Lords Sitting of 14 August 1917

RICHMOND (SURREY) ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
ARMSTRONG, WHITWORTH AND COMPANY (RAILWAYS) BILL.
LEVINSTEIN (RAILWAYS) BILL.
CHESHIRE LINES COMMITTEE BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

RETURNS, REPORTS. &c.
Ministry of Food—
Winter Beans Order, dated 27th July, 1917;
Flour Mills Order, No. 2, dated 31st July, 1917;
Pickled Herring (Returns) Order, dated 31st July, 1917;
Milk (Returns) Order, dated 31st July, 1917:
Mercantile Marine—Statement by the Board of Trade as to compensation for death or injury caused by War risks, and as to other arrangements made for the benefit of Officers and seamen of British Merchant Ships during the War:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Naval and Marine Pay and Pensions Act, 1865—Five Orders in Council, dated 8th August, 1917, made under the Act:
Bankruptcy—Thirty-fourth General Annual Report by the Board of Trade:
Shops Act, 1912—Closing Order made by the Urban District Council of Kingstown:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Upper Medway Navigation and Conservancy Board—Statement of the Accounts of the Conservators of the Upper Medway for the year ended 31st March, 1917
Delivered (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

NEW MINISTRIES BILL
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Powers and Duties of Minister of Reconstruction.
2.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Minister of Reconstruction to consider and advise upon the problems which may arise after the termination of the present war, and for the purposes aforesaid to institute and conduct such inquiries, prepare such schemes, and make such recommendations as he thinks fit; and the Minister of Reconstruction shall, for the purposes aforesaid, have such powers and duties of any Government Department or authority, which have been conferred by or under any statute, as His Majesty may by Order in Council authorise the Minister to exercise or perform concurrently with, or in consultation with, the Government Department or authority concerned.
(2)The Minister of Reconstruction shall in each year present to Parliament a report of such of the schemes prepared and recommendations made by him as he shall deem suitable for publication.
(3)Any Order in Council made for the purpose of this Act may be added to, varied, or revoked by a subsequent Order in Council.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to delete from subsection (1) the words "may arise after the termination of the present war," and to insert "arise out of the present war and will require to be dealt with immediately upon the termination of it." The noble Marquess said: I have two Amendments to this Bill, and I am in hopes that the Government will see their way to accept both of them. The Amendment which stands first in my name, and which I am now moving, is to bring the Bill more into conformity with the declarations of the Government, and therefore more into conformity with the intention of Parliament in this matter. My noble friend the Leader of the House, in addressing your Lordships on the Second Reading of this Bill, used these words—
" I really do not think that there is the slightest intention—it certainly never entered my head—

357
that this Minister should explore the whole field of political and social activity, and devise a new policy for the Government or for the nation."
But as the Bill stands, as your Lordships will see, there is no limit whatever to the activities of the new Minister of Reconstruction.
The words in the clause are that the new Minister is to be entitled "to consider and advise upon the problems which may arise after the termination of the present war "—not, your Lordships will observe, that they should be in any way connected with the present war, or that they should require to be dealt with at any approximate period after the war. At any time from the termination of the present war, upon any subject right up to the end of time, all matters would be open to the Minister of Reconstruction. I feel quite certain that this was not the intention of the other House of Parliament, or the intention of your Lordships' House when you agreed to the Second Reading of the Bill. Your idea of a Reconstruction Minister is some one who will put right things that have gone wrong in consequence of the great strain of the war. That is what reconstruction means. Therefore, the opening words of Clause 2, which is the operative clause, should be strictly tied to that limitation. Your Lordships will remember that on the Second Reading of the Bill the Lord Chancellor mentioned a whole string of subjects, some of which we quite agree ought to be dealt with by the Reconstruction Minister, but some of which, however, appear to us to be a long way outside the limit which I have ventured to put forward, and which the Leader of the House himself suggested when he spoke on the Second Reading.
I can assure your Lordships that I am not dealing with a mere bogey. There is great danger that the activities of this Reconstruction Minister may be unduly extended. There is a sort of feverish desire in some quarters to deal, in the name of reconstruction, with every subject under heaven. Coal conservation, for example, was mentioned by the Lord Chancellor in his speech on the Second Reading of this Bill. Coal conservation does not arise out of the war. No doubt, the difficulties connected with it may arise after the war, but the subject has no connection with the crisis of the present war and does not call for immediate settlement after the war. Again, I do not think that the drink
358
question requires to be dealt with immediately after the war; and I doubt very much whether it arises out of the war, though to some extent, of course, it does.
Let me state to your Lordships the subjects that might be dealt with under this clause in its present form. There is the question of afforestation. There is everything connected with the railways, and everything connected with the coal industry. Some people want to deal with the whole of local government. Others want to deal with the whole basis on which our financial policy—I am not speaking of our fiscal policy—is arranged. Some people want to deal with the whole question of inland communication. Those are the sort of subjects with which, unless there are limiting words inserted in this clause, there is no reason in the world why the Minister of Reconstruction should not busy himself. As I have said, that is not the view of Parliament, or of the noble Earl the Leader of this House, who stated, in the extract which I have read from his speech, that he had no desire that the whole field of political and social activity should be explored. Therefore it seems common sense to limit the activities of the Minister of Reconstruction to matters which arise out of the war, and which require to be dealt with immediately on the termination of the war. Everything else can be dealt with in the ordinary way as it arises. When we get back to a period of peace, every question as it arises can be considered by the Cabinet of the day and be dealt with by the Parliament of the day, and there is no reason why any special legislation by way of a new Ministry should be required. On these grounds I submit my Amendment with some confidence to your Lordships' consideration.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 1, lines 10 and 11, leave out (" may arise after the termination of the present war ") and insert (" arise out of the present war and will require to be dealt with immediately upon the termination of it,")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: As I pointed out to your Lordships on the Second Reading of the Bill, the new Minister is not to exercise a roving commission, or to endeavour to usurp the executive duties of other Departments. His duties are governed by the words in the Bill, which state—

359
" It shall be the duty of the Minister of Reconstruction to consider and advise upon the problems which may arise after the termination of the present war, and for the purposes aforesaid—"
that is, promoting the work of organisation and development after the war—
" to institute and conduct such inquiries, prepare such schemes, and make such recommendations as he thinks fit."
I think that a great many of the matters to which the noble Marquess referred would come up for consideration in any scheme or schemes of reconstruction that might be devised. But when the noble Marquess refers to the very large field of operations that might in the future be undertaken by an enterprising Minister of this kind, I would remind him that Clause 6 of this Bill provides that the office of Minister of Reconstruction shall cease to exist on the termination of a period of two years after the conclusion of the war, or such earlier date as may be determined. I do not want to accept the noble Marquess's Amendment as it stands, but I would suggest words which will, I think, go some way to meet his view. The words which I suggest are—
" It shall be the duty of the Minister of Reconstruction to consider and advise upon the problems which may arise out of the present war and may have to be dealt with after its termination."
I put those words forward for the consideration of the noble Marquess.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I heard with great satisfaction the statement of the noble Viscount that the Government were prepared to meet the Amendment of the noble Marquess to some extent, but I cannot think that the extent to which they have gone is really far enough. If the noble Viscount says—and I accept his statement implicitly—that the object is not to give a roving commission to this Minister, then why confer upon him roving powers. All that Lord Salisbury's Amendment does is to limit the activities of the Minister to problems that arise out of the war. As the clause stands, the Minister may look as far ahead as he pleases. He may say that any problem of the future arises out of the war; and it will, indeed, be very difficult to dissociate any future political question from the existence of this war. If the noble Viscount could see his way further to extend his concession by dealing with the question raised in the noble Marquess's Amendment limiting the power to the problems which require to
360
be "immediately" dealt with, I think everything will be satisfactory. And, after all, that really must be what he means, because he pointed out that the powers of the Minister are limited to two years duration after the conclusion of the war. If his powers are to be so restricted, surely the questions that he is to deal with ought to be limited to those that follow the war as its natural and immediate consequences. That is what I understand the Government desire. If that is so, I would earnestly and respectfully suggest to the noble Viscount that the further words in the noble Marquess's Amendment might be usefully and profitably added.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): I do not think that I can respond to the appeal of the noble and learned Lord. The fact is that it was upon my responsibility that the noble Viscount behind me made the concession that he did. I heard only a portion of the speech of the noble Marquess who moved this Amendment—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: You heard the important part of it.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I do not admit that any part of it could have been unimportant, but I am glad to learn that I heard the part that the noble Marquess most desired that I should be acquainted with. It was to meet the noble Marquess on this point that I agreed that the noble Viscount sitting at my side should accept the responsibility of suggesting these new words. I did not want him to move them on behalf of the Government, because I am not certain what attitude will be taken on the matter by the Minister responsible for the Bill in the House of Commons. But I thought the suggestion was a reasonable one and would go a long way to meet the noble Marquess, and I had hoped that he would accept the words and move them himself, in which case we should not have resisted them. Lord Buckmaster wishes us to adhere to the terms of Lord Salisbury's Amendment and insert the words "immediately upon the termination "of the war. What does "immediately" mean in point of time? Does it mean a week, a fortnight, two months, six months, a year? I would suggest that we should not embark upon that perilous field, and that noble Lords opposite should be content with the concession which I have been willing to make to them.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am grateful to my noble friend for coming forward to meet me as much as he has done. I do not think we ought to quarrel about any words in my Amendment or the one which the noble Viscount opposite has suggested, except in regard to the word "immediately." If my noble friend will allow me to put in the word "immediately," so that the Amendment suggested by Lord Sandhurst would read "arise oat of the present war and may have to be dealt with immediately after its termination," that would sufficiently meet my view.
I doubt whether my noble friend who has just spoken has realised the enormous pressure there would be upon the Minister of Reconstruction even if he confined himself strictly to the limits which we are all agreed he ought not to be allowed to exceed. Think what it means to arrange the whole of the enormous process of demobilisation, to create a new labour policy—a trifle like, that!—and to deal with those very delicate and extremely intricate matters which are the subject of the special Reports that have been presented, let alone such a difficult subject as housing—I mention those as perhaps the principal matters. When you think that the Minister of Reconstruction must perforce deal with the labour policy, with housing, and with demobilisation, he will have his work quite cut out. He will not be an underworked Minister. He will be almost as overworked as my noble friends opposite, and that is saying a great deal. To suggest to him that he should go into other matters which may arise at any time after the war seems to me extravagant.
Lord Sandhurst said that the activities of the new Minister were limited to a period of two years after the termination of the war. That is quite true, but it does not prevent his considering and dealing with all those other subjects. I do not speak without some knowledge of this matter. I do not mean that I am as well qualified to speak as the greater part of your Lordships' House on the general subjects with which we are dealing. But the subject of reconstruction and what is suggested by way of reconstruction I do know. And your Lordships must realise that there are a great many people who think nothing of the vast list of subjects which I have related to you. They are quite willing to embark upon them all. They think they can have a new heaven and a new earth, and can reorganise everything
362
thing in the next few months. It is absolute insanity, and we have no right to encourage them.
My noble friend said just now that there would be difficulties in the interpretation of the word "immediately." I would point out that these words are not mandatory in the sense that they could be enforced in a Court of Law. All that words of this kind can do is to express to the Minister and to the Government the intention of Parliament; and, of course, we rely with absolute confidence that, having expressed the wish of Parliament and it having been accepted by the Government, it will be carried out in the spirit intended. I think that the word "immediately" conveys what my noble friend opposite and we ourselves on this side really intend. I suggest, therefore, that my noble friend should allow me to move the form of words as proposed by Lord Sandhurst, with the word "immediately" added.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I desire to say a word in support of what has just fallen from the noble Marquess and of his proposition. I confess I cannot agree with the noble Earl the Leader of the House in regard to the difficulty which he seemed to think attached to the construction of the word "immediately" in such a connection as this. I should have thought that its interpretation was quite simple; that it was not a question of a day after the conclusion of the war—although the term "conclusion of the war" itself is one which is not precisely easy of interpretation in all connections—but that the sense of what was intended by the phrase "immediately" would be obvious to everybody who examined the clause. And surely there is this difficulty, that this measure is to have a life of two years after the termination of the war. During those two years it is quite possible that an energetic Minister of Reconstruction might start working upon some of the wider problems mentioned by my noble friend behind me. The consequence of that would be an immediate demand for the further continuance of that Minister and his Department. It would be said, and said with considerable plausibility," Why break up this admirable organisation which is doing such good work, with a capable man at the head of it, and with subordinates around him who have acquired a knowledge of all these subjects which ought not to be wasted?" For

