Lords Sitting of 25 July 1918

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PRO VISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PRO VISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

UNION OF BENEFICES BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of the Union of Benefices Bill. In some ways this Bill attaches itself to, and is a development of, the Act that was passed last year as a piece of war legislation, authorising the discontinuance of services in churches to enable the clergy to be free for other and more exacting duties at this time. If it was held that without some adjustment the man-power of the Church would not be used to full advantage in time of war, this, I believe, is equally true in time of peace. It cannot occupy a man's whole time to minister on Sundays and to visit on weekdays 100 or 200 people, and the amalgamation of two small benefices or more together offers to a man a fuller occupation and a larger sphere of
1162
usefulness, and in some cases provides him with a better, or, rather, a less inadequate stipend.
When I say that it offers a man a larger sphere of useful occupation, I do not for a moment mean to depreciate the good work that is done by the clergy in our country districts. I know how very good it is, and I know that their work is never over in the sense that they can leave it. They have always to be on the spot, and they find it more difficult in many cases than their brothers in the towns to get away for even one Sunday's holiday in the year, and in many cases they cannot afford the expense of such a little change. Some people speak of the country clergy as if they did only one day's work in seven, but no one could do that who is aware of the way in which our country clergy are always at the disposal of their people, who constantly turn to them for help of every kind, and never turn in vain. A parish clergyman is a source of the best kind of guidance and assistance to his flock in spiritual and in other matters, and we gratefully remember all that our country owes to the parsonages dotted all over it and to the sympathetic work done by the wives and families of our country clergy.
During the war some people have been casting about for ways in which the clergy could best serve the nation, and we are thankful for the manner in which they have sprung forward at this time of the nation's need; we honour those who are serving abroad, and we treasure the memory of those who have laid down their lives for their country. But in our thankfulness we cannot forget those who have been left at home to do most important, if less romantic, work. They have interpreted the war to the people of our country districts; they have broken bad news when it has arrived to the families in their charge; they have helped them in all the filling up of forms; and they have guided the young people in choosing a form of war service in which to serve their country. And I believe that the war would have been regarded with an aversion that is not the case in our country districts had it not been for all this gallant work day by day being carried on by our country clergy.
But in many cases a man could do this sort of good work for a larger flock. And I may add that in a very few years it may come about that with the smaller value of money and the shortage of clergy it will

1163
become almost impossible to draft a sufficient number of clergymen to incumbencies in our country districts. In the sad position of a clergyman ministering to a very small flock a very small remuneration tells against his work, when he is not in a position, perhaps, to get a pony or to ride a bicycle or in any way to come in contact with the cultured association of men similarly educated with himself.
I know that it is urged that the union of benefices is always unpopular. It punishes the particular parishes concerned and especially the people who live in the parish in which the clergyman does not propose to reside. Then it is said that the curtailment of services is likely to throw the people into the hands of Nonconformist ministers and places of worship, where they can find facilities of worship at the time when they wish to go to church. Then it is said that the endowment belongs to the parish to which it was originally given, and that it is not open to any redistribution on some general scheme. But it cannot really be right to take an entirely selfish view in these matters, and our people must be asked to learn—even if they learn slowly—to take a larger view, and to be willing to identify themselves with their neighbours. This may take time, but a generation is a short period in the life of the Church.
Nor can it be desirable to check such a movement because the people are halfhearted in their adherence to the Church. It may be that the regulated use on a more extensive scale of the ministries of educated laymen may come to supply the additional services which may be required on Sundays. It would be wrong, of course, to re-arrange parishes if it meant taking away the endowments of one parish and leaving the parish from which they were taken unprovided for in regard to its spiritual needs. But adequate provision does not necessarily mean continuing unaltered the habits of the past. There is a considerable difference between principle and custom in these matters. In neither case do the parishioners stand to lose if the union of two benefices attracts to them a clergyman of greater vigour and stronger personality, and one who is better able to keep in touch with the thought of the outside world.
I hesitate to mention any of the failures among the clergy, because it would be unfair to speak against the high standard of life that is almost universally shown.
1164
But if ever failure is found I believe it most readily springs from loneliness and isolation, and from the lack of a full week's work dragging down a man who yet all the time is tied to the limited area of his post. Any step which can help to make the occurrence of these unfavourable cases as few as possible is prudent and to be recommended. This Bill does not introduce the idea of the union of benefices; it merely alters the existing machinery for bringing it about. Whether the Bill is passed or not it will still be possible for benefices to be united, though only Bishops know the patience and effort at present required to carry through such unions. The Bill strives to improve the method by which unions, when thought desirable, may be carried into effect.
Your Lordships will observe that the Bill provides for an inquiry on the part of a competent tribunal in order to weigh up the pros and cons of each case. This is substituted for the cumbersome procedure of a protest to the Archbishop on the part of those interested in the matter. This tribunal will consist of three commissioners, and the whole case will be argued before it. To this proposal I attach great importance. Both patrons and parishioners will be able to state their cases before this tribunal, and it is clear that if patrons are to lose their right of veto it is only fair that, with the parishioners, they should have ample opportunity of saying their say to the full. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners will nominate one commissioner, and no doubt valuable experience will quickly gather round their nominees; but the commissioner who is appointed locally will see that special local features (like distances, roads, situation of houses and hamlets) are observed. And here I give notice that in Committee I propose to move an Amendment, if the Bill is read a second time to-day, to the effect that the alternative provided for use in this Bill as it stands if the patrons do not agree on a nominee, should be employed in all cases. The Bishop's nominee will presumably be conversant with the spiritual and clerical aspects of the ease and with the individual characteristics and needs of the praishes concerned. The Bishop's veto, being the veto of the final and supreme spiritual authority, is retained.
The Bill removes any population limit. It is very hard to fix such a limit, for a union may be desirable where the population exceeds by a few whatever limit happens

1165
to be fixed upon; and it is really the collective judgment of the three commissioners on this tribunal which will be a safeguard against any misuse of this freedom. Then the final scheme will settle the terms of the union. Among them, of course, are the terms of patronage of the amalgamated benefice, if more than one patron is concerned. This Bill is no sense requires that some parish churches should be subordinated in their relation to others. Such a step can be taken, but one may be sure that in country districts where such unions take place, though the benefice will be made one, each parish church will usually hold its own position unimpaired. This will still be the case even in a group of little parishes close to one another where the desirable step might sometimes be taken of making several parishes into one benefice to be worked under one incumbent with an adequate staff of curates radiating out from the one strong centre. An unnecessary parsonage, I suppose, would in most cases be sold for the benefit of the benefice, and it would be very rare that there would be occasion to pull down a parsonage; and I imagine that the pulling down of a church would be a very rare event indeed.
I ought to add that this Bill has the approval of both the Canterbury and York Houses of Convocation, and the little Amendment to which I alluded just now will be moved in deference to the wishes of the Upper House of the Canterbury Convocation. I may also add that the Ecclesiastical Commission, which is largely concerned in the working of the Bill, fully approves of it; and this, again, is true of Queen Anne's Bounty; though neither of those is a proper body actually to initiate legislation. Moreover, this Bill is in accordance with resolutions passed in the Canterbury House of Laymen some few years ago. I cannot believe that the Bill will lead to a wholesale attack being made on the country parishes; it would only mean that where there is a sound case for union it would make sure that the matter was not checked by unreasonable prejudice and ignored simply through the indifference of a patron or his unwillingness to take a wide view of all the interests involved.
But I come back to that with which I began—namely, that the Church cannot continue to take an obsolete view of her man-power, or refuse to reconsider the redistribution of her men at home and in the field abroad. It is very desirable that, when it is possible, the Church should
1166
reform old-fashioned and discredited ways I dating from the time when parishes were more isolated from one another than they are in these modern days; otherwise the Church runs the chance of losing the respect of many efficient and careful critics, not least among the working classes. Such arguments as I have indicated are much reinforced when we consider the shortage of clergy which must result from the war. In the last years all our able-bodied students in theological colleges have gone to the Front, and are fighting there, and the only men whom the Bishops have been ordaining have been elderly men or men unfit for service in the field, and there are senior men at the present time still holding on in their benefices just until the war concludes. At the end of the war there will be many resignations among them, which will immediately reveal and intensify our difficulties. A small measure, therefore, of this kind, which can do something in the right direction, I venture to think is valuable.
I repeat that this Bill creates no new system, but only makes an accepted principle more available for use. The reason why it has fallen upon me to introduce this subject is that the diocese of Norwich has such a very large number of these little parishes. In the city of Norwich the number of parishes is beyond the present requirements of the population living where many churches stand—namely, in the business quarters of the city. The last thing which I wish to do is to inflict statistics upon your Lordships, but I may be permitted to say just this much—that there are about 600 parishes in the diocese of Norwich; that the population of 200 of these is actually under the figure of 200 persons; that 100 of these parishes out of the 600 are already united with other parishes; and that some twenty-five more are held in plurality. There is plenty of scope in the diocese of Norwich for further efforts in this direction of union, and it will be a great thing if the machinery for achieving such unions could be modified from the manner at present provided by the law. As the law now stand a union that must commend itself as desirable to any independent judgment can be held up, not as the result of a business-like discussion of all the circumstances of the case, but just by indifference or mere parochialism. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Bishop of Norwich).
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, the right rev. Prelate has given such a clear and concise account of the Bill and of the reasons for it that I do not think it would be desirable, to take up your time by many more words. I only rise lest there should be any misapprehension within this House or beyond it that the Bishop of Norwich has taken up this matter on his own single initiative. Those who listened to him just now know how far that is from being the case; but I think it is just as well that it should be said that this Bill represents the desire of nearly all those who as Bishops or as administrators, or persons otherwise acquainted with the inner working of the Church, wish to see its efficiency improved.
I think, too, that it is right that we should say a word to justify this Bill as a timely measure. The noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of the Education Bill the other night defended himself from the criticism that in war-time we ought not to be concerned with matters other than those connected with the war. I think his defence was felt to be a perfectly convincing one, and I venture to apply it to a very much smaller but very material subject—namely, to a bit of reform in the arrangements of the Church as they touch the affairs of the people at large. There is a very strong feeling indeed that our system is in many ways embarrassing and archaic, and I think people would feel, the better they know the matter, that instead of this being pushed on with unnecessary haste it is really a very belated proposal, and I believe it will be welcome to people who approach the subject from very different points of view. I think that persons who desire simply to see what they think an admirable system relieved of some of its drawbacks ought to welcome a Bill which attacks what is so generally felt to be a very embarrassing feature of our present system. On the other band, I believe those who think that changes in the Church's secular position ought to go very much further would still be glad to see that Parliament was ready to do something towards remedying its most obvious and pressing defects.
There is only one other observation, or perhaps two which I desire to make. One is this. This House has always represented very largely the interests of patrons of benefices. I, for one, and I think many of my brethren on the Episcopal Bench will agree, am no enemy to the rights of patrons.
1168
On the contrary, I believe that our system of preferment, which includes different elements, is on that account better and does its work better But I am quite sure that the arbitrary power of patrons to veto schemes which are desired by all the rest of those interested in the matter is a very undesirable one, and one which would tend to bring about the destruction of patrons' rights altogether. The other remark is a very humble one indeed, and may amuse your Lordships, but I believe it to be real. We are always told that we should live up to our material and mechanical advantages. I believe that in the present case circumstances have been immensely changed by the simple fact of the invention of the bicycle.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, the right rev. Prelate who moved the Second Reading of this Bill referred to the attitude in its favour taken by the House of Laymen of the Province of Canterbury, and I am in a position to say that there are a very large number of Churchmen interested in important Church organisations who are in favour of the proposal contained in the Bill. I do not desire to say more except this, that I think the proposals themselves have been well devised and will bring about what the right rev. Prelate desires—namely, a far easier method of procedure—and at the same time will give all reasonable protection to the various interests involved.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I should like to say a few words about this Bill, because it happens that during a long life I have had a great deal to do with the temporal side, at any rate, of small livings. Under the direction of successive Lord Chancellors I have had to do with matters connected with what is called the Lord Chancellor's patronage, which is really his duty to fill up livings of the kind that are most difficult to fill. The origin of what is called his patronage is that the King at the time of the Reformation, or spoliation, or whatever you may call it, handed over to the Lord Chancellor all those livings which were not worth keeping. Then at Queen Anne's Bounty, for a great many years, I had occasion to see the business connected with the small livings with which they are mainly concerned—livings that are under £200 a year.
I therefore venture to give the opinion, from that long experience, that some

