Lords Sitting of 15 April 1919

STOURPORT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES (DOMINIONS TROOPS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power to entertain proceedings.
1. Where a marriage has been contracted in the United Kingdom during the present war by a member of His Majesty's Forces domiciled in any of His Majesty's possessions or protectorates to which this Act applies, the competent court in that part of the United Kingdom where the marriage took place shall, any question of domicile or residence notwithstanding, have full jurisdiction and power to entertain, hear and determine any of the matrimonial proceedings specified in the schedule to this Act, where such proceedings are instituted by either party to the marriage, and to make decrees and orders in relation to such proceedings, as though the parties to the marriage were domiciled or resident in that part of the United Kingdom.
For the purposes of this section "the competent court" means, as respects England and Ireland the High Court, and as respects Scotland the Court of Session.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD) moved, after the words "as though the parties to the marriage were domiciled or," to insert "where the jurisdiction of the court depends upon residence." The noble and learned Lord said: The first Amendment is a purely drafting one with which I need not trouble your Lordships.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 16, after ("or") insert ("where the jurisdiction of the court depends upon residence").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert at the end: "Provided that this Act shall not apply in any case where the parties to the marriage have at any time since the marriage resided together in the country of the husband's domicile."
The noble and learned Lord said: The proposed proviso requires a word of explanation. It is intended to meet one of the points raised by Lord Phillimore on the Second Reading. Lord Phillimore, it will be within your Lordships' recollection, pointed out that if the husband and wife had both gone to the Colony in question in a particular case, it might easily happen that the parties might hereafter return to this country, although they had contracted domicile in the Colonies, and then avail themselves of this Act. It was never intended that it should be open to either of the parties, if once they had gone to the Colonies, to return here to institute proceedings; and the purpose of this Amendment is to meet the objection—which, I think, depended on a very sound foundation—taken by Lord Phillimore.
Amendment moved—
At end insert ("Provided that this Act shall not apply in any ease where the parties to the marriage have at any time since the marriage resided together in the country of the husband's domicile").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Short title, construction and saving.
3.—(1) This Act shall, in its application to England, be construed as one with the Matrimonial Causes Acts, 1857 to 1907, and those Acts and this Act may be cited together as the Matrimonial Causes Acts, 1857 to 1919, and this Act shall, in its application to Ireland, be construed as one with the Matrimonial Causes and Marriage Laws (Ireland) Amendment Acts, 1870 and 1871, and those Acts and this Act may be cited together as the Matrimonial Causes and Marriage Laws (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1870 to 1919; and this Act may be cited separately as the Matrimonial Causes (Dominions Troops) Act, 1919.
(2) Nothing in this Act shall prejudice or affect the jurisdiction of any court with respect to matrimonial proceedings, other than that conferred by this Act.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert at the end of Clause 3 the words "This Act shall not apply to proceedings commenced after the expiration of one year from the passing thereof."
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is proposed in order to meet a point that was made by Lord Haldane. The noble Viscount pointed out that as the Bill was drafted ft was of indefinite duration. He very reasonably insisted that the object of the Bill must, in the nature of things, be of a temporary character, and that some safeguard in point of time ought to be inserted. With that object it is proposed to insert, in the place indicated, words providing that the Act shall not apply to proceedings commenced after the expiration of one year from the passing thereof. In the opinion of those who are responsible for the Bill this will supply sufficient margin for its legitimate duration.
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, page 2, line 22, at end insert ("This Act shall not apply to proceedings commenced after the expiration of one year from the passing thereof").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