363
that reason I think it is important explicitly to confine the operations of this Minister and of his Department to things which can be considered only in connection with the war and immediately after its termination.
LORD BURNHAM: May I point out a further reason which adds to the necessity for some such Amendment as this? I refer to the obscurity of the wording at the end of the clause, which seems to give the new Minister power to override the local authorities of the country. As I understand even such a body as the London County Council could be overridden by the new Minister of Reconstruction in respect of all its housing schemes. That seems to me a very serious power to be given at all. But if it is to be continued after the conclusion of the war, then by the wording of one clause you really destroy the whole of that system of local government which has been built up by a series of Statutes, and largely extended, at the end of last century, with regard to the larger areas of the country. I do not know whether my reading of the words is correct. I wish to have a clear understanding. As I read the clause, it is not only the central Government Departments which are to be superseded, but also the local authorities. If that is so, the time limit ought to be very strict and well defined.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am rather inclined to support the Amendment of my noble friend opposite in the interest of the Minister of Reconstruction himself, who, it seems to me, during his brief term of office will have thrown upon his shoulders a burden greater than that which has ever been borne by any Minister. I also support it in the interests of the heads of the other Government Departments. This clause enables the Reconstruction Minister to assume the "powers and duties of any Government Department or authority." That is a very serious power to put into the hands of any one, and I submit that it should be exercised sparingly and only in cases where it is quite clear that the problem is a special war problem which requires to be dealt with urgently and immediately after the conclusion of the war.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD FINLAY): We are anxious to meet noble Lords opposite, but I think that the introduction
364
of the word "immediately" might cause very serious difficulty. It is perfectly true, as my noble friend Lord Salisbury said, that this question would not arise in the Courts of Law. No; but it might arise in both Houses of Parliament, and I can imagine very prolonged and possibly acrimonious debates, if some subject was started which somebody did not like, as to whether that was a subject which arose immediately after the termination of the war. If the word "immediately" were construed as Lord Crewe suggested, that difficulty would not arise. As I understand, it is contended that the word "after "—in Lord Sandhurst's suggested form of words—points to a possibly dim and distant future; and Lord Salisbury wants the activities of the Minister to be confined to matters that arise at the termination of the war. I suggest that it would carry out the noble Marquess's views if the wording ran, "problems which may arise out of the present war, and may have to be dealt with upon its termination." That I think gives the sense of what Lord Crewe suggested, and is not open to the objections with regard to the other adverb which has found favour with noble Lords opposite.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I must say I think we have been extremely well treated by the Government, and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the suggestion he has just made. I think that in the circumstances we should do well to accept the words he suggests. Therefore I withdraw my present Amendment, and move to amend the clause in the form suggested.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 1, lines 10 and 11, leave out (" after the termination of the present war ") and insert (" out of the present war, and may have to be dealt with upon its termination.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR: The Amendment standing in my name raises a very important question, although it is only to omit from subsection (1) the words "or under." Moreover, it is a question which was very seriously debated in the other House, and on which the words inserted appear

365
to me not to carry out the understanding which was said to have been arrived at in the other House. The words in the clause provide that the Minister of Reconstruction shall, for the purposes stated, have such powers and duties of any Government Department or authority, "which have been conferred by or under any Statute," as His Majesty may by Order in Council authorise. If you are dealing with powers and duties which have been conferred by any Statute, that is more or less definite, and it is a limitation of considerable value. But if the words "or under" are introduced, then you confer upon the new Department all the exceptional powers which, for instance, under the Defence of the Realm Act, have been conferred under Statute, although not by Statute, to the existing Departments. If it is intended that this provision should comprise merely the powers and duties which have been conferred by any Statute, then the words "or under" are not required, but if all the powers and duties which have been conferred by Orders under the Defence of the Realm Act are intended to be included, then the words are hardly words of limitation at all, but give a very wide construction to the powers of the new Minister. I admit that I am one of those who dislike the Bill altogether. I dislike the formation of these new Ministries for bureaucratic purposes. But if this new Ministry has to be constituted, and if the words are intended to be words of limitation, then "or under" ought to be omitted.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 1, line 16, leave out (" or under ").—(Lord Parmoor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope your Lordships will not accept this Amendment, and for this reason. A great many duties are conferred, not by the words of a Statute itself, but by giving power to a Department to make Regulations, and then those Regulations, being made under the Statute, confer the power upon the Department. This clause could not be carried out if you deleted the words "or under." It would only carry powers which were conferred expressly by Statute. It would not carry powers which the Statute had left to be conferred by Regulation which had statutory effect.
No one is more familiar than my noble and learned friend with the history of the legislation on this matter. He will recall
366
that in Statute after Statute this mode of legislating has been adopted. Take the Board of Agriculture Act of 1889. Section 4 of that Act provided that it should be lawful for the Queen, by Order in Council, from time to time to transfer to the Board of Agriculture such powers and duties of any Government Department as were conferred "by Order in pursuance of" any Statute, and as may appear to Her Majesty to relate to agriculture or forestry, and to be of an administrative character. The same language has been used in a series of Acts. Take the Ministry of Munitions Act, 1915. Section 2 provides in the same terms for transferring powers, whether conferred by Statute or otherwise. Then in the Statute of 1916 dealing with the Labour Minister, the Food Controller, the Minister of Shipping, and the Air Minister you have section after section relating to these several Ministries authorising the transference of powers "whether conferred by Statute or otherwise" as His Majesty may, by Older in Council, transfer. And lastly, in the Act of 1917 relating to the Ministry of National Service you have the same words—" such powers or duties of any Government Department or authority, whether conferred by Statute or otherwise, as His Majesty may by Order in Council transfer." I submit to your Lordships that it would be making this Bill absolutely futile if you stripped it of all reality by saying that the new Minister should have only such powers—and they are frequently very meagre indeed—as are conferred in express terms by the Statute itself.
LORD BURNHAM: Can the noble and learned Lord tell us whether these powers of extraordinary width cover the local authorities of the country?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think not. They are confined to Government Departments.
LORD BURNHAM: The words in the clause are "of any Government Department or authority."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I understand that to mean Government authority.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The argument of my noble and learned friend—and with a great deal of it I have much sympathy—is that if you are going to

367
transfer any powers at all to this new Minister they must not be arbitrarily limited. But surely there is this difference in the analogies which he cited. The Ministry of Munitions, the Ministry of Labour, and the other now Ministries were intended to be Ministries with great executive and departmental functions. They were to have regular Departments, and, of course, to them had to be transferred departmental powers; and where their new powers were overlapped by the old powers of existing Departments, some system of transfer had to take place; otherwise there would be hopeless confusion. Therefore, very properly, the Statutes which created those Ministries provided a machinery by Order in Council by which those powers could be transferred. But the Ministry which we are now discussing is a totally different one. The Minister of Reconstruction is not to be a departmental Minister at all. This new Minister is intended to perform one of the functions of the Prime Minister, who is too much occupied to perform it himself. That is, in truth, what is going to be done. But the Prime Minister has no Department. His business is to co-ordinate the other Departments. He therefore does not want a Department himself.
Conceive how this provision will in effect work. These powers are to be transferred by Order in Council. Am I to be told that the War Cabinet will pay much attention to what powers are transferred? Have they got time to attend to this? Of course, they have not. These Orders in Council will be submitted to them one after the other, just as the Minister of Reconstruction or his advisers think expedient, and they will be issued. Most hopeless confusion will result, unless the matter is done with very great care. Great bodies of clerks will be created; these clerks will be what the country very much objects to—many of them will be of military age—and the confusion which we know so well will result. Even the Ministries which have been recited by my noble and learned friend, necessary as they were, have led to great confusion. We have been presented with the spectacle of perpetual bickerings between these Departments, bickerings which have got to such a point that they are not in some cases on speaking terms with one another. Can you imagine anything more shocking than that, at a time like this, the work of the country should be interfered with because
368
the Departments which have been created are barely on speaking terms?
The people are beginning to be very uneasy under this head. They believe that their money is being wasted, and that the work is not being properly done. We do not want that to be repeated; and in this case, where it is not necessary to have great departmental powers, let us check it in any reasonable way. My noble and learned friend by this Amendment proposes to check it. The Lord Chancellor says that the omission of the words "or under" would be unreasonable, and would restrict the operations of the new Minister. Personally I am quite prepared to agree with the Lord Chancellor if he says so. But if he will not accept this Amendment, I hope he will accept mine. I have an Amendment, which will come on directly, to limit the number of the departmental powers which are transferred. It is quite clear that Parliament never intended in this case a sort of general transfer of departmental powers such as the noble and learned Lord has mentioned in the case of the Ministry of Munitions and the Ministry of Labour. The noble Earl the Leader of the House stated the matter admirably on the Second Reading when he spoke of the necessity for co-ordinating the work of the other Departments, not of superseding them. He said it was when different plans were proposed by this or that Department that the new Minister should be able to decide between them and advise the Government. But the new Minister does not require a Department for that. The powers ought to be strictly limited, and granted only where Parliament is consulted first to see whether Parliament agrees that they should be transferred. I hope that, if the Government will not accept my noble and learned friend's Amendment, they will agree to accept mine.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: I had, on reading this clause in the first instance, thought that there were two or three respects in which it required amendment, and the leaving out of the words "or under" was one of them; but when I came to consult the previous legislation I discovered, what the Lord Chancellor has said, that this form, which I venture to think objectionable, had prevailed in the other Statutes—a lesson which I learned to my horror, and I regretted that I had not observed it before. I will not say anything