1169
better scheme for facilitating the union of benefices is very greatly to be desired. The right rev. Prelate has pointed out very fully what are the reasons why such unions are desirable. It unfortunately happens frequently—in an enormous number of cases, I am sorry to say—that the income of the incumbent is wholly inadequate. The incumbent also is in the unfortunate position of having too little to do, though, as a humourist I think once said, he "thereby becomes in time well qualified to do it." It is, therefore, very desirable to have a Bill of this sort, which interferes very little with any rights, which enables these unions in proper cases to be carried out with reasonable facility, which gives a right of appeal in any case where the individual might possibly be injured, and which—in the form nowadays so familiar in legislation, of giving rule-making powers—enables the Lord Chancellor, who is given the power under this Bill, to lay down what the rules of procedure shall be.
I cannot but think that your Lordships should at least give this Bill a Second Beading. I hope that the right rev. Prelate will allow me before the Committee stage to make one or two suggestions merely on points of form. I do not think that I should venture to differ from him upon the point which he has indicated this evening as to the position of the patron, but I do venture to express the opinion—having had occasion, as he knows, to consider this matter very carefully—that the Bill is right and that the Amendment that he proposes will not be an improvement upon the Bill. I beg to support the Second Reading.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I should not like this Bill to pass its Second Reading without having stated on behalf, as I believe, of the whole Episcopate that there is no difference of opinion among the Bishops as to the expediency of passing it. You have had it put before you by two Bishops with large rural dioceses, where the difficulty is most felt, and supported by the Chairman of the House of Laymen and by the noble and learned Lord who has taken so active a part in Church affairs of this sort for a great many years. I believe the proposals made are exactly what were described so clearly and well by my right rev. brother, and I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
LORD BRAYE: My Lords, I venture to ask the right rev. Prelate whether he could include cases where two benefices have been united according to a former Act of Parliament, and include those cases so as to allow power to sell one of those benefices which has become practically useless in a depopulated parish. I speak from experience, because I have been connected with a case of that kind, which I believe is quite unique. At all events, if there is any similar case, attention has not been called to it. The parish to which I allude has practically no inhabitants. Sometimes there are ten, but I believe they do not belong to the Church of England, so that practically it has no Anglican population at all.
What renders the parish very peculiar is that it owns a church which is one of the very finest, not only in Northamptonshire, but I believe in the whole of England, and this church contains relics of bygone ages which are certainly unique. The stained glass of that parish is worth I do not know how much, but I should think it would make the mouths of the authorities at South Kensington water if they saw it and it ever came into the market. There are other belongings to this church which attract attention. Among them is the organ of Whitehall, which was there in the time of Charles I. I believe it is the very oldest organ in England—quite innocent of works or bellows at this time, but there it is as a work of art. I mention these particulars only to show that this is one of the most peculiar cases in England. This living, which is worth £10 a year, was united about thirty years ago under the old Act of Parliament by the authorities of Queen Anne's Bounty or the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, in whom the power was vested, with another living in another county contiguous to it, worth about £230 or £240 a year at that time. This church has become practically useless. As a matter of fact, for a whole year or more no service whatever was conducted in it. The vicar was a great invalid, who could hardly perform the services in the church to which he was attached in the contiguous parish. From whatever cause it arose, the fact remains, and there again, I believe, is a unique fact among the benefices of the Anglican communion. There is no Archdeacon, nobody to look after the church, and I take this opportunity of drawing attention to the matter. I hope it is not quite irrevelant to the subject before us.

1171
I think it is worth mentioning in the Legislature that there is no person whatsoever responsible for the upkeep or sustentation of that magnificent building. We all know that church rates were abolished under the Gladstone Administration a generation ago, and that in those days, when a church threatened to fall down, the parish was enabled to raise subscriptions for its repair. That was the universal law of the land. Church rates were abolished, and no substitute was provided for the sustentation of churches. Therefore if this magnificent stained glass, which dates from the time of Edward III and is perfectly unique as a work of art, or if any of the other appurtenances of the fabric which I have mentioned—and I have not mentioned all by any means—if any of these were injured no human being is responsible for the restoration, or the protection, of what might remain. I think this really is a subject which ought to commend itself to the notice and the attention of the Legislature. Possibly some right rev. Prelate may take up the matter and introduce a Bill to that effect.
The right rev. Prelate has introduced this very necessary and desirable Bill, as I believe it is, creating if possible a body which may be responsible for the saving of these churches, or any others in the same category, which are rendered totally useless, which have no congregation whatsoever, and the living of which, as in this case, is only £10 a year. Your Lordships will recollect that when the monastic churches were the property of powerful and rich abbots, and the income of these parishes went to the monastery, the superior of the monastery paid one of his monks to serve as parish priest. The Pope ordained that this should be so, and at the time of what is called in this country the Reformation the land was seized, or stolen, by the Crown, and the liability to pay income was vested in the purchaser of these properties. Therefore, we have in this country, which after all is the most conservative country in the world in these matters, the fact that the owners of these estates are charged with the responsibility of paying the incumbent, who is called vicar, and not rector He is called the vicar; that is a person who represents the ancient authority of the living. I hope the right rev. Prelate will vouchsafe to consider these remarks which I have ventured to offer, and I think he would be earning the grati-
1172
tude of those who are concerned with these matters.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE 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 Peel.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, before the House goes into Committee, I should like to put a question to my noble friend. I was unfortunately not able, through indisposition, to be present when he made his speech on the Second Reading, but I have had the great advantage of reading it. I should like to ask him, having regard to the great variety of powers which would be wielded by the committees under this Bill, and also the powers given under the Midwives Bill, whether he has considered how far this Bill reads with the Midwives Bill now passing through Parliament. He will remember that the Midwives Bill provides for a certain inspection under particular authorities, and we had a slight difference of opinion as to whether the authority should be the county council or the lesser local authority. The present Bill includes both authorities, and it might be that the intention of Parliament (and what, I hope, may be the ultimate intention of confining the power of the Midwives Bill to the major local authority) will be counteracted by this Bill which entrusts midwifery powers to the lesser councils. I do not know whether he has considered that point. If he has not I will not press him for an answer now, but I should be glad if he would consider it at his leisure and give me a reply during the next stage of the Bill.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I regret that I was not able to be here in proper time for saying anything on the Second Reading, because I should have liked to state how glad I was to see this Bill introduced. I happen to be connected with societies that are affected by and who feel a great interest in the Bill. The same point which has just been mentioned by the noble Marquess occurred to me. I did think there might be some inconsistency, or some confusion created, be-