CRIMINAL INJURIES (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 Lord Chancellor.)
LORD ARMAGHDALE: My Lords, before we go into Committee on this Bill I should like to ask a question as to the Royal Irish Constabulary. I understand that it is in contemplation to stop all promotion to the higher ranks of the force and to reduce the number of county inspectors and district inspectors. I believe that this step is being urged upon the Irish Government by the Treasury against the advice of the Inspector-General of the Constabulary. I think we are entitled to ask for some explanation on the subject. Some of your Lordships no doubt saw in the Press on Saturday last that a Proclamation has appeared stating that several counties in the South and West of Ireland are in a state of disturbance and require an additional establishment of police. This does not seem to me to be the time when it should be in contemplation to reduce the number of officers in the Constabulary, and I hope that we shall have some explanation from the Government that will tend to allay the dissatisfaction which this report has caused.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, my noble friend will not have failed to observe that the very important matter to which he has drawn attention has no direct relation to the scope of this Bill, and it would, I think, have been convenient if he had given me notice that he intended to raise it, in order that I might, if possible, have come armed with the necessary information. The convenient course, I think, even now would be that my noble friend should give notice that he will ask this question.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Amendment of Criminal Injuries Acts.
1.—(1) The provisions of the Criminal Injuries Acts with respect to the compensation of persons maimed and of the representatives of persons murdered in certain cases, shall, subject to the modifications made by this section, be extended so as to apply in any of the following cases, namely:—

(a) Where a magistrate, police constable, member of the naval, military, or air forces or the civil service of the Crown has been murdered, maimed, or maliciously injured in his person in the execution of his duty or on account of his being, acting or having acted as a magistrate, police constable, or member of such forces or service:

(b) Where any other person has been murdered, maimed, or maliciously injured in his person, and the murder, maiming or injury is a crime arising out of any combination of a seditious character or any unlawful association.

(2) An application for compensation in pursuance of this section may be made at any time within three months after the murder, maiming, or injury, or, where the murder, maiming, or injury occurred before the passing of this Act, within three months after the passing of this Act, and any preliminary notices required to be served by or in pursuance of the said Acts may be served at any time not later than seven days before the making of the application.
The application may be made in the case of murder by the personal representative or any of the next-of-kin of the deceased, in the case of maiming or injuring by the person maimed or injured, and in any case by the Attorney General for Ireland or any person authorised in that behalf by him, and any compensation awarded in the case of murder shall be paid or distributed to or amongst such person or persons in such manner, shares, or proportions as the county court judge or judge of assize determines.
The application may be made either as against the council of the county in which the murder, maiming, or injury occurred or, at the option of

327
the applicant, as against that council and the council or councils of any neighbouring county or counties, and in that event any compensation awarded may be apportioned by the county court judge or judge of assize as between the several county councils in such proportions as he thinks proper.
(3) The power of a county court judge or judge of assize to fix the area off which the compensation is to be levied shall include power to fix any one or more townlands or parishes, or sub-denominations thereof, as the area off which the compensation or any apportioned part thereof is to be levied, and to exempt from the levy any specified hereditaments within the area, and his power to make a decree for such sum as he thinks just and reasonable shall include power to make a decree for full compensation.
(4) Where a decree is made against a county council on any such application the amount recovered against the council shall be payable by the council on demand, and the payment thereof may be enforced under subsection (1) of section eighty of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, whether the amount has or has not been raised or levied.
(5) The power to make rules of court for the purposes of section five of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, shall extend to the making of rules of court for the purposes of this section.
(6) This section shall not apply except whore the murder, maiming, or injury occurred on or any time after the first day of January nineteen hundred and seventeen.
(7) In this section the expression Criminal Injuries Acts means the enactments specified or described in Part I. of the First Schedule to the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I beg to move Amendments of which I have given the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack private notice. I am sorry that I was unable, owing to the Bill being proceeded with rather rapidly, to hand them in in time to be printed and circulated. My first Amendment is in Clause 1, subsection (1) (a), after the words "Where a" to insert "judge". As the paragraph reads at present it states—
(a) Where a magistrate, police constable, member of the naval, military, or air forces or the civil service of the Crown has been murdered, maimed, or maliciously injured in his person in the execution of his duty—"
and so forth. I propose to put in, before the word "magistrate," the word "judge". I am told that judges are included in paragraph (b) in "any other person." I think your Lordships will agree with me that it is hardly a very dignified position for the high judicial authorities of the Crown, from the Lord Chancellor downwards, to find themselves in a sort of omnibus subsection. It is quite evident
328
from the newspaper (quoted by the noble and learned Lord yesterday) which is published in connection with the Sinn Fein movement, that it intends specially to attack them, because in the last issue of that paper I see it is stated that—
"In particular, any policeman, judge, warder, or official, from the Lord Lieutenant downwards, must be made to understand that it is not wise for him to distinguish himself by undue zeal in the service of England in his opposition to the Irish Republic."
I hope the Government will agree that it is advisable to make this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 10, after ("a") insert ("judge").—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have no objection to this Amendment. I think it was in fact covered, as the noble Lord indicated, but I can quite see his point that he would like the judicial person to be mentioned by name.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: The next is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 14, at end insert ("judge")—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved to leave out from subsection (4) the words "on any such application," and to insert "under this Act or under any of the enactments relative to compensation for criminal injuries." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is of a more far-reaching nature. Its object is to protect the property of those who are injured in Ireland as well as their persons. This special Act applies only to injury to the person, and as the law stands at present if any injury is done to property it is at least two years before the compensation allotted to the victim can be recovered. A judge gives a decree that the county council is to levy it. The county council does not levy a rate probably until the following year, and it is levied in two moieties, with the result that the unfortunate person who has suffered does not get compensation for two years. This is an important matter in the case of poor people who may have hayricks or houses destroyed, and it also especially applies to those whom this Bill is designed to protect—the policemen, who may have a small