369
more upon the point of the words "or under," but will pass to another word in the Bill to which the noble Lord opposite (Lord Burnham) has referred—the word "authority." The Lord Chancellor has said that this Bill is not intended to go beyond Public Departments. I beg him to consider, before the next stage, whether it is clear from the words of the clause that it does not go beyond those Departments. I think that if the reference had been intended to mean a Government authority, the word "authority" would have been given a capital A, in the same way as Department is given a capital D. When you read the clause as it stands, it is rather difficult to say that only Government Departments and authorities are referred to. If the Lord Chancellor, on consideration, thinks it is clear that these are only Government authorities, and that the word "authority" is another word equivalent to Department, so be it; but I suggest that at the next stage the matter should be made clear, because it is a tremendous thing to say that the Ministry of Reconstruction should be able to do what Lord Burnham has suggested.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will carefully consider what my noble and learned friend has said.
LORD BUCKMASTER: In any circumstances I should hesitate to dispute the authority of the Lord Chancellor, but I ask your Lordships to consider for a few further moments the meaning of the words "or under" as they now appear in the Bill. In the first place, I think your Lordships will agree that there is little use in quoting Other Statutes for assistance in the construction of this, because admittedly this Bill is without all precedent. Nobody ever heard before, as I read history, of the construction of a Ministry whose business was to advise, to consider, to institute inquiries, and to prepare schemes. That is the whole of its authority. It has no administrative duties at all. It has none of the reasons for enjoying the wide powers that are given under such words as "conferred by or under any Statute." These powers of thought, of advice, and of the conduct of inquiries and preparation of schemes are all subject to this, which has not been sufficiently noticed—that they have all to be done by virtue of an Order in Council; and then, as I read the Bill, they can be exercised only concurrently with, or in consultation with, another
370
Government Department. So that in truth you have linked this new body up with the other bodies, so that it cannot act independently at all. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent any of the other Departments exercising the powers that they already possess; therefore there is no reason, as far as I can see, to confer upon this Ministry powers that are not, the subject of exact definition. If they are powers conferred by Statute, everybody will be able to know more or less where he stands; but if they are to be powers conferred "by or under "any Statute, then, as has already been pointed out, the powers which were collected together in a gross-looking volume which was produced here the other day by the Duke of Marlborough in answer to a question about the Defence of the Realm Act would be powers capable of being exercised in connection with this Ministry, powers so voluminous that the noble Duke said, in answer to a question which I put to him as to what were the authorities under which the powers were being exercised, "There is the book. It is far too bulky for me to deal with it. Look for yourself." I should not object if we were dealing with a well-known existing Government Department. But we are dealing with a body whose constitution is essentially vague, and I think it is of the utmost importance that its powers should be so limited that the people may know what it is that it is in course of doing. I certainly, both because I am anxious to limit its powers in every way and because I think that this particular limitation is essential, shall support the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord.
LORD PARMOOR: In answer to what the Lord Chancellor has said, I should like to say that I think he forgets that when the Bill was originally introduced the words "or otherwise" were in it. Those words were thought in the other House to be too wide, and they were deleted on the very ground that this was an exceptional case where you were not creating an executive Department but merely creating a Department for inquiry and consideration in certain directions, which I think ought to be somewhat carefully defined. I do not want to repeat what the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down has said, but I do not think that any of the precedents to which the Lord Chancellor referred apply to an exceptional case of that kind. If they did I think the words

371
" or otherwise "might have been properly introduced, as in several of the precedents to which he referred they had been introduced. If you come away from general words of that kind and want definite powers conferred, where necessary, for the purpose for which the Ministry of Reconstruction has been instituted, then we ought to know what they are, and you cannot know definitely what they are if you put in the words "or under" as well as the words "by any Statute."
We have seven Departments already, as we were told the other day, which may on their own initiative issue any number of new Regulations or Orders affecting, say, agriculture. I will take that as an illustration. Exactly the same power would apply to every other industry in this country, because these powers are not for the purpose of superseding any existing powers but for adding to them. Why should a Department which is not an executive Department in any sense have powers of that kind? Suppose they issued Orders to agriculture; they could not enforce them. Or suppose they issued Orders, similar to what the Lord Chancellor said, to other Ministries; they could not execute them. As far as I can see, it would be a perfectly futile case of interference and overlapping without any practical result except trouble and confusion. If I can find support I shall certainly go to a Division, because I think it is all-important that this Bill should be within definite limits.
One word on the definition of "authority." At first sight, I should agree with the noble and learned Lord opposite that "authority" was very probably limited to a Government authority. At the same time, under the words "Government authority" you get an extremely wide basis for interference. Practically all the powers to which Lord Burnham referred, as regards housing and so on, are powers which have their commencement and essence and authorisation in the Local Government Board. They are carried out by the local authorities, but there is hardly any power of a local authority that is not arrived at in some stage from a Government authority. I am familiar with matters concerning local authorities from practical life, having served on a county council for over twenty years and having dealt with various local government matters, and I should have said that the vast majority of the powers exercised originated from a Government authority.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I desire to say only a few sentences with regard to what has been said by the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster. Lord Parmoor has said that the words "or under" were introduced in the House of Commons as limiting words, and that the words were originally "or otherwise." They are a limitation. The word "otherwise" would have included all powers under the Statute and all other powers however acquired. For the purpose of limitation, the words "or under" were inserted; and they do limit the effect of the provision. The words "or under" are, it is said, indefinite. To my mind they are definite. What can be more definite than the terms of an Order in Council under Statute conferring certain powers upon a Government Department?
It has been said that it would be very dangerous to entrust these powers to the Minister of Reconstruction. I think it was Lord Parmoor who said that the Minister might make an Order with regard to the way in which land was to be occupied. Nothing of the kind could be done. If my noble and learned friends will look at the clause they will see that it contains its own limitation—" and the Minister of Reconstruction shall, for the purposes aforesaid, have such powers and duties of any Government Department "and so on, as may be assigned to him by Order in Council.
LORD PARMOOR: I think that the words "for the purposes aforesaid" would include anything.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: "For the purposes aforesaid "include exactly what is specified in the clause. If my noble and learned friend will look at the earlier words of the clause he will find there, "It shall be the duty of the Minister of Reconstruction to consider and advise upon the problems which may arise after the termination of the present war, and for the purposes aforesaid to institute and conduct such inquiries, prepare such schemes, and make such recommendations as he thinks fit." It is only for the purpose of considering and advising and conducting inquiries, and so on. The dangers which have been suggested are purely imaginary, and I hope that my noble and learned friend will not put the House to the trouble of a Division upon this matter.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I do not rise to take any part in the discussion on this Amendment, but merely to offer an apology for not having been in my place when the Amendment standing in my name—
Clause 2, page 1, line 10, after (" problems ") insert (" other than the questions of commercial industrial and agricultural policy ").
ought to have been moved. As a matter of fact, I did not know that the Bill was coming on. I understand that there was no Notice Paper sent round this morning, and I was not aware that this Bill was to be the business of the day. I shall certainly move my Amendment on the Report stage or on Third Reading, whichever may be the more convenient.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD BURNHAM LORD BURNHAM moved to leave out the words "concurrently with or "after" perform "towards the end of subsection (1). The noble Lord said: The Amendment which I desire to move, although in a sense a limiting Amendment, will not detract from the purpose of the Bill. It seems to me that the words which I propose should be left out are rather mischievous Things are not always what they appear to be, and I rather suspect that" concurrently with or "might mean" in opposition to," because unless they can be interpreted in that way these powers could be exercised only in consultation with Government Departments. Take the question of demobilisation. As the House is aware, in every district there are committees, either formed or in course of formation, to facilitate demobilisation, to return men on their discharge to the industries in which they were formerly employed, or to which they want to go, and for other purposes. I understand that the War Office does not wish to concern itself with demobilisation further than the actual discharge of the men, but I cannot see how it is possible to carry out the scheme of demobilisation except in consultation with the War Office and in some respects in consultation with the Local Government Board, and I think that great confusion might arise if the Ministry of Reconstruction started a scheme which was opposed to the wishes and did not conform to the schemes of the Departments immediately and particularly concerned. In effect the words which I move to delete would be and must be mischievous. What we want to do is to prevent friction, and friction may arise as it is in the working
374
of our political administrative machinery after the war. Why set Departments at one another's throats by inviting conflict, as these words do? They seem harmless enough, but I very much suspect that the Lord Chancellor will be able to say that "concurrently" means with or without the consent of the Department primarily concerned. If that is not so, the words are redundant, because "in consultation with "is the natural course of procedure. I confess that I do not think it wise to give a new authority, the composition of which the House knows nothing about, powers in excess of and different from those of any other Government Department. As has been often said, the Prime Minister and the War Cabinet to a certain extent can exercise control over the various Departments of Government, but the Ministry of Reconstruction has power only so far as it will interfere with the conduct of their business in the regular way. Therefore I hope that if these words are redundant they will be omitted, and that if they are not their purport will be explained to the House.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, line 18, after the word (" perform ") leave out (" concurrently with or ").—(Lord Burnham.)
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I think I can show to the noble Lord that these words are not redundant. The object is this. Suppose that a Minister, say the Minister of Munitions, is very much engaged with various inquiries and has more on his hands than he can effectually deal with, he is at liberty, owing to these words, to call in the Minister of Reconstruction to consult with him, to aid him, and, I understand, to carry something out, the Minister of Munitions retaining his interest and his authority.
LORD PARMOOR: Surely if that is so, that would raise exactly the difficulty which Lord Burnharn has suggested, because you would suddenly introduce, in the illustration named, a new hand and a new personage into the Ministry of Munitions. You could hardly have a more certain way of raising friction than by introducing this new Minister into one of the old Departments.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: There will be no friction or resentment if one man is called in by the other.
LORD BURNHAM: The clause would still say "in consultation with"; thus it is covered.
LORD PARMOOR: If the words "concurrently with "are retained, they would mean that he could exercise the powers of the Department. I think that would cause friction.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to add to Clause 2 the following new subsection—
(4) Provided that no Order under this Act shall be issued except in pursuance of a Resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament.
The, noble Marquess said: I hope that your Lordships will agree to this Amendment. The intention is not at all to strike at the root of the Bill. It does not in any way interfere with the establishment of a Ministry of Reconstruction for all legitimate purposes. Even if the whole of these powers in regard to the transfer of duties of other Departments to the Minister of Reconstruction were left out, he would still be able to perform what is his main, and what I venture to suggest should be his only, function—namely, that of considering and advising the Prime Minister as to what reconstruction measures should be adopted, and of co-ordinating the actions of the Departments.
Your Lordships may say, "Why do you not propose to leave out the provision altogether?" I am anxious not to go too far. It is conceivable that there may be certain minor powers of a limited and very subordinate character which might properly be transferred to the new Minister, and it would be a pity to limit the Bill in such a way that nothing could be transferred. But I am sure it ought not to be the general rule. It should be used in the most sparing way, and in order to secure that this should be so I think it right that no such powers should be transferred except in pursuance of a Resolution by both Houses of Parliament. I am certain that this is what Parliament really intended. It did not intend to give a roving commission to play "ducks and drakes" with the existing Departments. What was intended was that certain minor and subsidiary powers should be transferred.
I hope the Government will see that, even if my Amendment were carried, they
376
would not be debarred from having certain minor Departmental powers transferred to the Minister of Reconstruction if they so desired, but they would be debarred from that which I do not think was intended—namely, the setting up of a regular Departmental Minister. I consider that the authority of Parliament is requisite in a matter of this kind. Unless you are quite certain that Parliament intends to give unlimited powers to the Government by Order in Council to transfer these Departmental functions to the new Ministry, then the provision ought to be limited in the way I have described.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 1, line 26, at end add as a new sub-section:
" (4) Provided that no Order under this Act shall be issued except in pursuance of a Resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: If I am right in understanding the noble Marquess to mean "no Order in Council," it ought to be so expressed, especially in a separate subsection such as this is. It is a mere matter of words, but I think the point is not without importance. The words "no Order" might mean any sort of Order.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: "No Order under this Act."
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: "No Order in Council under this Act."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope that your Lordships will not adopt this proposal, which seems to me to be of rather an extraordinary character having regard to the matters to be dealt with. The King in Council acts under the advice of his Ministers, and the Ministers are amenable to Parliament if the powers are in any way abused, and Parliament will call them to account. That is, of course, evident. If there were any abuse such as has been suggested to be possible under this Bill, Parliament would visit its displeasure on the Ministers who were guilty of such abuse of the powers conferred upon them. But it is another thing altogether to say that for a purpose of this kind you are to make the two Houses of Parliament part of the Executive, and that part of the Executive machinery is to be a Resolution passed by each House of Parliament authorising the issue of the Order in Council. There may