1173
tween this Bill and the Midwives Bill, and I think it would be a great advantage if the noble Viscount would be good enough to consider, before the next stage, whether any such difficulty is likely to arise.
The part of the Bill which most interested me personally, and to which I wish to call attention is, if I understand, the intention of the Bill under the provisions of Clause 2, she provision to maintain all existing voluntary organisations as far as possible, or at least to utilise the services of those persons who have done very valuable work hitherto. It seems to me as if that was the intention of Clause 2, but I am not at all clear that the provisions, as detailed in the text, carry that out. It appears to me that you cannot, under the clause as it stands, actually hand over and delegate powers to one of the existing associations, such as the one with which I am connected and of which I am chairman—the Westminster Health Association. It would certainly be a great misfortune if the work of those engaged in these societies, especially the ladies, were to be thrown over and their services not utilised. I am not sure whether under the text of the Bill it will be possible to do that, and I should be very glad if the noble Viscount will reconsider the language of that clause.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Maternity and child welfare committees.
2.—(1) Every council in England and Wales exercising powers under this Act or under section two of the Notification of Births (Extension) Act, 1915, shall establish a maternity and child welfare committee, which may be an existing committee of the council or a sub-committee of an existing committee, and all matters relating to the exercise of the powers of the council under this Act or under the Notification of Births (Extension) Act, 1915 (except the power of raising a rate or of borrowing money), shall stand referred to such committee, and the council, before exorcising any such powers, shall, unless in their opinion the matter is urgent, receive and consider the report of the maternity and child welfare committee with respect to the matter in question, and the council may also delegate to the maternity and child welfare committee, with or without restrictions or conditions as they think fit, any of their powers under that Act or this Act, except the power of raising a rate or of borrowing money
(2) The council may appoint as members of the committee persons specially qualified by training or experience in subjects relating to health and maternity who are not members of the council, but not less than two-thirds of the members of every maternity and child welfare committee shall consist of members of the council, and at least two members of every such committee shall be women, and whore the duties of the maternity and child welfare committee are discharged by an existing committee or sub-committee any members appointed under this provision who are not members of the council shall act only in connection with maternity and child welfare.
(3) The committee established under this section shall take the place of any committee appointed under subsection (2) of section two of the Notification of Births (Extension) Act, 1915, and the provisions of that subsection relating to the exercise of powers by a committee shall cease to have effect.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved the addition to Clause 2 of a new subsection. The noble Marquess said: The object of this Amendment meets the observations, as far as I gathered them, of my noble friend who spoke just now. The real difficulty in the administration of all these local Acts is to adjust properly the limits of the jurisdiction of the county councils and the lesser local authorities. There has been a tendency at one time to put everything in the power of the district councils, and at another time the tendency has been to put the power into the hands of the county councils. Those are the two different schools of thought. Personally, so far as I am entitled to have an opinion on the subject, I belong to the second school of thought. I believe that the great line of progress in the reform and development of local government is to use the larger local authorities. They carry, I think much greater authority than the lesser local authorities, and they are also not exposed to the same tendencies to action which is not altogether disinterested which beset the small local authorities. I am very glad, therefore, to find that in this Bill the county council is recognised. I wish it were more recognised.
This Bill is a compromise, or rather the principal Act which it amends is a compromise, under which both local authorities are recognised, and it depends upon very little more than a matter of chance which local authority is to undertake the work of the principal Act of which the present Bill is a development. It is an important matter, because although this is only in one sense a development, it is a very large development of the principal Act. As the

1175
noble Viscount said upon the second reading, and as I have had occasion to remind your Lordships, the powers entrusted to the committee of the county council or district council, as the case may be, are very extensive. I am in favour of giving authority to the greater local bodies, but there is a position which the lesser local opinion ought to occupy. It ought not to be ignored. Control ought to be with the greater local authority, but the advice and co-operation of smaller local opinion ought to be maintained under the working of the principal Act. At the present moment this is secured by means of sub-committees, and in one case I know, the case of my own county, those sub-committees are used with great effect and very successfully. They assist very much in the working of the principal Act, but the effect of the clause as it stands will be to abolish them.
Clause 2 prescribes that on any committee working under this clause two-thirds of its members must be members of the council which appoints the committee. It may be the county council, or it may be the district council. All that my Amendment seeks to do is to enable sub-committees to be established in every case, and that those subcommittees should be freely appointed and not limited by this two-thirds provision. If that be done the difficulties to which I have called attention to-day will he got over. I do not think from what I understand—and I hope it is the case—that the Local Government Board have any objection to this Amendment. I have no desire to press it upon the Government if they do not wish to accept it, but I understand that the Local Government Board do not object, and I hope that my noble friend will signify as much in a moment.
The only other observation that I have to make is that the drafting of the Amendment is taken from the Education Act of 1902. I therefore imagine that it is workable. There are sub-committees in the schedule of the Education Act which are appointed exactly in the words of the Amendment which I have ventured to put on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, after line 22, insert as a new subsection:
"(4) A Committee established under this section may subject to any directions of the council appoint such and so many sub-committees consisting either wholly or partly of members of the Committee, as the Committee thinks fit."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say, before I deal with the Amendment, one word in reply to the question which the noble Marquess put? The point was as to the powers that may be exercised by this committee with reference to midwives under the powers of the Midwives Bill as it is at present. Perhaps the noble Marquess will allow me to give him a not very definite answer on the point, for this reason. The question of who is going to exercise those powers is at present under consideration of the Committee which is dealing with the question of the powers of the Health Ministry, and as the matter is so much under consideration, and has not been definitely decided, perhaps the noble Marquess will excuse me from giving a reply at the present moment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What Committee of the Health Ministry?
VISCOUNT PEEL: By a Committee of the Government to which the question as to what powers should be dealt with by the Local Government Board and what should not be has been referred. As regards the Amendment, which the noble Marquess has taken from the Act of 1902, the general intention no doubt is to assist the flexibility and elasticity in which these committees work, and I have no doubt this will be valuable in many counties, especially no doubt in the county he represents, and there is no objection on the part of the Local Government Board to accept this Amendment. I should also like to say, as regards these larger and smaller authorities, that the Local Government Board generally would rather lean towards schemes being made by the larger local authorities; but in some cases, where you have such close and intimate knowledge as is required by local conditions, the smaller authorities might very usefully deal with some of these powers.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether this Bill means that the authorities can now put off the building of cottages not only for two years but till one year from the termination of the war, and then at the end of that time I suppose the land can be got rid of, or can be conveyed. Is that the real meaning of it? It is rather difficult to understand exactly what this single clause means.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, this Bill suspends, but does not repeal, Section 15 of the parent Act. As Lord Mayo will remember, that Act stated that unless land acquired by the district councils was put to its proper use within two years the land should revert to the vendors. Owing to the war the operation of the Labourers Act is suspended, because no money can be advanced, and even if money were available no labour or material can be had. All that this Bill does is to say that these schemes, which from external causes are now in a state of suspense, shall not be abrogated, as would be the case under the parent Act, until at least twelve months after the end of the war. The Bill is to allow these schemes to continue, but it in no way prejudges or prejudices the right of the vendor.
THE EARL OF MAYO: When the year comes to an end the original Act comes into force?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: That is the case.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.
Bill reported without amendment.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
SUMMARY JURISDICTION (IRELAND) BILL.
Bill read 3a, and passed.