329
plot of land where the potatoes may be destroyed, or the hay burnt.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 2, lines 27 and 28, leave out ("on any such application") and insert ("under this Act or under any of the enactments relative to compensation for criminal injuries").—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think my noble friend is to be congratulated on having made a valuable suggestion, and one which had not occurred to the experienced persons who considered this matter in the Irish Office It is quite true that in many cases where these outrages have taken place great injuries have been maliciously done to the property of the persons who have been violently assaulted, and the present process for obtaining pecuniary reparation is both slow and not specially convenient. I think it is an excellent suggestion that we should make the expeditious remedies, which are so marked a feature of the present Bill, applicable equally to this class of claim.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved, at the end of subsection (7), to add the words "and the expression police constable' includes any member of the Royal Irish Constabulary or Dublin Metropolitan Police." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to make the clause clearer. It seems almost unnecessary, but I am informed that there are many head constables and sergeants in the Royal Irish Constabulary who imagine that as they have been promoted from the rank of constable the clause does not apply to them. I understand that His Majesty's Government have no objection to accepting the words I suggest.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 3, line 3, at end insert ("and the expression police constable' includes any member of the Royal Irish Constabulary or Dublin Metropolitan Police").—(Lord Orenmore and Browne.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have no doubt that the Bill as drafted covers this case. But if my noble friend's Amendment will alleviate any anxiety on the part of any person, by all means let it be inserted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with.
Moved accordingly.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We have no objection to this Motion, which is moved in pursuance of an arrangement made on the Second Reading. I feel very glad that we are able to help the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in the passage of this Bill, and thank him for the conciliatory manner in which he has met the Amendments of my noble friend on the cross-benches.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Amendments reported.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

MILITARY HOSPITAL PATIENTS.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE rose to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War—

1. What is the object of moving patients in military hospitals so constantly that the stay of the average patient in one hospital is seldom more than a few weeks.

2. Whether patients on removal from one hospital to another are accompanied by medical history sheets.

3. Why educational training sheets should not similarly follow atients from one hospital to another, thereby ensuring continuity of training.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I ventured to put before your Lordships on March 19 the question of the technical instruction of soldiers in hospital. At that time the Under-Secretary of State for War said that there were considerable difficulties in regard to giving this training owing to the short time the men stayed in hospital. He said: "The stay of the average patient in any one hospital is, as a matter of fact, seldom more than a few weeks." I have put those words down in my first Question, as possibly my noble friend might wish to modify them. In any case