377
be matters of great gravity—there have been such matters—where it was proper to say that an Order in Council should not be made unless in pursuance of a Resolution of one or both Houses of Parliament. That is one thing. It is another thing to say this with regard to a series of administrative acts Nobody can say that, any one of them in itself is of any great gravity; and it is an extraordinary thing to say that for the purpose of doing any one of these acts, which belong to the Executive and the responsibility for which lies upon Ministers, you are to be fortified by a Resolution, not of one, but of both Houses of Parliament. Imagine the debates you might have in another place on a Motion of this kind. I respectfully suggest to your Lordships that it would be a new and a most undesirable departure to incorporate the Legislature with the Executive in the manner proposed.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: With great regret, I must say that I do not share the views of the Lord Chancellor. It appears to me that in a certain sense the Amendment of my noble friend is only going back to what used to be the invariable practice in both Houses of Parliament when large powers were given to be exercised by Regulations under a Bill. I cannot see any wide difference between the Amendment proposed by the noble Marquess and the requirements which were always made in former days in the circumstances I have mentioned. My recollection from many years experience in the House of Commons is that this procedure was never departed from until the year 1909, in connection with the Budget of that year, except on the occasion of one Bill which was to take land by compulsion for military purposes.
When Regulations giving great powers on matters which had not been under the review of Parliament were concerned, it was always thought necessary that there should be some effective control. In those circumstances it was required that the Regulations should be laid upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament for a certain number of days. I am sure the Lord Chancellor will remember this. Then if either House; of Parliament carried an Address to the Crown against the Regulations, they were ipso facto annulled. But that practice, as I have said, was entirely upset in connection with the Budget of 1909, which was introduced by the present Prime Minister. There were a vast number
378
of things carried out by Regulations under the Finance Bill of that year, and the absurdities—if I may be forgiven for using that expression—which attended the valuation of land that was done under one of those Regulations would never have been possible if the old system had not been abolished. It was abolished in this way. The Prime Minister at that time put a provision regarding Regulations into the Bill without even requiring that they should be laid upon the Table. Whereupon a debate arose. He was required to explain why he had done this, and he agreed that the, Regulations should be laid on the Table and laid in the circumstances which had always prevailed hitherto. An Amendment was moved which was quite unsatisfactory. I took objection to it on the ground that it was not the procedure which had always been observed. To make a long story short, it ended in an undertaking being given that the old requirement should be inserted in the Bill. Time went on. It was a very late session. When the period came for inserting the Amendment I was abroad for my health, and those whom I had entreated to look after this question were, I am afraid, also away. It is quite; true that the Amendment which was inserted required the Regulations to be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, but, instead of being "ipso facto annulled," the words were "and the King in Council may, if he thinks fit, annul them." In other words, the whole power was given to the Cabinet itself. Personally I do not see that there is anything extravagant in the Amendment which has been moved by my noble friend, and as far as I am concerned I shall be delighted to support him, because it will be going part of the way back to the practice which in my opinion ought never to have been departed from.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: It is quite clear that the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) has rightly defined the danger which this Amendment threatens to the Executive, because if it passes the Government of the day will not be able to get what they want without giving a day of Government time to the House of Commons. The noble and learned Lord says, Think of the debates that will take place in the other House. That is the very purpose of the noble Marquess who has moved this Amendment. We must remember that when this time

379
comes we shall, we hope, find ourselves delivered from the terrors of war, and discussion will no longer be a danger to the Realm and may very well be the only outlet for grave public anxiety and the only check upon an Executive which, to put it mildly, is getting rather intoxicated with the unaccustomed powers which have been conferred upon it by an abnormal state of things, but which will then have come to an end. I think that the Government will be wise to accede to this Amendment.
LORD PARMOOR: In answer to what the Lord Chancellor said, I should like to point out that the principle of this Amendment is in the common form, that Orders in Council shall not become operative until they have lain on the Table of the two Houses for a certain time. Here it is put in another, but I think more effective, way—that the Order in Council itself shall not be issued except in pursuance of a Resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament. I do not profess to like this Amendment as much as my own, to omit the words "or under," but it aims at the same thing. It aims at giving a definite-ness to a thing which is absolutely indefinite as the Bill now stands. On a matter of principle, I should go a little further. I think that the whole doctrine of legislating by Orders in Council is radically wrong, because you have superseded the legislative power of Parliament by a bureaucratic body. No doubt that has been largely done for war purposes. When you talk about emergency legislation for war purposes, very wide considerations come into play. But no such considerations come into play here. We are dealing with matters of after-war reconstruction. Why in those circumstances should you destroy the legislative power of Parliament and place it in the hands of a bureaucratic body? Under the Defence of the Realm Act, as far as I am aware, there is no legislative enactment which may not be made by the bureaucratic body which issues the Order. I hope that the noble Marquess will press this Amendment to a Division, accepting the suggestion of Lord Muir Mackenzie, that after the words "no Order" the words "in Council" should be introduced.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I will alter the Amendment to carry out that suggestion.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I cannot hold out any prospect to my noble and learned friend who has just spoken that the Government can accept this Amendment. It seems to us impossible that any Government should accept an Amendment of this kind. I listened with the greatest interest to what my noble friend Lord Chaplin said, but the distinction between the case to which he referred and the present case is this. There you had a requirement that the Order should lie on the Table of the House, to be annulled if the House passed a Resolution against it. That was the sort of procedure to which my noble friend alluded. Here it is proposed that before any Order is issued you must get Resolutions passed in the two Houses of Parliament affirming the proposal which is to be embodied in the Order in Council. I submit that the two things are as far as the poles asunder. In the present case you are calling in Parliament out of its proper sphere to form part of the Executive. The function of Parliament is to check Ministers if the Executive goes wrong, and to censure them if it pleases. The function of Parliament is not, unless it be in very exceptional cases, to take part in the initial stages of an Executive measure. The words proposed will affect the proceedings of the House in war time. It is perfectly true that this measure is intended to secure that we should be ready to face the problems that peace will present. But in order that you may be ready, you must prepare while the war is going on. While the war is raging, with all the multitudinous problems that it brings before the Government and Parliament, you would be face to face, if this Amendment were carried, with the necessity of bringing every proposal before both Houses of Parliament and of getting a Resolution. Therefore I respectfully submit to your Lordships that it would be a dangerous new departure, and I trust that the Committee will not approve of it.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Surely the general effect would not be as far-reaching as that which the Lord Chancellor has indicated. The proposal of the noble Marquess does not in any way interfere with the ordinary work of the Departments, or with any proposition which they may make for action either during the war or after. For instance, the Minister of Education has introduced proposals of his own, exceedingly important, which we hope will

381
have effect as early as possible, but will also have effect after the war. He does not require the assistance of the Minister of Reconstruction to enable him to bring in his Bill, any more than he did to introduce his Estimates earlier in the year. Therefore so far as ordinary Departmental activities are concerned, my noble friend's suggestion would in no degree tend to hamper them. What it would do would be to prevent the introduction of large and important schemes such as are indicated by the actual wording of the Bill, and to make it impossible for those to be pressed by Order in Council, without the deliberate intention of Parliament. I cannot help thinking, therefore, that the noble and learned Lord in that sense rather over-stated his case, because there is such a very large area of activity, and activity of the most beneficial kind, in no way affected by this Bill, and certainly not by my noble friend's Amendment.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: I must apologise for intruding again, but this is a class of subject with which I have been so familiar all my life that I find it difficult not to say a word. I cannot help thinking
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received to-morrow, and Standing Order
382
that the noble Marquess goes rather too far in what he proposes. If you are going to have the Bill at all, the Amendment would hamper its working. On the other hand, the noble Viscount referred to the other course of procedure which has been so clearly described by the noble and learned Lord. I would suggest to the noble Marquess opposite that he should not press his present Amendment, but that he should, at the next stage, propose that any Order in Council should be laid on the Table for forty days, giving the opportunity to either House which desired to do so to raise objection to it.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Amendment, as amended, reads as follows:—" Provided that no Order in Council under this Act shall be made except in pursuance of a Resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament."
On Question, whether the proposed new subsection shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 24; Not-contents, 22.

CONTENTS.

Somerset, D.

Northbrook, E.

Burnham, L.

Camden, M.

Digby, L.

Crewe, M.

Chaplin, V.

Glenconner, L.

Salisbury, M. [Teller.]

Falmouth, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Hardinge, V.

Knaresborough, L.

Abingdon, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Parmoor, L. [Teller.]

Beauchamp, E.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Camperdown, E.

Donecaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Beresford of Metemmeh, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Buckmaster, L.

Weardale, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Lytton, E.

Hylton, L. [Teller.]

Curzon of Kedleston, E. (L. President.)

Islington, L.

Sandhurst, L. (L. Chamberlain.)

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.) (L. Privy Seal.)

Milner, V.

Pontypridd, L.

Carmichael, L.

Roe, L.

Marlborough, D.

Colebrooke, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Chesterfield, E.