WAR LOAN BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HYLTON: I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, which corresponds to the War Loan Acts of 1915, 1916, and 1917.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FLAX COMPANIES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

THE LOSSES COMMISSION.
EARL FORTESCUE EARL FORTESCUE rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether arrangements will be made by the Losses Commission to hear locally cases affecting agricultural properties; and whether persons skilled in agriculture will be nominated to sit as assessors in cases concerned with damage sustained by agricultural properties.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I do not know that there are a great many cases already pending which would be covered by the Question that I have put down. But the numbers may very easily become considerable, because many people who have been required to plough up permanent grass have provisionally registered claims so as to be able to safeguard themselves in case they should ultimately be heavy losers thereby, and if they all have to come up to London from every part of the country considerable hardship will be inflicted. I know of a case in the West of England. (I think it was a case where some land had been taken for military purposes) in which the claimant was given £100 by the Commission as sufficient proof that his claim was not a frivolous or unreasonable one, but the expense involved in bringing himself and his witnesses and his professional assistants somthing like 250 miles up to London and back again, including a couple of days' detention in London, reduced the sum which he actually received to some-

1179
thing quite uncommensurate with the loss which he had sustained. Cases of that sort could be multiplied in every county in England if all persons with agricultural claims are required to come up to London to establish them.
The question of agricultural assessors, I think, is one the advantage—the necessity almost—of which is tolerably obvious, for all sorts of questions will be raised which will require to be spoken to by experts whose opinions ought to be judged by other experts; and it is made all the more desirable, I think, by a recent decision of the Commission, in which they gave judgment on a claim for compensation for loss due to failure caused by wireworm on grass land, ploughed up by order of a war agricultural executive committee. I need not trouble your Lordships with the details of that claim. It is quite sufficient if I point out that the Commission gave the applicant a certain sum, finding that he had used his best skill and exertion on the land and that the failure of the crop was due to outside causes. I do not for a moment question the wisdom of that decision, but obviously matters of that sort are matters in which expert agricultural opinion is involved, and the value of the opinions expressed by expert witnesses can only well be judged by people who are experts themselves.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, my noble friend, in addressing this Question to His Majesty's Government, is perhaps under a slight misapprehension as to the powers possessed by the Government with regard to dictating or suggesting to the Royal Commission in question where or when they shall hold their meetings. My noble friend Lord Terrington who, I think, is present in his place this afternoon, and who is the Chairman of this Commission, holds, I believe, a very strong view that the Commission over which he presides has a perfect right to select its own places for sitting, its own time, and so forth.
I have been enabled to give certain materials to my noble friend in answer to his Question, and I am perfectly willing to give him what material. I have with regard to the action of the Commission, but he must clearly understand that the Commission, as I have said, hold very strongly that they are not responsible to the Government for the place or places where they will sit. They hold that there is no necessity for them to sit in various parts of the country
1180
for the purpose of hearing locally case affecting agricultural properties. They consider that any such action would involve considerably more expense than the present system since the expenses of the Commission and of the staff of the Department concerned, who would necessarily have to attend such a hearing in order to present the case of the Crown, would be considerably greater than the travelling expenses of the necessary witnesses allowed by the Commission in cases where the applicants have to come from the country. It would also involve a considerable waste of time on the part of the Commission, who are now enabled, owing to having their sittings in London, to sit continuously, and not to waste time in travelling.
The only departure which has been made was in the case of Scotland, when the Commission held a sitting in Edinburgh, where the number of cases and the distance involved appeared to justify such action. It has never been suggested that the present system by which the Commission get full reports from the Department concerned upon the allegations in the application, together with any maps or plans that are necessary, and then proceed to hear the evidence of witnesses on both sides who are intimately acquainted with the land, results in any injustice being done. In any cases of real doubt, however, the Commission have always reserved the right either of inspecting the locality in person or sending down one of the two expert agents appointed by them to make the necessary inquiries. Two members of the Commission—Sir Matthew Wallace and the Rt. Hon. Laurence Hardy, M.P.—are thoroughly acquainted with every aspect of agricultural practice; and in addition the appointment by the Commission of the two agents—Mr. Edwin Savill, F.S.I., of Messrs. Alfred Savill & Sons, and Mr. J. M. Clark, F.S.I., of Haltwhistle—has enabled the Commission to have their services either as assessors at the hearing, or as agents for the purpose of inspection in all cases where their assistance would appear to be required.
LORD TERRINGTON: My Lords perhaps I may supplement the answer which has been given by Lord Hylton, as I am Chairman of this Royal Commission, by saying that I think the noble Earl who put this Question has been moved to do so under some misconception. I wrote to the noble Earl some time ago when he put this Question on the Paper and asked him if he had any

1181
grounds, by reason of any case which had taken place, for putting it down and which has caused any grievance, adding that if he would kindly supply me with the particulars I should be pleased to give him all the information I could about it.
I understood from the noble Earl that his Question was directed rather to the future than to any case that had happened in the past; therefore I have not heard from him the particulars of the case to which he referred, and without having these particulars I cannot identify it; otherwise I should be able to explain fully, I think, why a claimant who obtained only £100 was mulcted in the expenses of the people be employed; and it might probably be found that the claim turned out on investigation to be not one of anything like the extent which he had made it out to be.
I should like to make one or two observations in order to satisfy the noble Earl as to the principle on which the Commission acts. The noble Earl has looked at it from the point of view of agricultural cases, but agricultural cases affect only about one-sixth of the cases which come before the Commission. The Commission are therefore bound to take a very much wider and broader view of their procedure than merely dealing with cases which apply to agriculture. When the Commission was first setup, my right hon. friend Lord Justice Duke, who was then Chairman of the Commission, carefully considered with the members of the Commission the procedure, including this question of sitting locally. I think it would be greatly to the disadvantage of agriculturists if that principle were adopted, for the reason that great delay would take place in hearing the cases, as it would be impossible for the Commission to perambulate the country and to hear cases without causing great delay.
The cases are now heard in the order in which they are set down. This would no longer be possible if cases had to be heard locally—for instance, in the county of Devon, in which the noble Earl is interested—because of the Commission having to go all round the country. There is no class of the community which has been more considered than the agricultural class, and if we have had any complaints in this direction they are negligible compared with the vast number that have been dealt with. Every class of the community has presented claims, and I believe that these claims have
1182
been dealt with to the satisfaction of all concerned.
Let me take the county of Devon as an illustration. If we had to sit down there for hearing cases we should have to look not merely to the agricultural cases but the commercial and other cases in that county, and we should have to take down the representatives of every Government Department concerned in those various cases; in one case it might be the War Office, in the next case the Ministry of Munitions, in the next the Food Controller's Department, in the next the Shipping Controller's Department, and so forth. The Treasury are satisfied that such a procedure would not be economical, and the Commission are equally of opinion that it would not be expeditious.
I assured the noble Earl that the most careful consideration has been given to the procedure of the Commission. There is the great advantage to claimants of knowing the day and the hour when their cases will be heard, and they are not kept hanging about, as in the Courts Of Justice, waiting for their cases to come on. This is done for the convenience of the claimants and of the Government Departments concerned. The Commission sits practically every day, and endeavours to get through an enormous mass of work. I am sure that every consideration is given to the agriculturists; and I have a letter from Mr. Prothero saying that he has had no complaints, and that, so far as he is concerned, he believes the agricultural community are satisfied with what has been done.
The noble Earl also mentioned the question of the hearing of the cases by experts. About a year ago Mr. Prothero made a suggestion to me that it would give satisfaction to the agricultural community if another agricultural member, well versed in agriculture, were added to the Commission. I said that we should be only too pleased to have him, and Mr. Prothero said that if we would name the member he would ask the Prime Minister to recommend him to the Crown. The name of the member selected is Mr. Laurence Hardy, and nobody will question his ability or his practical experience in agriculture. Since Mr. Hardy came on the Commission we have practically handed over to him and to Sir Matthew Wallace, the well-known Scottish agriculturist, the consideration of agricultural cases. I further advised the addition of,

1183
and added to the staff of the Commission, the two well-known agricultural experts mentioned by the noble Lord who answered the Question, and they are called in to advise the Commission on any particular cases if their services are needed.
In conclusion, I would also inform the noble Earl that if there is any case which requires examination on the spot the Commission spare no pains to go down and take a view of the district and the farm or the works that have been executed upon the land, and we have spent a good many days of our vacation at week-ends for this purpose. Every possible care is taken to arrive at just conclusions, and I think the noble Earl may be quite satisfied with the consideration given to all cases by the Commission.
EARL FORTESCUE: By your Lordships' leave, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the full explanation he has given of the method in which the Commission over which he presides does its work. What he has told me goes far to remove the apprehensions which caused me to put down my Question.

NATIVE OFFICERS OF INDIAN ARMY.
LORD SYDENHAM LORD SYDENHAM rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether steps are being taken to grant commissions to selected native officers of the Indian Army who have rendered distinguished service in the war; and whether provision is being made to confer commissions on young Indians trained in the Imperial Cadet Corps or elsewhere.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, a short time ago Lord Lamington and the noble Earl who was then Secretary of State for War paid a most deserved tribute to the gallantry of the Indian Cavalry at Cambrai. There were episodes on that occasion which will always shed lustre on the annals of the Indian Army, but they only form part of the very fine services rendered by the Indian Army to the Empire during the war. The India Office very wisely published an interesting book, written with great ability by Colonel Mereweather and recounting the achievements of the Lahore and Meirut Divisions, which began to arrive in France on September 26, 1914. Those divisions played a notable part in the desperate fighting by which the early German attempts to reach the Channel ports were shattered, and they helped to save a very dangerous situation. To
1184
Indian troops the experience of shell fire was quite unknown, and the terrible cold of the first winter in the trenches was a most severe trial of endurance.
I do not think it is realised what those two Divisions suffered. About 24,000 men landed originally at Marseilles, and I understand that in eight months 30,000 drafts were sent from India to fill up the ranks. Thus these divisions required their original strength and 6,000 men more to fill up the casualties. It is easy to understand what that means; and in addition there was a very heavy loss of British officers, on whom the Indian native regiments so much depend. Subsequently this much-tried Force went to Mesopotamia, to incur fresh sacrifices and fresh losses, and reflect new glory upon the Indian Army. Little can be done for these gallant men to whom the Empire owes so much. Some time ago I raised the question of land grants, and I was told that the subject was under consideration. I hope that by this time it has got far beyond that not very interesting stage.
To-day I want to ask whether the King's commission is to be offered to selected native officers of the Indian Army who have specially distinguished themselves during this war. There is no finer body serving in His Majesty's forces than the native officer class, which represent the pick of the yeomen of the warrior races of India. They constitute our greatest safeguard against the determined attempts to sow sedition in the ranks of the Indian Army which have been made in recent years. The number of them qualified by education and position for commissions is not large, but of late years a good many men of good families have entered the Army in the hope of promotion. There must also be a proportion who are not only well trained in the school of war but who have shown high qualities of leadership.
The question of admitting young Indians to direct commissions is one of quite a different kind. I well know all the difficulties which arise from the ancient customs and caste prejudices of what is really the most aristocratic country left in the world, but careful selection is essential, and Indian officers should serve only in regiments composed of classes which would naturally look up to them. I think the noble Earl the Leader of the House did hold out a hope that commissions would be given from the Imperial Cadet Corps, but after he left