331
I think the House would desire to know why the stay in any one hospital is so short, because quite obviously it is bad for the patients. It is far better that people should stay under the same medical practitioner and not keep on changing from one to another, and I cannot see why patients in military hospitals should be placed under this disadvantage. Naturally they have to be brought back from France, and other battle areas, and then they are received into the bigger hospitals and distributed to the smaller ones. That necessarily does mean a certain amount of change; but these patients have to be taken from one hospital to another in motor-cars when their wounds are severe, and that is only inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering which every one would wish to avoid.
The disadvantage of changing from one doctor to another is mitigated to a considerable extent, because I believe the patients are always accompanied by a medical history sheet—that is, papers which describe the disability under which the man is suffering, the treatment which he has been given, his diet and so on in the hospital he has just left. The object, of course, is that the treatment should be continued on similar lines in the hospital to which he is sent. If that is possible in regard to medical treatment, I maintain that it is also possible in regard to educational training; in other words, what is sauce for the military goose is also sauce for the educational gander. I think that a training sheet should be given showing what subjects a man has taken, what progress he has made, and what proposals have been put forward for continuation of that training. That is all the more important when we realise what now happens to men as they leave the Army. A man gets his training in a military hospital; he is still receiving medical treatment, and he passes under the Ministry of Pensions where he can continue to have a certain amount of educational training, and eventually he passes under the Ministry of Labour. Your Lordships know very well when you pass from one great Government Department to another that you fail to get that continuity in training which is so essential to real progress and success. I therefore suggest that we should have some sort of educational sheet in the same way that we have a medical sheet showing what training a man has received. I hope that my noble friend will not give me at
332
any rate one answer, which is that my suggestion is receiving consideration. These are suggestions that I made a good many months ago, and as far as I know they have only been receiving consideration since. I believe that they were approved, but the fact remains that they have not, so far as I know, been put into operation. I therefore hope, unless more objection is found to them than was the case at the time they were originally made, that my noble friend will be able to carry them into effect.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, the first Question asked is in regard to the object of moving patients in military hospitals so constantly that the stay of the average patient in one hospital is seldom more than a few weeks. My noble friend suggested that I wished to modify the statement that I made a short time age. I have no desire to modify that statement. The statement was perfectly correct. As to the object of moving patients from one hospital to another there are a great variety of reasons for that, arising from the disposition of the hospitals themselves. First of all, as my noble friend probably knows, patients may be sent into hospitals of a general character, and afterwards, according to the particular ailment from which they may be suffering—neurasthenic or cardiac or some other ailment—they are drafted into special hospitals where they get the best treatment from the best specialists. It is obvious if you have patients scattered in small hospitals, or gathered together in some particular parts of the country in general hospitals, you cannot get in the nature of the case that particular treatment and care which you get if the patients are concentrated in certain hospitals where they obtain particular forms of treatment from specialists. That is one very general reason for the shifting of patients from one hospital to another
Another reason is that after they have been taken to hospitals it may be, and often is, to their advantage to be removed to hospitals as near to their homes as possible in order that their relatives may be able to visit them in comfort. A further reason is this. My noble friend is aware that the number of hospitals in this country is very large. Many of them are small, and many are scattered, and many of the buildings that have been taken for hospitals are urgently required for various purposes,