Faringdon, L.

Sudeley, L.

Eldon, E.

Harris, L.

No. XXXIX to be considered in order to its being dispensed with, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 96.)

PUBLIC HEALTH (PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF DISEASE) (IRELAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

PAY AND PENSIONS IN THE NAVY.
LORD BERESFORD LORD BERESFORD had the following Questions on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether the question of increasing the pay of petty officers and men of the Royal Navy has received recent consideration, and if so, with what result; whether a proportion of the men's pay is stopped for every day they are under treatment in hospital over 30 days, and whether their pay ceases altogether after 91 days' sickness; whether consideration will be given at once to the claims of the warrant officers, petty officers and men of the Royal Navy for promotion to higher ranks and ratings in place of the entry of inexperienced civilians to fill these responsible positions; whether petty officers and men who have completed their qualifying service for pension during the war have been refused payment of those pensions and have been paid 2d. a day in lieu; whether the number of men now serving whose, time for pension has so expired, the approximate annual value of the pensions being withheld, and the total sum being paid in lieu can be stated; whether able seamen and equivalent ratings who were in receipt of, or subsequently became entitled to, a pension of 1s 2d. a day can increase their pensions by service during the war, and if so, by what amount; and whether any petty officer or man, whatever the length of time he is detained in the Royal Navy during hostilities, can receive any higher pension for service, badges, character, and medal than the amount he could have become entitled to after completion of the 22 years qualifying period for pension; and to move a Resolution.
The noble and gallant Lord said: My Lords, I desire to bring before you a variety of matters connected with the treatment of the men of the Fleet in accordance with what I maintain are their rights. The questions are of vast interest to the Navy, and there is in connection with them a large amount of irritation, disquiet, and unrest which I need not remind your Lordships is bad for the efficiency of the Service and bad also for the welfare of the State. I naturally sympathise with the men. I was in the Service for fifty years, and ever since I first entered Parliament in 1874 I have been fighting for the betterment of their conditions.
The most important questions I wish to bring before the House this evening are in connection with pay and pensions. The matter of pensions is at the moment causing a great deal of irritation in the Fleet. I say that as it stands now there is a great injustice and a breach of contract between the Government and the men, and I intend to prove this. The contract between the Government and the men when they join the Service is in these terms, that after twenty-two years qualifying service they get pensions which are awarded for life. That is a definite and distinct contract which, if broken, concerns the honour of the State. Your Lordships will bear in mind that a pension is really only deferred pay. The men are paid less than what might be described as the market price, in order that a pension may be provided for them. If that were not the case, they would be paid more.
I should like to explain the case as it stands at this moment. I will take the case of an able seaman whose pension became due, we will say, on August 1, 1914. He cannot get more than 1s. 2s. a day, or less than 10 d. a day. If he gets the former rate it is made up by 10 d. a day bare pension, 2d. a day for three good conduct badges, 1d. a day for good conduct medal, and 1d. a day for all "V.G.'s." From August 1, 1914, or very soon after, to the present time, he would have drawn £63 17 s. 6d. besides his pay if he had gone on in the Navy. The second case is that of a man who completes his time for pension on, say, August 5,1914—that is, after the war broke out. It is incredible to think that the Admiralty have stopped the pensions in this latter case, the pensions which the men had earned and which had been promised in the contract they made with the State. A man in this second category would have drawn £63 17 s. 6d. during the three years from August 5, 1914, until now. But the Admiralty have taken it away; the man can never get it, and, if he was killed, his widow could never get it. I say that this is monstrous and unjust, and it gives rise to the present unrest in the Navy. What do the Admiralty give this man instead of his pension? They have given him 2d. a day for these three years, so that as a matter of fact, although the man who qualified for a pension on August 1,1914, has drawn his £63 odd, these men who would have qualified a few days after have received only £9 2s. 6d., although they have probably served the State with

385
credit to themselves and utility to the Service. So that the Admiralty have actually made out of a man in these circumstances £54 15 s. I repeat that such a state of affairs is monstrous. The matter was not brought out quite clearly in the other House. It was said there, "We are not giving these men their pensions, but we are giving them 2d. a day," but the fact was not brought forward that all these men—there are nearly 5,000 of them—were mulcted of this enormous sum. So far I have been dealing with the lowest ratings, the able seaman. The Secretary of the Admiralty—and in speaking of him I wish to say that all those who belong to the Service are very grateful for the way he has worked for the Service; I have had a great deal to do with him by way of conversations and correspondence, and he has always been most sympathetic towards the men and shown a desire to better their condition as far as he could manage it—the Secretary of the Admiralty took the pension that a man can get after 22 years on the lowest scale, and, although he did not say it, he made out that the man would lose £36 10 s. I have taken the highest scale of pension—namely, 1s. 2d. a day.
I now come to the petty officers. Their pay is, of course, more, and their position is a great deal worse. Before the war the average pension of a petty officer would have been £45 a year; consequently if his pension had become due before the war broke out, he would have drawn £135 in the three years. There are many men on board who have drawn this amount during the three years, but only because their pensions became due before the war commenced. Let me now take those men whose pensions became due on, say, August 5, 1914. Instead of £135, they have received only the 2d. a day; so that, taking the average rate of pension for a petty officer, these men since the war have been mulcted by the State of £125 17 s. 6d. I repeat that there is no chance of their getting these pensions until after the war; and they will then not get the pension due to them, for if the war goes on for four years they will get only the pension at the end of it which they would have received if the war had not broken out.
I must point out to the noble Earl that this thing is so bad that the trade unions of the country have taken it up, and I shall support them as far as I can in demanding,
386
not only that this money should be paid to the men who, as I contend, have a lawful right to it, but that the money due to them should be paid retrospectively. I do not believe there is a man in your Lordships' House who, after my telling you these things, would not agree that these men, to put it in the mildest way possible, have been "done out of" their pay. I will put it strongly, and say that they have been robbed of the pay which was due to them under their contract with the State, and I challenge anybody to get up and say that what I have stated is incorrect. There is a small addition of 4½d a day for petty officers and 3d. a day for chief petty officers, which they will get after the war owing to their extra service; but the fact remains that the 5,000 men or more who are concerned have been done out of this sum of money. I hope that my noble and learned friend below me, Lord Buckmaster, will say something about this. I should like to know what the legal expression is for breaking a contract of this description. I do not know what would happen in civil life, but I believe that a person who acted in this way would be brought before the Law Courts and made to pay damages. It is even more disgraceful that such a thing should happen in the case of men upon whom the whole success of the war depends. Whether the war ends in victory or defeat, it depends upon the British Navy, not only as regards ourselves but our Allies, and yet these men are mulcted of what is due to them. What is due to them will not be paid after the war. It is a great deal worse than that, because this large sum of money has been taken away from their wives and relatives, and they will not get it at any time.
Dr. Macnamara said in the other House—
" I can give no undertaking at all with regard to the return to the widow, if the man dies before entering into his pension, of the value of the pension which he otherwise would have drawn."
A man dies in the service of the State and is mulcted of this sum of money, and the Secretary of the Admiralty tells the House of Commons that the widow is never to get it! It is a monstrous thing, and it has got to be put right. It reminds me of the old days when Lord Cochrane called attention in the House of Commons to the scandals connected with the Chatham Chest. In those days there were large ships' companies, something like 240,000

387
men in the Navy, and every officer had to pay a certain sum a month to the Chatham Chest. The amount involved was, according to some people, £5,000,000, and according to others £2,000,000, but it practically all disappeared. Many scandals also occurred in those days with regard to food and clothing. There is no danger of that sort of thing happening to-day, because you have not a more chivalrous and gallant body of men in the world than there is in the British Navy. But because they cannot speak for themselves there is no reason why those who understand the question should not speak for them; and after what I have said, I hope that your Lordships, if you are consulted in the matter, will support me in asking that the men should have this money, and that the payment should be retrospective. It looks as if the Government, with their agreements and contracts, are something like the Germans, who tear them up as "scraps of paper" when it suits them.
I wish to make clearer the point about the contract. There is nothing in the contract to say that the men are not to have their pensions when due; in fact, it is emphasised that they are to have them because the only point in the contract with regard to a man not getting his pension after 22 years service is this—that a man who joins a foreign service and fights or works under a foreign flag does not get his pension. That is the only thing in the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions which disqualifies a man for his pension. Yet these men in our Fleet who are going out every day to fight for us and at any moment may be blown up are debarred from their pensions because hostilities have broken out. Every higher rate of wages and every bonus given to all other individuals is put down to hostilities. Yet during hostilities you stop the pensions of men who have earned them by 22 years service in the Navy as petty officers and able seamen.
This matter of pensions should be settled at once, and that is what I am going to urge upon the trade unions. I do not like to have to go to the trade unions about the pay of the men in the Fleet, but what else am I to do? The unions have taken it up. I shall support them, and I am certain we shall get fair and just treatment for the men. The question of pay and the other points are matters that will be looked into.
388
Dr. Macnamara says he is going to look into several of these matters, and I have great confidence that he will do his best. But the question of pay is very important and should be dealt with shortly, while the pensions question should be seen to at once. It is incredible to think that the pay of the able seaman—namely 1s. 7d. a day—is exactly the same to-day as when I joined the Service in 1859. He gets an extra 1d. a day if he is a trained man. Is it not a monstrous state of affairs that the pay of an able seaman should be the same now as it was sixty years ago? When I first joined a stoker got 2s. a day, a private in the Marines 1s. 2d. a day, and a gunner in the Royal Marine Artillery 1s. 5½d. a day. As I have said already, an able seaman now gets 1s. 8d.; a stoker gets 2s. 1d., a penny a day more than he did sixty years ago; a private of Marines gets 1s. 5d., and a gunner in the Royal Marine Artillery gets 1s. 7d. Every other class in the community has had its rates of pay raised since then. Food, clothing, rates, and rents have gone up; but the blue-jackets, stokers, and marines—I am not talking of the other ratings now, but of the main ratings in the Service from which promotions are made—are in the same condition as when I joined the Service in 1859.
In his speech in another place Dr. Macnamara said that the blue-jacket, stoker, and marines were in a different position from the people on shore, because they were fed, housed, and to some extent clothed, and also received separation allowances and pensions. I have dealt with the pension. I will now deal with the other points which he raised. The argument that the conditions of these men compare favourably with those of men in civil life is incorrect. Take a skilled man on shore. He gets about £3 a week, which, with bonus and overtime, can be increased to £5 or even £8 a week. But our sailors get their pensions stopped because of the war. Of course, I do not take any exception to the rates of pay for the men on shore. An unskilled labourer on shore can now earn from £2 10 s. to £2 15 s. a week. I do not object to their getting these wages. But they are safe at home, and they are safe at home only because of the loyalty and chivalry and gallantry of the men at sea, who are treated in the way of which I have spoken.
In 1912 it was said that the pay of the Navy had been increased all round. I