1185
India I think nothing was done; and at Simla about nine years ago I pressed the matter upon Lord Kitchener, but he did not at that time see his way to take any step in the direction which I wanted. I think that a beginning should now be made with certain Cavalry regiments, which might in time be officered entirely by Indians, who, beginning at the bottom, would later on reach the command of the regiment. Already commissions have been granted to nine young Indians who have distinguished themselves during this war, and I think a few more are serving as officers in the Royal Air Force; but there must be others who, if well trained, would show really fine military qualities and qualities of leadership. I hope that my noble friend, whom I am glad to see back in the House after a very severe illness, will be able to say that these important questions have at last reached a satisfactory solution, and that we may in future be able to look forward to drawing upon the inherited military qualities of the families of the Princes, Chiefs, and gentry of the fine fighting races of India.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD ISLINGTON): My Lords, my noble friend prefaced his remarks by a very well-merited tribute both to the splendid gallantry displayed and the great suffering which at one time was experienced by our gallant fellow-subjects from India attached to the forces of the Indian Army. I am sure that all that he said finds a very warm endorsement by every member of your Lordships' House. My noble friend has asked me to give him all the information I can with regard to the appointment to commissioned rank of officers of the native Indian Army, and I am going to take, if I may, this opportunity to broaden the subject and give an answer which will embrace other branches than the one which my noble friend specially dealt with.
This question of granting the King's commission to native officers in the Indian Army is an innovation, and one of such great importance to the future of the Indian Army, and also I may say to the interests of the Empire, that I make no apology for giving a considerably protracted answer, because I believe that your Lordships' house and the people of this country and of India are desirous of having as full a statement as possible in regard to all that has been and is being done in this connection.
1186
When the Secretary of State for India announced on August 20 last that the Government had decided to remove the bar that had hitherto precluded the admission of Indians to commissioned rank in the Indian Army, and announced at the same time that nine officers of the native Indian Land Forces, who had served in the field in the present war, were to be immediately commissioned, your Lordships may remember that he added that the whole general conditions under which Indians should in the future be eligible for the King's commission would be at an early date discussed by him with the Government of India and the Army Council with a view to the preparation of a carefully considered scheme both for the selection of these officers and their training. This scheme, as your Lordships will understand, is necessarily difficult and complicated in the extreme. It has taken a long time—longer, indeed, than was anticipated. While therefore an apology, I think, is due from me to my noble friend for the long time that has elapsed since he first placed this Question upon the Paper in this House, I feel sure that from his knowledge of the subject he will fully appreciate the reason for the delay. I am afraid this delay may even have created a certain amount of dissatisfaction and impatience in India on account of the long time that has elapsed since it was commenced and the recent announcement made in India on the subject. It has certainly been due to no desire to hold up the question, but has been due entirely, as I have said, to the complexity and delicacy of the subject and to the many issues attaching thereto.
I will now explain, briefly, the proposals which the Government have made and which have been approved. They fall under different categories. There is, first of all, the category which allows that every year a definite number of permanent King's commissions in the Army shall be given to young Indians who will go through a course of training at a Military College prior to the commission being granted. For the present it has been decided that ten a year will be granted under this category. Cadets so appointed are to come to this country and to be trained at the Military College at Sandhurst. On receiving their Commissions they will be posted to the Indian Army as second lieutenants. The appointment of these Indians to Sand-burst cadetships is not to be by means of an open competitive examination, but

1187
by nomination by the Viceroy, on the recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief, Local Governments and political administrations in India. Arrangements are also to be made by the Secretary of State in Council for the consideration of claims of any suitable candidates who may be going through their education in this country. The question as to the age of these candidates has not been finally decided, but it will, I hope, in a very short time be settled. It is under discussion now by the Government of India, and we are communicating with them on the subject. The Army Council—I think properly—are anxious that the age of the Indian candidate who goes to Sandhurst should approximate as nearly as possible to the age of the British cadet who is being trained there.
It is proposed that the qualifying examination which will be held shall include an oral examination, similar to that which is in practice by the Admiralty for the examination of naval cadets for the college at Osborne, designed as a test of general intelligence. The standard of education required to pass this qualifying examination will approximate to that which is necessary now to obtain a diploma at one of the Chiefs colleges in India—either that, or the school-leaving certificate which is recognised by Local Governments or the matriculation of an incorporated University in India.
At Sandhurst the course of training for these Indian cadets, when they are admitted, will be precisely the same as that for British cadets, and it is hoped that the first batch of these cadets will he admitted to Sandhurst in the month of January next.
This question of training cadets who are to be admitted to the commissioned ranks of the Army has exercised the attention of the Government of India, the War Office and the India Office for a long time. As I have already said, for the present it has been decided that all cadets should come to this country and should pass through the course at Sandhurst. I may say that there are two views held on this subject of training. The Government of India, including the Commander-in-Chief, and the War Office strongly urge that all these cadets should go to Sandhurst. There are, however, others—and they are competent to give an opinion on Indian questions—who believe that this course might well be carried out
1188
in India, provided a college could be established, in that country of a similar standard, from every point of view, to that of Sandhurst in this country, and that, if such a scheme could be established, it offers certain very preferable advantages to bringing these young boys away from their homes over the seas to this country. Speaking for myself—I only speak on this occasion for myself, and in no way with any responsibility for the India Office—I believe that India is the best place for the training of these cadets, provided always, of course, that a college is established there where the standard is in every shape and form equal to that of Sandhurst. As I shall show presently, a training college is now being established for Indian cadets who are to come under another category of commissions. I may also add that there are now established and in full swing two cadet colleges—with training in almost every respect similar to that of Sandhurst—in Quetta and Wellington, in India. I believe the Quetta college was formerly a staff college, and it may, it probably will, revert to that purpose after the war; but there is a college at Wellington as well which will be available. Speaking for myself, I am not without hope that the experience that will be obtained of the class of training that can be afforded in India will satisfy the military authorities both in India and in this country that a permanent training college can be established in that country after the war.
I now come to the second category of those who are to receive commissions. It refers to native officers alluded to in the Question and speech of my noble friend. A limited number of permanent and substantive King's commissions are to be given as special rewards to those native officers in the Indian Army who have distinguished themselves in the present war. There is already a not inconsiderable number about to be appointed who will come under this category. They have not been yet "gazetted," and the number of them has not yet been announced or actually decided upon, because, as the House will understand, it takes a considerable time to obtain all the information necessary from the General Officers Commanding in the various theatres of war, and all of them are being applied to. I am sure that your Lordships will join with me in rendering a testimony to the splendid and invaluable services of our Indian officers and