333
such as public service, education and so on. The number of patients, too, in hospital is constantly decreasing, and therefore there must always be a process of concentration going on—a leaving certain hospitals and a bringing together in others. Those I think are the main causes why the stay of patients in these hospitals is not as long as my noble friend would desire, and I think he will agree that there are very sound and strong reasons for these removals.
The second Question is whether patients on removal from one hospital to another are accompanied by medical history sheets. The answer is a simple one, that they are so accompanied. It is obvious that they must be so accompanied in order that their treatment may be carried on.
The third Question is why educational sheets should not similarly follow patients from one hospital to another, thereby ensuring continuity of training. My noble friend urged me not to give what he calls the stereotyped answer, that this matter is receiving consideration. I have no intention of giving such an answer, because there has long been an Army Order to the effect—I have the paper with me—that this continuity of training idea is to be carried out. In some cases no doubt it is a very difficult thing to carry out, but it has long passed the stage of consideration. What I want to make plain is this. You have to combine these two matters, the medical history sheet and the training history sheet. The medical, history sheet is the more important, because men are distributed into these different hospitals according to their ailments. It does not therefore follow that it is always possible in the hospital to which a man is transferred to give him precisely the same continuity of training from an educational point of view as he received in the hospital from which he came. Continuity of medical treatment does not of course present the same difficulties.
As your Lordships will see, it is a little difficult to combine the two things, but when a man is transferred to a hospital the object is that he should get as far as possible education in the particular subjects in which he is most interested, and he is given as wide a choice as possible. During March I understand that instruction has been actually received in eight-four different subjects, of which twenty-nine have been general or theoretical, and fifty-five occasional. Your Lordships will see that the
334
widest possible opportunity is given to those who are moved from one hospital to another to take up a considerable variety of subjects. I have a list of them here—I am not of course going to read them out because they are so numerous. They embrace a great variety of general and theoretic subjects, and also technical, commercial and agricultural subjects, as well as general educational subjects of a miscellaneous kind including cookery and matters of that kind. My answer to the third question therefore is that Orders were issued some time ago about these educational training sheets.
I also wish to qualify the estimate of value which my noble friend placed upon them, because the educational object is to give as wide as possible an opportunity to these men who are transferred to different hospitals, and it is not possible to carry on precisely the same kind of educational training owing to the necessity of removing men to different hospitals for special medical treatment. Owing to that a continuation of the same educational training is not always practicable. Everything must be generally subordinated in the first place to the medical treatment and the healing of the man's physical ailments or wounds.
LORD BURNHAM: My Lords, the answer of my noble friend prompts me to press him a little further in this matter. I know that he imparts all the information he has to the House, but I venture to think that the War Office has exercised an economy in posting him up in the case, which leads to the result that the knowledge that we have is neither very full nor very up-to-date. The matter is of the highest importance, because there has lately been a complete change made in the policy of training men in the hospital and after their discharge from the Service.
My noble friend below me (Earl Stanhope) in a previous debate pointed out that up to the date of the Armistice in November no training whatever had been given to men in hospital, for reasons which one need not explore further on this occasion. We refused to follow the example of New Zealand, which he quoted freely, and also of Canada, where there was an admirable combination of therapeutic treatment and vocational training given in hospitals, both on this side of the Atlantic and the other. At the same time, now a start has been

335
made, and no doubt in the hospitals there is at the present moment being given in a certain number of cases training both vocational and general which is important, but the moment that the man passes out of hospital, or rather goes outside the area of medical treatment, he now comes, as my noble friend says, under another Department of the Government, and is subject to another course of education. My noble friend says that these are now linked up in such a way as to secure continuity of educational training. He says that the education sheets are passed on. I can only tell him that, though it may be in art experimental stage, nothing whatever is known of this by those who have the charge and direction of training men after they come out of hospital and passed under the care of the joint pensions sub-committees. We had a conference in this part of the country the other day of the chairmen and vice-chairmen of those different committees, and they knew nothing whatever of the statement which has just been made by my noble friend.
As things now are, the man in hospital is under the Ministry of Pensions, both in respect to treatment and in respect to training. The moment that he is said to be quit of medical treatment he passes under the care of the Minister of Labour. But this is not a fixed time, and it is not even a fixed term. A man does not suddenly become quit of medical treatment; it may be true more often with those who have lost a limb, but in the case of neurasthenia and cognate troubles arising out of the war it is obvious that for months, nay for years, a man may still have to be under medical treatment, and at present no line of demarcation has been drawn which sets up a proper system of dealing with these cases.
I wish to point out that it is highly necessary for my noble friend to link up, as he can from the War Office, the treatment of the men who are still under medical treatment and dealt with by the joint pensions sub-committees who have been working partly under the Ministry of Pensions, partly under the Ministry of Labour, and the further education that they will receive when they pass entirely under the Ministry of Labour. If it is vocational training he will see that it is even more necessary. It is of no service to the community, it is of no profit to the service man, if he has received special train
336
ing in some trade while he has been under medical treatment and then is switched off to some other, or at any rate to a different, course of training when he is no longer supposed to need medical treatment.
The worst of it is that it is not only the efficiency of the training, it is the opportunity of earning a livelihood that is also in question. There ought to be a means of combined counsel between these different Departments of the State as to what sort of recommendation should be made to different classes of men in order that when they have acquired the training, become expert workers, they should have a reasonable chance of being able to follow the employment. I think your Lordships know that this is dependent to a great extent on agreements made with the trade unions of the country as to the number of men to whom they would issue tickets or cards of membership, and all sorts of other conditions. Unless there is some co-ordinating authority—which does not now exist—to combine and get the best out of the training of men in hospital and when discharged, there is bound to be not only great waste of money and effort but great hardships involved to the ex-service man.
My noble friend said he understood that this was arranged. Well, if it is so, it is a very strange thing that nothing is known of it, to the best of my knowledge, at the Ministry of Labour; it is a strange thing that no information has been imparted to the joint pension sub-committees throughout the country, who have recommended men for training as they have been passed to them and have come to agreements in respect to each case with the technical committees who are at work either in London or in other centres of population. I ask the noble Viscount therefore to go a little further. I know he has all the good will, but we also want him to do something to organise the system in such a way as to tend to the efficiency of the worker, and also, of course, to relieve the community which will otherwise be saddled with the upkeep of these men who come out of hospital with injuries received from the war, and unless they have special training, in the inevitable hardships and economic competition of the workshop, are likely to have a poor chance of earning a livelihood. This is not a subject of controversy, and I do not wish to urge it in a controversial spirit. I do it because, having acted as chairman