389
remember the great fuss that was made about it in the House of Commons. As I pointed out at the time, it was absolutely incorrect. What was done? They gave certain ratings an increase of 4d. a day, but they excluded the able seaman, the ordinary seaman and boys from getting that 4d. a day until they had served for six years. It was one of those, flat-catching ideas which are brought forward at times. It was not fair to the men. What really occurred is what I have just told your Lordships.
Dr. Macnamara then said that the man in the Fleet is fed. He is only partially fed, just as he is only partially clothed. Feeding is part of the contract. Before the war the men received a standard ration. Since the war that ration has been reduced. The bread ration has been reduced from 1b. to 10 ozs., and the sugar from 4 ozs. to 2 ozs. I do not say that there was no waste of bread; many of us called attention to it before. I do not say that the sugar ration should not have been reduced. But I do say that, if the men have the ration which was in the contract reduced, they should get a fair sum in place of it. They get 1d. a day in lieu of that ration, and an extra ½d. a day to meet the increase charges in the canteen. In these times of stress, high tension, continual duty day and night, men want more food. Dr. Macnamara said—and very truly—that he doubted whether 5½d. covered the increased prices that the men have to pay at the canteens. It does not, and I hope that this will be looked into and very much improved in the near future.
To support the view which I have ventured to bring before your Lordships that the men want more food in these trying times, I will point out this. I have already stated that the ration has been reduced, and that they get 1d. a day in lieu of the ration and ½d. a day for what they have to pay extra at the canteen. Before the war the mess bills of the men averaged 8s. a month; since the war these mess bills have averaged 20 s. a month. That proves my case, that the men do not get enough and should have more; and those who take an interest in the matter are going to see that they get more. Bacon, cheese, and butter are not in the Admiralty standard ration, and the men have to get all those things from the canteen, for which they are allowed ½d. a day!
Then Dr. Macnamara stated that the men are housed. A ship to a seaman is exactly like a shop to an artisan. Both of them pay their rates and their rents, but a sailor has none of the comforts that an artisan gets. He is allowed very limited leave, and the "house" in which he works may be blown up and he himself may be blown to smithereens at any moment. That is very different from a man's house on shore. It is time these things were made public. The men cannot make them public themselves. In 1797 an anonymous circular was sent round, couched in most respectful language, but it was not listened to. The result of that was deplorable, disastrous, and discreditable. Another circular has now gone round. The Admiralty know all about it. Again it is anonymous. It is in respectful language, and it has been made out by the chief petty officers and the whole of the men of the Fleet. That will have to be attended to. These matters ought to have been remedied before the men thought it right to take such a step in their own interests.
Dr. Macnamara further remarked that the men are to some extent clothed. That was rather a naive remark, but it was quite true. What happens is this. With the exception of the marines, who get their kit replenished and made up every year, nobody in the Navy gets more than a first issue of clothing; the only assistance he gets to keep up his kit is a gratuity of from £2 10 s. to £3 10 s. according to the rating, but only after completing twelve years, or if they take on again at the end of that time. The price of what the seaman calls "slops," which means everything connected with clothing, has gone up since the beginning of the war to the extent of over 24 per cent.; and it is curious that this point was one of the grievances put in the circular of 1797 before the disastrous occurrences to which I have referred. It must be remembered that the seaman has to keep up his kit and to have it smart and efficient. Some slight allowances have been made. For instance, he gets 4s. 3d. a quarter for a coaling suit, a gratuity on the change of uniform, and, to the credit of the Admiralty let it be said, there has been a great deal done lately in the way of giving warm clothing for the winter in the North Sea and gratuities for lighter clothing for service in hot climates. But I must remind the noble Earl that this was not

391
done until the great British public had put their hands in their pockets and subscribed enormous sums of money in the first year of the, war to provide the men with waterproofs, sea boots, comforters, bendigo coats, and many other things which they required. The Admiralty are now doing that very effectively. But the point of Dr. Macnamara's remark was that the men pay something like £200,000 a year less than the cost price, which falls on the Government, owing to "slops" having gone up. My point is that the men should not only have a free kit, but a free annual issue. The men of the Fleet are the only men in the Government service who do not get a free annual issue. The police get it, the soldiers get it, and the marines get it. Why this differentiation? Is it because the grievance has not been represented? That cannot be so, because it has been represented many times. But, as I say, the trade unions have now taken the whole matter up, and we shall find that the men will get it.
I come now to separation allowances. The Service is very grateful for what the Admiralty has done in this connection. Before, the men had none. Now they have fair separation allowances, and the allowances for children have been twice increased since the war. But Dr. Macnamara made a great mistake when he said that the fact of the ordinary seaman paying 5s. to get the 6s. allowance would put him level with the soldier. The amount received is the same; but whereas the blue jacket pays 5s. to get the 6s., the soldier has to pay only 3s. 6s. We shall not be satisfied until we get them both on the same level. They are both risking their lives for us, and the country ought to be grateful enough to see that their wives have a good separation allowance. The allowance is ample now, but the seamen should not have to pay too much for it, as they now do compared with the other Service. The Admiralty allow 6s. a week, and the sailor pays 5s.; the War Office allow 9s. a week, and the private soldier allots 3s. 6d. That has got to be altered.
I now pass to a very old grievance in the Service—the question of hospital stoppages. After thirty days in hospital the man's pay is decreased. When the men join the Service it is stated in their contract that they will have medical attendance. For years it did not say for
392
how long; but lately the authorities have put in "After thirty days the pay is decreased, and after ninety days if stops altogether." And not only does it stop, but the time for pay, and the time for badges and the time for pensions stop after ninety-one days, when a man may be suffering from some illness of the kidneys, or rupture, or injury to the brain, contracted in the Service. He is treated exactly the same as if he had committed a misdemeanour and had been sent to prison. I think that is monstrous. Dr. Macnamara also stated that £8,300 was the total amount that had been stopped for hospital stoppages. Of course, there are certain diseases which men get through their own fault. In that case I agree that stoppages ought to be made; but in all other cases there should be no stoppages. The men should get their medical treatment, as was promised them in their contract upon joining; and as foist stopping the time after ninety-one days and taking every bit of pay away from them except the separation to the wife, that ought not to be allowed.
Another point is that of entering civilians in the Fleet over and above the seamen. Many of these, civilians have to be taught their duties by the petty officers and others over whom they are going to be given their commissions. That is ludicrous. Of course, I know we have to join a large number of civilians in war time, but why give them commissions and put them over the heads of old petty officers who have to teach them their duties? That is altogether wrong. We ought to have promoted many warrant officers and men from the lower deck, and many artisans and other-people, particularly in the Paymaster's Department, where the writers are a most excellent and well-educated body of men. Yet men have been taken on from the shore and put over their heads with commissioned rank. That ought to be stopped. Of course, there must be certain qualifications for promotion, but surely the people who have served you for many years in the Royal Navy in all branches are more qualified for promotion than people coming from the outside, some of whom may never have seen a ship before in their lives. To show the different way in which the United States Navy manage this question, immediately war was declared they promoted 496 men from the lower deck to be officers. They did not go outside to get civilians. I am not saying anything against

393
civilians. I admire them for going to sea and helping to do what they could during the war, but I say that the positions they are put into are quite wrong and unfair and hurtful to the older men who have served you so long in the Fleet.
There is another ease, which I do not think I mentioned to the noble Earl opposite when I told him the matters on which I was going to ask him to answer but it is a terribly hard case. I know the case—I tried to bring the man here to-day. A man, say, loses a leg, or is wounded in the leg or arm, or whatever it is. The Admiralty wish to do something for him, so they employ him on what is called shore service. Would the House believe it, that when the man is so employed his pension for wounds is stopped. The authorities do not do this in the case of officers, which is, of course, quite right. But the man has earned his pension, he has got wounds, he has lost a limb; why do the State say, "We will employ you at the old rate of pay "? He is ashore instead of afloat—that is the only difference. I know two or three of these cases, and the one I have particularly in mind is a writer who has lost his leg. The authorities employ him on shore service, but say that he cannot have his pension for wounds. If he retired altogether from the Fleet and came ashore he would get his pension. I hope the noble Earl will answer that point. Ail these questions are important, and they concern the welfare, happiness, and comfort of the men in the Fleet, and it would be only just ice to the men and in accordance with their rights that these; matters should be put straight.
I come now to the question of coastguards. I am afraid I did not mention this to my noble friend. I cannot find any trace of a rise in the pay of the coastguards. When the Navy promotes chief petty officers and warrant officers, they are allowed something for their outfit, but the coastguard chief petty officers and warrant officers get nothing. That ought to be put right. Certainly some arrangement should be made whereby the coastguards should get, the increase of 4d. a day which the Navy got in 1912, and to which I have referred. The family allowance of the coastguard is not sufficient, and it should be made up to something parallel to the separation allowances obtaining in the Navy.
The question of promotion from the lower deck is better, but it is not nearly as good as it should be. Dr. Macnamara asked for suggestions, and he said that I was satisfied when I made a remark in this House relative to some men who had I been promoted from the lower deck. I never said I was satisfied. I said I was delighted to see that this injustice to the men had been at last taken in hand. For many years I have tried to get promotion from the lower deck. I think it was in 1874 in the House of Commons when I first brought this before Parliament. In the Sudan Campaign two warrant officers, Mr. Webber, a boatswain on the" Sapphire, "and Mr. Craigie, who was on the "Nile," were made lieutenants. But for years there were no more of such promotions. Now the authorities have begun to look into the matter. My noble friend was right in what he said the other day, that you cannot promote for gallantry only, and must have other qualifications. But my point is that there are many men who should be promoted from the lower deck now, and they have felt the position more acutely owing to civilians coming in during the war and being promoted over their heads. I should promote selected men within a reasonable period. I know that my noble friend will say that there will be no billets for them after the war, and that you cannot promote a man and then let him revert to his former rank. I say we should promote selected men within a reasonable period, and on their completing their time at the end of the war let them go on the pension which they would have had if they had not been promoted. I think that would meet the men's views.
I want to point out, with regard to these questions generally, and particularly with regard to the pension, that a Government, no matter what Government it is, would not dare to do such a thing as this where a trade union is concerned, or where a vote is concerned, or where the people concerned can make their grievances public. They are trespassing on the loyalty, chivalry, and gallantry of these men and they have no right to do it. They know that these men have no way of representing their grievances to the Government. I have made many suggestions about the lower deck in my time, and I would like to make this further suggestion. Why should not the Government give a better flat rate of pay for the early entries? That would adjust every