1189
troops who have fought with such gallantry on all those fronts of the war, and, who, indeed, are to-day lighting on some of those fronts and bearing, numerically, the main burden of the engagements.
As my noble friend truly said, the number drawn from this particular source must necessarily be somewhat modest, because, in spite of the magnificent character of their work, the majority of native officers, both owing to their age and to their educational qualifications, are hardly suitable to carry out the duties required of an officer holding the King's permanent military commission. Therefore as a mark of recognition of those whom it is found impossible for this reason to select for substantive commissions, it has been decided that a certain number of King's commissions for honorary rank in the Indian Army should be granted to specially selected Indian officers. These officers will be taken from those who have rendered distinguished service, not exclusively in the present war, though, of course, the majority will be selected from those who have served in this war.
The substantive King's commissions, to which I have alluded, will be granted in the rank of second lieutenant. The honorary commissions, which I have also alluded to, will have the rank either of lieutenant or captain, in accordance with the native rank of the officer, and it will be similar to the honorary rank which has been given in the past to Indian officers; but with this difference. Hitherto this honorary rank has been granted to them only on their retirement from the Service; now it is proposed that it should be given to them during their active service in the Army. These honorary commissions will confer no special powers of command. The amount of pay and pension that these officers are to receive is still under consideration. It is anticipated that it will raise their status in the regiments in which they are serving, and it is hoped and believed that it will be highly esteemed by them as an honourable recognition of their valuable services. The grant in these three forms which I have described to your Lordships is in compliance with the announcement of the proposal to grant commissions made by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for India on August 20 last year.
My noble friend asks me a question with regard to the Imperial Cadet Corps. The Imperial Cadet Corps, which as he knows,
1190
was initiated by Lord Curzon during the time of his Viceroyalty and composed of the sons of chiefs of Native states, and sons of distinguished Indian gentlemen in British India, has been suspended during the war. At the outbreak of the war there were twelve cadets attached to that corps. Several of the Imperial Cadets were given commissions in the Native Indian Land Forces, and nine of them, from the Indian Native Land Forces, were given King's commissions on August 20 last, when the announcement was first made.
In addition to what I have said let me add a further development, which has been briefly announced in another place, in regard to the granting of commissions. The Government of India represented the other day at the recent Delhi Conference that at the present time more was required in this connection than had already been promised and announced. I would ask your Lordships to consider the circumstances under which the conference of native chiefs and leading men in India was called together by the Viceroy some months ago. The collapse of Russia had not only enabled the Germans to throw their forces on the Western Front, straining the man-power of this country and the Dominions to the utmost to resist it, but it had introduced a new threat to India, by opening to Germany another door through Southern Russia, the Caucasus, along the northern borders of Persia to the east, right to the frontiers of Afghanistan. In the face of this new danger an appeal was made by the Prime Minister to India to make still further greater efforts than that which they had already made during the war. That appeal of the Prime Minister's was promptly and loyally responded to by the Viceroy, on behalf of the people of India, who set to work to call upon India for further efforts in addition to her already great achievements. I would remind your Lordships that India has already during the war recruited over 1,000,000 men for the service of His Majesty's Forces. India has now, in response to this appeal by the Prime Minister on behalf of His Majesty's Government, offered to raise a further 500,000 during the present year, and I may say that all arrangements for the recruitment and organisation of this large additional force are now in active process of accomplishment.
It was felt, both by the Government of India and especially by the Commander-in-Chief in India, that such fresh sacrifices

1191
for the common cause could not rightly be taken advantage of without Indians in some measure of proportion being granted further commissions to correspond, in some sense at any rate, with the expansion of the Indian Army. On the strong recommendation, therefore, of the Government of India His Majesty's Government have approved the grant of a considerable number of substantive King's commissions, which are not to be permanent but are to be held temporarily during the war. The Indians nominated to these temporary commissions are to be drawn both from the civil life of the country and from the Army. The age limit is to be between nineteen and twenty-five, and those selected from civil life are to be nominated by the Viceroy, on the recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief, of Local Governments, and the political administrations. They will be drawn, I hope, largely from gentlemen who have rendered good service to the Government during the war, and especially from those who have actively assisted recruitment in India during the war. I may say also that it is hoped that many young Indians of high territorial position in the country will now come forward whose social status hitherto has made them refrain from joining the Army under the limited career that was then open to them. They can now come into the Army and make a life career, and I hope that they will come in large numbers, and that they will induce many in their districts to join the Army and so render valuable assistance to recruitment.
As regards those who will be granted these temporary commissions from the Army, preference will be shown to officers and non-commissioned officers who by their service have proved an aptitude for leadership. Every candidate will be subjected to a qualifying examination as a test of his general education. The standard of that examination will be prescribed by the Commander-in-Chief. In regard to those who are drawn from the civil community the standard of examination which will be prescribed for them will be identical to that which I have already described for those who are to enter for Sandhurst.
I will give you an illustration of the class of candidate we hope to obtain in not inconsiderable numbers for this temporary commission rank. There are three whom we are recommending to the Government of India now, and who, we hope, shortly will be occupying that position. One
1192
is the grandson of Mr. Naoroji, who will be remembered as a well-respected member of the House of Commons; another is Mr. Rudra; the third is Mr. Handit Singh. These three have distinguished themselves in British units in France during the war, and two of them are now being given the opportunity of joining a training battalion prior to their being accepted for temporary commissions in the Army.
All candidates who are to attain this position of a temporary commission will be required to attend a school of instruction and it has been decided to use for this purpose the Daly College of Indore. Their status in that college will be exactly that of the cadets in a British college. The length of the course will depend upon the attainment of military knowledge that the candidate possesses, but generally speaking will never be less than a year. No cadet will be granted a commission unless at the end of his course he is reported thoroughly qualified and fit as an officer, and then he will be commissioned, and when commissioned will be posted to an Indian regiment as a temporary second lieutenant. During his period as a commissioned officer he will be subject to the same regulations, he will enjoy the same status, position, and emoluments as a British officer, and at the end of the war all these temporary comissioned officers will be eligible for permanent commissions. Those selected who have proved themselves fit in the war will be gazetted to the permanent rank.
The proposals which I have described to grant Indians an opening in the commissioned ranks are now being carried out in India. It marks the close of a controversy which, as your Lordships are aware, has been of long standing. The subject has been discussed both here and in India by successive Secretaries of State, Viceroys, and Commanders-in-Chief. You have to-day all three of these high authorities strongly in favour of and indeed urging that the experiment should be tried. There are also to be found many statesmen and military officers of high distinction in the history of India who have urged this reform in the Indian Army, and I may say that you have also a united Indian people in favour of it. And among those who urge it most strongly in India to-day are to be found such conservative elements of the population as the Native Chiefs and the Zemindars. The present Commander

1193
in-Chief in India, in urging the adoption of the scheme, fully appreciates the delicacy of some of the issues involved, the consequences which might arise from ally hasty or ill-considered development, and the consequent need, therefore, of proceeding with caution and care. There has been no overlooking of the importance of maintaining the popularity of the Service, so that no falling off either in quality or quantity of the British officers of the Indian Army should ensue.
Let me say, in conclusion, that there is no intention of granting a commission to an Indian merely because he is an Indian, but only when, as in the case of an Englishman, he earns it and proves himself fit and qualified to occupy the position. The war has proved beyond question that there are many Indians available who fulfil to the letter this fundamental condition, and now, in opening the door for them to enter the commissioned ranks of the Army on a gradual scale, and after the most careful selection, there should be no ground for apprehension that there will be any falling off either in the quantity or quality of British officers entering the Indian Army. Those British families who have in the past contributed a splendid body of officers to the Indian Army will, I trust, realise that the fresh departure now being made, to which they have not hitherto been accustomed, as have been for some time past those who send their sons to the Civil Services in India, in no way lessens the need for a continuing supply of their best sons to maintain the high tradition of the Indian Army and to follow a career no whit less honourable because it will henceforth embrace comradeship with their Indian fellow officers.
The Army in India of the future should be in a more complete sense than has hitherto been the case a composite Army of British and Indian officers and troops. Upon its continued efficiency and loyalty must depend in no small measure the future access to all its ranks on terms of equality of both British and Indians. Service in this Army, with all its splendid traditions of the past, will I hope in the future, as hitherto, be regarded as a profession attractive to the very pick both of British cadets and Indian cadets. The measures which we are now taking will, we hope, be regarded as the first step of a great and inevitable Imperial advance which, as time proceeds, may bring more and more British and
1194
Indian fellow-subjects into their proper and natural relation to each other as comrades in arms, engaged in the common cause of the defence of India and the maintenance and security of the Empire
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I beg to thank my noble friend for the extremely full and most interesting statement he has made. I am certain that it will go far to remove a soreness which has undoubtedly existed in the Indian Army and in India itself. I am glad that in the first instance the cadets who are to receive permanent commissions are to go to Sandhurst. I hope that the time will come, and that it will be soon, when an Indian College will be set up which will maintain the same standards as those maintained at Sandhurst, and which will replace the necessity for those young Indians coming to this country. I think I understood the noble Lord to say that native Indian officers would have open to them an honorary King's commission, and a full commission. The only question that I was not quite clear about was whether these honorary commissions, when given to native officers of the Indian Army, would carry with them the duties which their new ranks impose.
LORD ISLINGTON: No; they will confer no powers of command. I said that in my remarks.
LORD SYDENHAM: I am certain that the effect will be to link closer the best elements of the Indian peoples with our own officers, and to make the Army stronger than it has been in the past.

