
  changes he makes should be to establish his own Board of Inventions and see that inventions are carefully and quickly examined.
  Another suggestion I make is that much greater encouragement be given to manufacturers. A few weeks ago I knew of a factory that was crying for work. We cannot expect to build up establishments to enable us to cope with the comparatively small German output of aeroplanes—small by comparison with what we shall certainly require—unless the Government offer financial assistance to worthy manufacturers able to guarantee a proper output. People talk as if we shall require 10,000, 20,000, 30,000, or 50,000 aeroplanes. I conceive that it must be essential, and probably before the end of this war—for I take a rather longer view of the war than some of our friends—I contend it is essential that we put the aeroplane construction business on a footing where the new Air Minister will be able to get as many machines as he requires when and where he requires them. The system of construction in Germany is to give out the work in part to manufacturers all over the Empire. These parts are then assembled at great central factories, with the result that the whole of each part of an aeroplane is produced by a specialist. That is not the case here. We give orders for aeroplanes to numbers of manufacturers; and they turn out aeroplanes as good as any in the world. We know that. But they are produced to my knowledge more slowly, and I should imagine at a greater cost. The system of central assemblage of parts is one that is adopted in almost every great manufacturing industry in the world, and I think it is essential to the aeroplane industry.
  Yet another suggestion I desire to make is better and increased provision for the training of flying men. This is the time of year when men can be taught flying in the greatest numbers, and in half the time that is required in the windy months of winter. I regard it as so urgent that we
  126
  should increase our flying men, and as rapidly as possible, that I think we ought to adopt the policy inaugurated by the practical inventors of the aeroplane, who, when they came to Europe and found that ours was a difficult country to fly in by reason of our winds, took a careful look round the likely places in Europe and settled to teach Frenchmen to fly, and chose Pau, close to the Pyrenees, because they knew that it was almost the most windless place near any great military centre. I believe if we defer the training of large bodies of men until the autumn and winter we shall be lamentably short next year, when there will be a great need.
  We have proved already in this war that the machines are sometimes inferior, and sometimes, it is true, superior; but we have proved that from the beginning of flying we have had a national aptitude for it. That was found by the inventors of the aeroplane directly they came to Europe. I knew them both well, and I knew their admiration and respect for the adaptability of our people. Because, probably, we are accustomed to the sea, we are able to navigate the air. They held our flying men in the highest esteem. Unfortunately we have not shown that interest in this most vital question to our nation that we should; but I do think that our new Air Minister, for such I consider him to be, such, I think, the Germans will make him, could do no better service than, first, to encourage inventors; secondly, to develop manufacture; and, thirdly, to provide far greater training facilities for our flying men.
  Moved, That the debate be adjourned.—(Viscount Galway.)
  On Question, the further debate adjourned till To-morrow, and to be taken first.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.