395
thing. If you want to get the pay of a community improved, always begin at the lowest. They are the poorest; and if yon get that carried, there is no doubt that those above will receive a corresponding benefit. There has been no improvement since 1912 in the pay; and then, as I have already shown, it was not a real improvement. I should like to see the lower deck men attached to the office of the Second Sea Lord, whoever he is going to be. All these lower deck requests go through civilian clerks at the Admiralty, who know as much about the subject as this bench. They ought to have a lower deck man there. I suggested to Mr. Barnes that he should take a lower deck man on in connection with pensions. The Admiralty approved of the suggestion, and that man has been of the greatest use to Mr. Barnes, because he knows the subject. Civilian clerks may be the best people in the world, but they do not know anything about the matter, and we should have men in these positions who know. We have had many things done in the Service. But a few of us who have fought for the Service have never had any single thing done without agitation and bringing the matter before the public. I may mention some of the things we have had done—a free kit on entry; chief petty officer rates given to artisans and others; commissioned officer rank given to the lower deck; more warrant officer ranks thrown open for all departments; better food and means of cooking; and the placing of bakeries on board in order to supply fresh bread.
I am afraid I have detained your Lordships for some time; but there is not a single noble Lord in the House who will not agree with me that the comfort of and fair treatment for the men of the Fleet are the first things we should look to. We are absolutely dependent on them. Think how well we have been served both by the men in the Royal Navy and in the Mercantile Marine. Men in the Mercantile Marine have been blown up three, four, and even more times; yet immediately they come into harbour they sign on again. And as for men of the Royal Navy, it would be an insult to praise them. Your Lordships know their value as well as I do myself.
One point more. My noble friend promised me that he; would look into the question of the boys. I pointed out on a former occasion that 300 boys below the
396
age of 18 were sent to kingdom come in the Battle of Jutland. I contend that every boy who has been in action should be allowed to count his time for pension. Surely they cannot do more than risk their lives for us. It does not matter whether a lad is 16 or 18; he is risking his life. All these boys who survive after having been in action should be allowed to count their time for pension.
These reforms—I do not call the question of the pension a reform; I call it a right, and a matter that has to be seen into and settled and made retrospective—will take time and discussion. The country wishes to pay its Naval Forces fairly, but that is not being done now. It should be done, particularly when we take into account not only the increased cost of every necessity of life, but the yeoman service that the men of the Fleet have rendered to this country and to our Allies during the war. It may cost £1,000,000 or even more, but I should like to point out to your Lordships that those who during the war have benefited, both in the way of bonuses and increased wages, could only have so benefited because of the gallantry, chivalry, and loyalty to duty of the British Navy. I hope that when my noble friend replies he will not try in any way to reduce my argument with regard to pensions, because I am determined to go through with that, if I go right-through the country about it. The present position is unfair and unjust to the men, who ought to receive their pensions at once, and the payment should be made retrospective.
THE ADDITIONAL PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF LYTTON): My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord has put upon the Paper a number of Questions asking for information on certain points, which information I am prepared to give him so far as I can. In support of those Questions he has made a long speech to your Lordships, of the length of which I do not in the least complain—the matter is a very important one—but of the tone of some of his remarks I do very strongly complain. The noble and gallant Lord has asked your Lordships to believe that the Admiralty is engaged apparently in squeezing and depriving the sailor of his rights, and in some particular respects of cheating him and robbing him. I do not quarrel with the noble and gallant Lord for bringing the case of the grievances of the men of the Navy before

397
Parliament. I honour and respect him for doing so, and greatly sympathise with the desire that he has to make the condition of the men in our Navy as comfortable and as satisfactory as possible. But I hold that he is doing a very bad service to the men of the Fleet in telling them that they are being robbed and cheated by the Government, that the Government has not kept faith with them, and that it has broken its contracts with them. To tell the people that, this is the way they have been treated is, I think, a very mischievous thing to do. I hope before I finish that I maybe able to remove the impression which the noble and gallant Lord has tried to convey.
I propose to take the points which he, has put upon the Paper in the order in which they appear. The first Question which the noble Lord has asked me relates to the pay of petty officers and men. He asks whether the question of increasing the pay of petty officers and men of the Royal Navy has received recent consideration. My answer is that the question of the pay of the petty officers and men is occupying the consideration of the naval authorities and of the Admiralty and of a special Committee at this very moment. The noble and gallant Lord referred to the fact that the cost of living had considerably gone up during the war. That is perfectly true, but that is a matter which is common to all classes in the country. That particular difficulty is shared not only by the soldier who are fighting in our Army, but by the workers at home, and, indeed, by all classes. It is largely, I hope, a temporary difficulty, due to conditions which will pass away, and a difficulty which will cease, I trust, with the termination of the war.
LORD BERESFORD: May I point out to my noble friend that canteen prices are 30 per cent. higher than the civilian population is paying on shore.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: It is, nevertheless, perfectly true that the increase of living which the sailor has to meet is a matter which is common to all classes in the country. I say that this is a matter which, being of a temporary kind, has to be met by temporary arrangement. There is at this moment a Committee considering the question of how the increased cost of living may best be met during the war, and until that body makes its recommendations I am not at liberty to tell the noble and gallant Lord anything about it. Very
398
large sums of money are involved in the matters now under consideration. The decisions of that body will have to be submitted to the Board of Admiralty, and then finally to the members of the Cabinet. Therefore, until the matters now being considered have been definitely decided I am unable to give the noble and gallant Lord any information as to the result for which he asks.
The second Question relates to hospital stoppages. That also is now being considered. The facts stated by the noble and gallant Lord in his Question on the Paper are substantially correct, except this. No stoppages in hospital are made for injuries or disease caused by the conditions of service.
LORD BERESFORD: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The noble and gallant Lord pointed out the conditions of life the sailor has to meet, and stated that if under those conditions he incurs any injury and goes to hospital, his pay is stopped. That is not true.
LORD BERESFORD: I never said so.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: Any disease which a man incurs by reason of his service is not made a reason for stopping his pay when he goes to hospital. Stoppages are made only in the form in which the noble Lord has described on the Paper for illnesses contracted quite regardless of the conditions of service. That is the practice at the present moment. Whether that practice should be continued or modified is under consideration. Here, again, I must ask the noble and gallant Lord to await the result of that consideration before I can give him the decision.
The third Question has reference to the introduction of civilians to carry out special duties occasioned by the war. Lord Beresford implied in his speech that civilians were introduced and given commissions at the expense of petty officers and men in the Royal Navy. I think he rather led your Lordships to suppose that these men were given permanent commissions in the Navy to the detriment of warrant officers and petty officers.
LORD BERESFORD: I said "during the war."
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I wish to make it quite clear that it is only with regard to temporary commissions for special war duties, which will cease when the war is over, that this has been done; and as soon as the war is over and their special duties are completed, they will return to their civilian status and to their civilian occupation. I protest that it is quite untrue to describe these men as inexperienced civilians. They have been selected as possessing the special qualifications necessary to fulfil the duties assigned to them. Again, wherever it has been possible to promote warrant officers and petty officers, always having regard to the permanent needs of the Service, that course has been adopted, and the figures which I gave to the noble and gallant Lord on a previous occasion are proof that the claims of the lower deck have not been overlooked. But if the course advocated by the noble and gallant Lord had been followed and a larger number of temporary commissions had been given to warrant officers and petty officers, the result would have been that after the war a large proportion of these men would have been obliged to revert to their former rank. The noble and gallant Lord foresaw the inevitable difficulty himself.
LORD BERESFORD: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: We have been obliged in this matter to consider the permanent needs of the Service, and if we allowed the higher ratings to be overborne in comparison with our post-war requirements we should be in a position of very great difficulty when the Navy is cut down to its peace footing.
The fourth Question which the noble and gallant Lord has put on the Paper is the one which occupied the greater portion of his speech—namely, the position of those men who have reached the point at which in peace time they would be discharged to pension, and who, because of the war, have been retained in the Service and are receiving detention pay in lieu of pension. The noble and gallant Lord said that these men had been deprived of their pensions, that their pensions had been stopped, withheld, taken away from them. That is not a truthful description of the matter. No man is entitled to a pension until he is discharged from the Service. These men are not discharged; they are still in the service of the State. Then, again, it is most unfair
400
and untruthful to say that there has been any breach of contract between the State and the men in this matter. These men joined the Service under conditions, it is perfectly true, by which they would have been entitled to discharge at the end of twenty-two years, always provided that the country was at peace at the time.
LORD BERESFORD: Where does that occur?
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The noble and gallant Lord knows perfectly well that, under the Statute by which these men were retained for service when the war broke out, it is laid down that in the event of the country being at war men who were liable to be discharged may be retained for service.
LORD BERESFORD: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: And that was a position which was perfectly well known to every man at present in the Navy at the time when he joined. I repeat that it is most unfair and untruthful to say to these men, "You were brought into the Service on the understanding that, whatever happened, whether we were at peace or at war, at the end of twenty-two years you would be discharged and given a pension. That has not been done. The Government has been guilty of a breach of contract and you have been robbed and cheated." That is untrue. The men knew perfectly well when they entered—
LORD BERESFORD: Not the men.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: What the conditions were. They knew that they would be entitled to discharge at the end of twenty-two years if the country was at peace at the time, but it is obvious that the country must have power, if at war, to retain their services.
LORD BERESFORD: Does the noble Earl wish the House to infer that these men are going to get the £63 and £135 respectively?
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I am going to deal with the position, if the noble and gallant Lord will allow me to go on. I stated that it was one of the conditions of service that a man who has reached the point at which he is liable to discharge may be retained in the service of the State if the

401
country is at war. Therefore those men having been so retained, are, I repeat, not entitled to their pensions. They have not earned their pensions. No man has earned a pension or is entitled to a pension until he is discharged from the Service. Therefore it is erroneous to say that they have been robbed, or that their pensions have been withheld. That disposes of the suggestion that there has been any breach of contract or breach of faith with these men. The conditions of the Service under which they joined have, been fulfilled.
I will now come to the treatment which has been afforded to them. Let me compare the position of these men to what it would have been if there had been no war and they had been discharged. Supposing the country was still at peace and these men were discharged to pension, they would have been living on their pension, which is, roughly, about half their pay. At the present moment they are retained in the Service. They are in receipt of full pay, and, in addition to that, they are receiving detention pay, which, as the noble and gallant Lord knows perfectly well, is intended to meet the fact that they have been retained in the Service beyond the twenty-two years.
LORD BERESFORD: It is 2d. a day.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: Yes, for the first year; 4d. a day for the second year; and 6d. for the third year.
LORD BERESFORD: They have only 2d. a day for three years.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The present arrangement is that they get 2d. a day; any man who has been three years in the Service will be in receipt of 6d. a day.
LORD BERESFORD: No.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: Yes.
LORD BERESFORD: Not according to Dr. Macnamara.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The position is retrospective as regards pay, but not retrospective with regard to service. The man who is in his third year of service is getting 6d. a day. He is not going to get retrospectively the 2d. a day he would hare got if this had not been in force. Do I make myself clear?
LORD BERESFORD: No.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: Then I will repeat it. A man who is now serving one year beyond his twenty-two years will receive 2d. a day; a man who is to-day serving two years beyond his twenty-two years will receive 4d. a day; a man who is to-day serving his third year beyond the twenty-two years, which would entitle him to a pension, is in receipt of 6d. a day but that man who is to-day serving his third year would have been entitled to 2d. a day last year. To that extent it is not retrospective, but he is in receipt of 6d. a day from the time when this arrangement came into force. He is in receipt also of separation allowances, and, further, he is entitled to, and he will obtain, an increased pension when the war is over by reason of his continued service during the period of the war. At the present moment the maximum pay of 1s. 2d. cannot be exceeded—that is to say, a man who at the present moment has earned his maximum pension cannot, under existing regulations, receive a higher pension at the end of the war, but any man who has not received his maximum will be able to increase his pension by his service during the war up to that point. But the question of retaining the maximum is one of the matters under consideration by this body to which I have referred, and I have no doubt whatever that, when the matter is looked into, the retention of this maximum will not be insisted upon. But that is one of the many financial points now under consideration, and I cannot say any more about it until it has been finally decided. Therefore, I say, although the contract which the State entered into with the man, if you like to put it in that way, has been kept, that inasmuch as he has suffered hardship because he does not get his discharge and is retained in the Service, that being a war necessity, in order to meet the case created by that war necessity these arrangements which I have mentioned have been made.
There is only one remaining point with which I have not dealt. It is not on the Paper, but it is a matter to which the noble and gallant Lord referred—namely, the different treatment afforded to officers and men who are retained for shore service only. I admit that there is a distinction in this connection between the treatment of officers and of men, but it is a distinction which I think is perfectly defensible. A seaman who is injured in the