ENEMY APPLICATIONS FOR PATENTS.
LORD ARMAGHDALE LORD ARMAGHDALE rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether the Order of the Board of Trade with reference to payments to and on behalf of enemies in respect of patents, designs, and trade marks, will have the effect of revoking the 944 enemy applications for patents filed and accepted since the commencement of the war; or whether these accepted applications will continue to prevent the deposit of British applications for similar patents.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of my question is to clear up a doubt which exists as to the effect of the Board of Trade notice issued last week with regard to enemy patents. On the face of it, the notice simply revokes the general licence under

1195
which the payment was permitted of fees due in enemy countries for the grant, registration, or renewal of patents, licences, and trade marks. The effect of this Board of Trade notice is to prohibit all such payments in the future. That no doubt is very satisfactory so far as it goes. But the point I desire to have cleared up is, What is to happen to the application for patents from enemy subjects which have been filed and accepted at the Patent Office since the commencement of the war? The President of the Board of Trade in another place stated that 1,300 applications for the grant of patents had been received fron enemy subjects since the outbreak of the war, and out of that number no less than 944 had been accepted. I should like to know whether all these 944 accepted applications are still to stand on the files of the Patent Office, thus preventing the deposit of all British applications for similar patents. I think your Lordships will agree that, if they are allowed to stand, a great injustice will be done to British inventors, and I hope that the Government will be able to tell us that these acceptances will be cancelled.
The Home Secretary said last week that it is proposed to discontinue the receiving of applications from enemy subjects for the grant of patents, and of course the prohibition of the payment of renewal fees will, I presume, prevent the keeping alive of existing enemy patents, at all events for the benefit of enemy subjects. It seems to me, therefore, that the only logical course for the Government to take is to cancel the 944 accepted applications. It should, I think, be recognised that most of the patents that have been applied for by Germans are certainly not intended to assist the manufacturers of this country. On the contrary they are, I believe, intended to create a monopoly, to be used in order to impede British trade and manufacture. It is important, therefore, that every possible step should be taken to check these designs and to give free scope to our own inventors to obtain patents which will be used for the benefit of the trade and industry of this country.
Now that it has been decided that for four or five years after the war no German shall he naturalised in this country and no enemy banks will he allowed to reopen business, I think the Government ought also to decide not to grant any patents to
1196
the Germans for a certain number of years after the war. I observe that some of the Chambers of Commerce have passed resolutions to this effect, and there is undoubtedly a strong demand for such an embargo throughout the country. If this policy is decided upon, as I trust it may be, it follows as a logical consequence that the 944 applications which have already been accepted should be cancelled without further delay, and I trust that the noble Lord who will reply on behalf of the Government will be able to give us an assurance to this effect.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: My Lords, in replying on behalf of the Government I am obliged to my noble friend for the form in which he has raised this Question, to which a satisfactory answer is necessarily difficult without going very fully into the complicated provisions of the patent laws. The revocation of the licence by the Board of Trade in reference to payments to and on behalf of enemies in respect of patents, designs, and trade-marks will not have the effect of revoking the 944 enemy applications for patents filed and accepted since the commencement of the war. The publication of the invention on these accepted applications will not prevent the deposit of British applications for similar patents, but, like any other publication, will render invalid the grant of a patent for any precisely similar invention. Such cases, however, of the bona fide existence of identical and independent inventions would be extremely rare. The publication will not prevent the grant of a patent for an invention of a similar nature which consisted of improvements on the published inventions or of any features connected therewith which constituted a new inventive step.
As the Hole Secretary stated in the House of Commons on July 11, the procedure under which these applications were made was and is still in force throughout the Empire and also in Allied countries, and the German Government treated British applications in the same way. This arrangement secured to this country, I would remind the noble Lord, the benefit of new ideas originating in enemy countries, and secured also the protection of British industrial property in enemy countries. As regards cancellation, no other country has, it is believed, cancelled enemy applications, with the possible exception of Russia.

1197
The majority of these applications are already vested and all will eventually be vested in the Public Trustee, who will have full control over them and will, if required, grant licences to British subjects. Their future treatment and fate will depend, and must depend, on the terms of peace, and the general policy which is adopted towards enemy property.
It may further be pointed out that the cancellation of these applications would probably be followed by reprisals and the cancellation of British applications in Germany. The withdrawal of protection from inventions in such cases would mean a scramble by each country for the inventions of the other. If, therefore, further and definite action be taken on this head it must be done after the fullest consideration of all the various interests concerned and of the possible results of such actions, which may not be only those desired by the noble Lord who asked the Question.
With regard to the other points raised, I am informed that the majority of Allied countries have allowed time for the payment of all patent fees until after the war. The majority of countries have also allowed time for inventors to claim their right of priority for six months after the war, on reciprocity being given, and this, with the exception of Italy, applies to the dealings of the Allies with all enemy countries. With regard to what the noble Lord said as to banks and other businesses, I would remind him that there is no analogy between winding up banks and businesses, on the one hand, and the revocation of patents or applications for them on the other. The one is the final putting an end to the carrying on of the business; the other is the cancellation of rights of property or what is so recognised universally at the present time. The whole subject raised by the noble Lord is surrounded by a great many difficulties, and I have endeavoured to answer the questions to the best of my ability. I trust that if he desires to raise any point he will remember that this question is one which requires the very fullest consideration.
LORD ARMAGHDALE: I am obliged to my noble friend for the courtesy of his reply, but I am bound to say I regard it as highly unsatisfactory, and I beg to give notice that I shall take an early opportunity of raising the question in another form.

PRISONERS OF WAR.
THE EARL OF MEATH THE EARL OF MEATH rose to ask His Majesty's Government what is the daily allowance of meat and bread allowed to German prisoners of war under British control in France, and whether this amount is on a more generous scale than the meat rations and voluntary bread rations allowed to male civilians engaged in heavy manual work in the British Isles; and if so, considering the treatment experienced by British prisoners of war in Germany, why such exceptional privileges should be allowed to German prisoners.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, as your Lordships are well aware, there are a certain number of persons in this country, happily very few, who make it their business to try and create discontent and to shake the confidence of the public in His Majesty's Government. It makes very little difference whether these gentlemen are agents of the German Government, or whether they are pro-Germans, or pacifists, or defeatists, or simply gullible persons who believe the first story which come to hand. But as a general rule it is very difficult indeed to trace whence arise these rumours. Whenever it is possible to do so I think your Lordships will agree with me that it is the duty of a loyal subject of His Majesty to try and bring to light the origin of these stories, so that, if there is any real grievance, it may be rectified or altered, and if, on the other hand, there is no truth in these stories, that the lies should be nailed to the counter.
I have put down this Question because of the following incident. In may neighbourhood a sergeant, who stated that he was in command of German prisoners, came home on leave and produced a printed document which he asserted had been placed in his hands, as he was responsible for the feeding of the German prisoners, and he complained that German prisoners were systematically being treated far better than the working men of this country. The statement which he made was that the German prisoners in France under his control were allowed 20 ozs. of meat per day and from 16 to 18 ozs. of bread per day. I pointed out to this man, who had already heard him and who said he had seen the printed document, that probably they had made a mistake and that it was "per week"; but I was assured that this was not the case. Therefore I

1199
thought it well to inquire what is the truth of the matter. I have written to the Ministry of Food to find out exactly what is the proper ration for civilians at home. They informed me that it was very difficult to state exactly what the ration is, because it is a money-value ration now and not a weight ration. They also informed me that the ordinary civilian ration may be calculated as 3½ ozs. per day, and for heavy workers 5·10 ozs. per day, instead of 20 ozs. as had been stated the German prisoners were receiving per day in France.
Your Lordships will remember that in November, 1917, an appeal was made to all loyal subjects of the King to restrain their appetites as far as possible in regard to bread, so that the sedentary workers should eat only 10 ozs. a day, an ordinary industrial worker should eat 16 ozs. a day, and the heavy worker should eat 18 ozs. a day. This was, of course, a voluntary ration. I will not lay stress upon bread, because that is about equal to the amount which it is stated the German prisoners have, but I will ask that an answer be given to me with regard to these 20 ozs. of meat per day to which I have called attention. I still believe that it is "per week"; but those who heard the man say he stated that such is not the case and that it is "per day." I thought it right to take steps as the man had left, and a telegram was sent to him to produce this document. He asserted that what he had said was absolutely true, but that he could not produce the document because he did not think he had any right to have carried it away. A certain number of working men who heard him and who are spreading the report think there is something in it. Therefore I wish His Majesty's Government to state distinctly that there is no idea of the German prisoners obtaining meat to the amount of 20 ozs. each per day when a heavy worker at home is asked to limit himself to 5·10 ozs.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE WAR OFFICE (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, German prisoners of war under British control in France receive 9 ozs. of bread daily, but if not employed on work they receive only 5 ozs. They also receive from 28 to 30½ ozs. of broken biscuit per week. Taking bread and biscuit together, the German prisoner receives an average of from 13 to 13⅓ ozs. of bread and broken biscuit per day. As the noble Earl knows, the ration for bread in England
1200
is voluntary, and it varies, I understand, between the different grades of workers and in different districts, but it is substantially higher than the ration given to German prisoners even if biscuit is included as bread.
As regards meat, German prisoners in France receive 20 ozs. of meat per week, which is issued at the rate of 4 ozs. on five days a week. This works out at an average of 2 ozs. per day. British civilians receive three coupons each for 7 ozs. of butcher's meat in the week, totalling 21 ozs.; and, including the two supplementary coupons for heavy manual workers, and the three coupons, each of 8 ozs., which are given for non-butchers' meat, totalling 24 ozs. a week, heavy manual workers receive 45 ozs. of meat per week, or an average of 6 ozs. per day, which is considerably more than double that which is given to German prisoners in France.
I hope that the noble Earl will be good enough to give me the name of his informant, because I entirely agree with him that when information of this kind is given it should be followed up and definitely run to earth. I am glad that the noble Earl has brought this question forward, because we know that certain statements have been made which have absolutely no foundation in fact, and therefore it is well that the real facts should be known. The noble Earl will see that the last part of his Question does not arise, in that German prisoners do not receive better treatment than our own civilians in England.
THE EARL OF MEATH: I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for the information he has given. As I understand, it is 4 ozs. of meat on five days a week?
EARL STANHOPE: Yes.
THE EARL OF MEATH: And 13 ozs. of bread?
EARL STANHOPE: Bread and biscuit.
THE EARL OF MEATH: What about the other two days in regard to meat?
EARL STANHOPE: They get no meat then. They get a total of 20 ozs. of meat a week, which is given on five days.