403
war to the extent, perhaps, of losing a limb is regarded as unable to be of further use to the Service and is therefore discharged, and being discharged from the Service on account of his injury he becomes eligible for a special wounds or disability pension. An officer, on the other hand, who loses an arm or a leg in the Service is not regarded as no longer of any use, because he can continue to be of value to the Navy although he has suffered a bodily injury. His duties are different from those of the seaman. Therefore he can carry them out in spite of this injury. Consequently it is the practice to retain the officer on the active list despite his injury.
Although this distinction is of very long standing, and can, I think, be justified for the reasons I have mentioned, there do not seem to be the same grounds for justifying the distinction which is made where the disabled man and the disabled officer are both retained in the Service in spite of their disability. The men retained in the Service come under two classes—namely, those who are disabled and discharged to pension, but afterwards recalled and employed upon shore, service; and, secondly, the men who, though disabled, are retained in the service of the Navy and given full pay in place of disablement pension. With regard to the discharged man, his case is now under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Pensions, and if I may judge from an answer given in the House of Commons yesterday it has been decided by the Ministry of Pensions that from July 21 these men who have been discharged with disability pensions shall, when recalled to duties on shore, get their full pay as well as their disability pension. I believe I am Tight in saying that this has been decided. Their treatment, therefore, is the same as in the case of the officers. The noble and gallant Lord referred to the question of coastguards' pay, of which he did not give me any previous notice. Therefore I am not able to deal with it. If he wishes for an answer upon that matter, perhaps he will be good enough to put a Question on the Paper with which I can deal subsequently.
With regard to the treatment of boys, to which the noble and gallant Lord referred in a previous speech, I promised that I would bring that matter to the notice of the authorities at the Admiralty. This I have done. It is still under consideration, and I am not able to give the noble and
404
gallant Lord any further information upon it to-day. The noble and gallant Lord will see that, in reply to his speech and to his Questions, I have been unable to deal with many of the points in detail, for the simple reason that they are at the present moment the subject of special investigation. But I can assure him that they will be investigated with the utmost sympathy for the class of man whose case he has championed to-day. I am very glad that he paid a tribute to the attitude of the Financial Secretary, which was well deserved The Financial Secretary has, I think, throughout his period of office, which is now a very long one, shown the utmost sympathy with the men of the Navy and the utmost regard to their position, and I am quite certain that when this inquiry is completed and the decisions are announced they will not give the noble and gallant Lord any cause of complaint on the score of their being ungenerous or inconsiderate to the men. And if there be any sense of grievance caused by the failure to consider these questions before, I am quite confident that the decisions will help to remove that unrest.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: My Lords, I think your Lordships, except perhaps those on the Front Government Bench, who have listened to the speech of my noble friend opposite in reply to the Questions on the Paper will have been very disappointed. It is admitted that, after three years of war, these things are still under consideration by a Committee. That is perfectly scandalous. Yet that is given as quite a good reason for putting everything off. There is one advantage in that. We have, now a very efficient and improved Board of Admiralty, which is more likely to take action than the Boards which occupied that position for the first two and a-half years of the war. But I really think that, after three years of war, it is grossly unfair to our sailors who have been serving us so well throughout the war that these things should not have been settled. It has been said that prices have gone up everywhere, that therefore the sailors have to suffer like every one else, and that it is only a temporary matter. But nobody else has suffered in the same way. That argument falls to the ground entirely. My noble friend knows from his own experience that the wages of everybody have gone up very largely during the war; and to meet the point with an argument

405
of that kind is certainly begging the question.
I was very glad that the noble Earl at the end of his speech—because I thought the other part of his speech was very unsympathetic, though, of course, I know that he has to put forward the views of the Department—said he had full sympathy with the cause of the men. I do not want to go into the arguments as to the difference of opinion between my two noble friends, but the Navy has been far too long-suffering. I do not wish to enter into the question as to whether the men have been cheated or been done out of their contract, though I think everybody must admit that they have been extremely meanly dealt with. With regard to the question of commissions, it is said that it would never do to give commissions to the lower deck during the war because there would be too many commissioned officers afterwards. In my opinion the first thing we have to do is to win the war, and then we can see what can be done afterwards. Surely what has been said by the noble Earl is not an answer that should have been given to your Lordships' House. As to the inexperienced men to which my noble friend alluded, I do not, of course, say a word against the civilians. They have been most patriotic and noble in the work they have done, but it is perfectly well known that a large number of inexperienced men have been put in command of certain small vessels for the simple reason that we have not a sufficient supply of experienced men. Of course, numbers of vessels have been lost through nobody's fault. The operations that have been carried out have been very difficult, and the country should be, and I am sure is, grateful to the many brave men who have volunteered for this work; but that is no reason why more commissions should not have been given to the lower deck, where there are many men well fitted to hold them.
As to the pensions question, it seems to me that this is a technical matter. When these questions of calling men up for service were considered and the regulations were laid down, it was never thought for one moment that there would be a war of this kind, in which men would be called up for three, four, or five years. And I think it is not fair to the men, and not doing justice to the Admiralty itself, that it should stick on the technical position of the terms of engagement, even if they happen
406
to be correct. I hope that this Committee—by the way, we are getting rather tired of Committees—will report very soon, because it must be admitted by everybody that the sailors have not had anything like a proportionate increase. As everybody knows, there is not a finer body of men in this country, or a more loyal or devoted body of men, and it has been felt to be the case more and more that those who get the advantages are those who shirk. Therefore I hope that the noble Earl will use his influence with the Admiralty to get this question dealt with as speedily as possible, and in the sympathetic manner which he indicated at the conclusion of his speech.
LORD BERESFORD: My Lords, I believe I have a right of reply, as I have given notice to move a Resolution. Arguments of the character we have heard to-night have been made to me for something like forty years. I have often been called mischievous, and I have often been called unfair, but I have never been charged with want of truth before. I reiterate that in what I said there is nothing mischievous, unfair, or untruthful; and if the 5,000 men in the Navy who are suffering under this disability were polled, they would tell the noble Earl exactly what I have told him to-night, chat they do consider that they have been cheated and robbed.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: It is a question of fact. The noble and gallant Lord is entitled to his opinion, but he does not make it true by repeating it.
LORD BERESFORD: I will show the noble Earl how it is true. He says, quite rightly, that the men are liable to be engaged if there is a war.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: Retained.
LORD BERESFORD: There is not a word in the contract that the men would not receive their pensions after twenty-two years service. That is emphasised by what I pointed out—that the only circumstance in which they are not to receive their pension after twenty-two years service is if they join a foreign fleet and work under another flag. I ask, are the men who ought to have had £63 in the one case and £135 in the other in the three years ever going to get those sums? Of course, they will not get them. They will get the pension

407
which is duo to them at the end of the war, but which they would have got three years before, and for which they now get only 2d. a day. That is where the men think they are being done, and they will be done. I repeat they are bring cheated out of that sum of money, which they ought to have had for these three years. Here you have two men in the same mess, in exactly the same circumstances; they are doing exactly the same duty and are of the same rating. One has received the £63 if he is an able seaman, and the other has not received it because his pension became due—say, a few days after war broke out. In the case of petty officers, two men in the same mess, one has received £135 during the three years, but the other has not received it, and he will not receive it under the present regulations. Who is right, the noble Earl or myself? What I say is the truth. The men have been cheated. What I say further is, the men shall get this money; every shilling shall be paid to them, and it shall be made retrospective. I am very warm about this. The noble Earl has said that I do not tell the truth. You poll the British Navy and see who is telling the truth, whether it is myself or the noble Earl. The feeling on this question is very acute in the Fleet. The argument that the men are to be retained in war—why, of course they are, and they are proud of it. But there is nothing whatever in the contract that the men should not receive their pensions according to agreement after twenty-two years service.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: There is no contract that any man should receive a pension after twenty-two years service. The contract is that a man is liable to be discharged after twenty-two years service, except in case of war.
LORD BERESFORD: The noble Earl says so, but the men regard it as a contract.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: That is not so.
LORD BERESFORD: I beg the noble Earl's pardon. I maintain that it is so. Then he gets up in his place and supports the idea that these men are to be mulcted of that sum of money because they are fighting.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: There is no question of mulcting anybody.
LORD BERESFORD: The men do not get the money because they are fighting.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: They are getting their full pay. A man discharged to pension is not in receipt of any pay. When he is discharged he receives only his pension. But these men are kept in the Service and their pay continues. There is no question of mulcting them of their pensions.
LORD BERESFORD: That is very thin.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: It is true.
LORD BERESFORD: The fact remains that there are two men in the same mess, one having been mulcted of all this money, and the other having received it. Yet the Admiralty get round these Service regulations by such statements as the noble Earl has made. It is not what the men say. I ask noble Lords in this House whether my case is not a strong one. It is like many other cases which I have fought in the other House. These men shall get this money. The noble Earl spoke about not engaging inexperienced people. I will point out one lot. Take the Accountants Branch of the Navy. Look at the people who have been brought in there. A man may be a very useful person in a bank, or in a counting house, or in a shop, but it takes years to understand the Accountants Branch of the Royal Navy properly. He spends a few months with a writer to teach him, and then he is inside an assistant paymaster. That is very unfair and very wrong. I am glad to hear that the question of the wounded men will be looked into, and also other matters. That is the result of agitation. We have seen all these things before. I repeat that the noble Earl is wrong and that I am right about the men being mulcted with regard to their pensions. If this thing is not put right there will be a commotion in the country. We intend to get it put right. With regard to the other remarks of the noble Earl, I am very much obliged to him for what he has told me.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past seven o'clock, till to-morrow, half past three o'clock.