WOMEN WORKERS IN CAMPS.
LORD TENTERDEN LORD TENTERDEN rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether, as there are so many camps in which under various services groups of women are working under different conditions, an Advisory Committee could be appointed with the object of assuring a uniform standard of housing, recreation, and discipline, and that in each camp there shall be a responsible woman at the head of all the women employed.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as one of the early pioneers of the Women Suffrage Bill it will be easily understood that I am actively interested in the welfare of women; but more particularly am I interested in the welfare of the women war workers of the country; and it is with reference to that somewhat difficult problem that my Question has been put upon the Paper. The noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, asked me the other day to what camps I referred—did I refer to munition camps, or to the camps in France, or to what camps? I did not refer to munition camps as they are under a very ably conducted welfare scheme supervised by Dr. Collis. I did not refer to the camps in France; but I did refer to the camps in this country.
It is generally supposed that the camps in this country comprise only the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps, and that this is the beginning and end of it. That, of course, is not the case. In addition to the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps, there is the Women's Legion, the Navy and Army Canteen Board, the Army Service Corps, the Royal Flying Corps, added to which, I think, there is now the Women's Royal Air Force; the Lady Paget Military Massage Corps, Miscellaneous Tailors, Miscellaneous Canteen Workers, Miscellaneous Servants, and clerics enlisted by Commanding Officers and put into uniforms. Therefore there are a large number of different organisations all connected with this admirable war work. In many cases the welfare of the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps has been well looked after. That is easily understood because, as I mentioned just now, they have a proper administration to see that they are cared for. This corps sets a very high standard of efficiency in many respects, including the things I have mentioned in my Question—housing, recreation, and discipline; but I am sorry to say that my information is that this standard is not kept up with regard to the other organisations.
Your Lordships may remember that some time ago a very interesting article appeared in one of the leading London newspapers, the Pall Mall Gazette, in which the whole question of women's welfare was carefully gone into, and it was there explained that the conditions were very adverse and contrary to the interests of recruiting, and bad for the health of the women generally. This report was signed by Mrs. Alec Gilmour. That lady has shown greater patriotism, perhaps, than many women of this country. She has herself worked in camps both in France and here, and has had great experience as an organising secretary of one of the greatest charitable institutions of the country. She is therefore an authority on this matter, and it is on information that I have received from her that I have been able to study the facts of the real state of things existing in these camps. She has made it her business to study the conditions under which the women have to carry out this war work, and she drew up a most interesting report on the subject which I studied carefully before I came to your Lordships' House. In addition, this report was seen by Dr. Collis, head of the Welfare Department of the Ministry of Munitions, and he expressed an opinion that a very useful crusade was being started and he wished every success to the effort being made. The Right Hon. G. N. Barnes also considers that the report discloses a very serious condition of affairs in the camps.
Now it is a fact—and without any report it is so well known that anybody acquainted with the condition of the camps knows it is so—that in the matter of housing and recreation and discipline things are in a very bad state indeed. Women are invited to these camps, and no proper housing is provided. With regard to recreation there is none, beyond, it may be, a concert or a cinema. There are no rooms where women who want to be respected can assemble and have some sort of quiet recreation without being thrown upon the camp life. This leads me to the important point that these women having nowhere else to go are of necessity thrown among men and have to wander about the camps, and the results may be easily imagined. The consequences are very serious.
The question of venereal disease has been discussed and mentioned here by Lord Willoughby de Broke, and he alluded to the Royal Commission and asked when it

1203
was going to do something. I, too, should like to ask why we have heard nothing about it. They might well turn their attention to these camps, where disease of that kind is rife. It is perfectly obvious that unless there is some control of the camps this kind of thing must continue. Lord Stanhope pointed out to me the other day that there was a commander of every unit, and therefore there was control. I do not deny that there is a commander of every unit, but there is not any one responsible at the head of the camp. In some cases such a person as the camp cook has been placed at the head of the camp. That is not a suitable person to look after a large camp. He also pointed out to me that various camps differed in their conditions. Naturally they do. A camp in one part of England naturally differs from a camp in another part of the country, but that is no reason why the conditions in the same camp should differ to the extent they do. Why in one camp do you find things all right in regard to housing but no discipline, and in another bad housing and good discipline? Why also is no proper medical attention given? The question of medical attention is a serious matter. The only thing that is done for a woman in these camps when she gets ill is to send her home. But then you lose her, and that is not the way in which to carry on a properly conducted camp.
My suggestion is that there should be an Advisory Committee appointed of men and women having knowledge of camp life, who should have supervision over these camps without interfering with the actual work done—that they should be an advisory body to advise on the subjects of housing, recreation, discipline, and medical attention. Recently your Lordships discussed the question of a Ministry of Health, and Lord Willoughby de Broke in a most admirable speech, full of a most sincere desire to help, showed us how necessary it was that some sort of Bill should be introduced for the welfare of both men and women in regard to health; and he particularly pointed out the desirability of this in regard to the future generations, because of what was going to happen to them if the health of the women and children of the country was neglected. Is not this a case in which the health and welfare of the women are being neglected? At least that is my assertion, and I have very good authority for saying so.
It is common knowledge that these camps are in the condition which I have
1204
described, and it is perfectly evident that this is one of the cases in which the health of the women should be most carefully studied. Women have to do arduous work for the country, and even from the selfish national point of view we can ill afford to ignore their welfare. I trust that the Government will consider favourably the suggestions which I have made. The passing of the woman Suffrage Bill must surely have entitled women to become a political and industrial entity, and I am certain that the last thing in the world which the Government desire to see is a continuance of the conditions I have described in the camps of the women war workers.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I wrote to the noble Lord in regard to his Question, because it was put down in such general terms that I really did not know whether it applied to this country or any other, or to munition workers or other bodies of women who were working for the State. The noble Lord was good enough to tell me that it did not refer to France or to munition workers, but that is all the information I received. I naturally expected that I should be given definite information as to why he recommended that an Advisory Committee should be set up, and why he thought that the present system was not working as well as it might.
I am surprised that the noble Lord should have made grave and general charges against women, and should not have brought forward one single case which could be definitely looked into. The noble Lord talked about women getting into trouble in the camps and unfortunate incidents happening, but he did not say where this was. He made that general charge against a body of women who are doing magnificent service to the State, and who, I believe, are far less likely to figure in unfortunate incidents than women who are not doing any work at all. The system at present is that all units have their own responsible officers and these officers again are responsible to senior officers, who inspect them and assist them in every way.
The standard of housing must necessarily vary with local conditions. For instance, in the one case you may have camps such as that on Salisbury Plain, or others even more recent and perhaps not so permanent. On the other hand, you have London, which the Germans describe as an "armed camp." It is perfectly obvious that you cannot have

1205
the same standard of housing in London as you would have in the middle of Salisbury Plain. Similarly with regard to recreation. The standard of recreation in a big town is different from that which you would set up in a country district. Then there is the question of discipline. The noble Lord wishes to set up apparently an Advisory Committee which should be appointed to co-ordinate housing, recreation, and discipline. All these numerous bodies—and the noble Lord mentioned only a small part of them—are enlisted under various conditions, with different standards, and they work under different rules. Therefore for any one Committee fully to grasp all the various conditions of service under which women are employed would be itself a task which would keep them fully occupied for many a day before they could give any recommendation of value.
Finally, the noble Lord in his Question points out that there are very many camps and different services, but he only proposes one Advisory Committee to deal with the whole of them. We believe that this would merely introduce further complication, and that the proper system is the one which is now in force—namely, that there should be a responsible woman in charge of each unit, and that she should be supervised and assisted by others senior to her. Every Department under which women are working is only too anxious that their conditions should be as good as possible, and if the noble Lord will bring forward definite cases we shall be only too glad to look into them and put them right.
LORD TENTERDEN: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for his reply. He admitted that the standard is not uniform—that there are different standards—and he did not say that there is anybody in control of the camps. We know that there are unit commanders, but he said that the conditions vary. It is because I want to see the conditions uniform that I brought forward the suggestion.

ASYLUMS OFFICERS SUPERANNUATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a and to be printed.
STATUTORY UNDERTAKINGS (TEMPORARY INCREASE OF CHARGES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a and to be printed.

A FRIDAY SITTING.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until half-past four o'clock to-morrow.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[From Minutes of July 24.]

SOLICITORS (ARTICLED CLERKS) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
SMALL HOLDING COLONIES (AMEND MENT) BILL.
Returned from the Commons with several of the Amendments agreed to: One other agreed to with an Amendment: The said Amendment to be printed, and to be considered on Tuesday next.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS (INCOME TAX BILL [H.L.]).
Report from the Joint Committee made, and to be printed.
Bill reported with Amendments and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next, and to be printed as amended. Minutes of evidence laid upon the Table and to be delivered out.

ROTHERHAM CORPORATION BILL.
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Order made on Thursday last discharged, and Bill committed for Tuesday next.
House adjourned at five minutes past seven o'clock.