337
of these conferences, I know there is neither method nor system in the course that is at present adopted.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My noble friend Lord Burnham has been travelling on a rather wider subject than that dealt with in the Question. He spoke about discharged men. Of course, I am answering from the point of the War Office, and as soon as they are discharged my noble friend knows that they pass entirely outside the purview of the War Office. The points that my noble friend raises as to the question of these men dealt with by the Ministry of Labour is an extremely important one. What I would suggest to my noble friend, if he desires a full answer, is that he should put down a Question to the Ministry of Labour. I would certainly have dealt with the question, but I was speaking from the point of view of the War Office and from the point of view of the Question on the Paper.

NEURASTHENIA AND SHELL-SHOCK.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE rose to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War—

1. Whether idleness or occupational work is considered to have the better curative effect on patients in hospital suffering from neurasthenia and shell-shock.

2. How many officers and other ranks have been discharged from the Army owing to neurasthenia.

3. How many officers and other ranks are at present in military hospitals suffering from neurasthenia and shell-shock, and how many of them are receiving vocational training.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, since I put these Questions on the Paper I see that the medical profession have been holding meetings in regard to the subject, and they say that only ignorant politicians ever refer to shell-shock. I plead guilty to the indictment, because your Lordships will see the word on the Paper, but it is a word that is very well known throughout the Army, and refers to trouble which is caused to men who are driven out of their minds. There are two methods of dealing with neurasthenia and men suffering from nervous trouble. One is called the Vienna method, by which a man is made to think about and to dwell on the actual cause
338
which affected his mind. It is of course, obviously a very cruel method, and it is one which I understand is net now in favour with the majority of medical men.
The method far more generally accepted is that you should endeavour to occupy the man's mind, and the man's hands, and so on, in dealing with matters which interest him. It takes his mind off the war and off the experiences through which he has had to pass; and in many cases when that has been done by men with keenness and energy who are able to influence their patients, recovery has been quick and complete. I am sorry to say that in most military hospitals this policy has not been undertaken. It, I know, is difficult to do, and, as I said before, very largely it depends on the personality of whoever is in charge of the case. But I have no doubt in my own mind that where that policy is adopted, a very large proportion of patients recover as compared with patients where that policy is not put into effect. I have put on the paper a Question asking whether in the view of the. War Office idleness or occupational work is considered to be the better of the two. I think probably the reply will be that occupational work is considered the better. And then I ask to whom that is now being applied and how many have already been discharged from the Army without any knowledge of that system; and frankly I am prepared to say that in my view, which very likely will be disputed, many more men would recover from neurasthenia if the policy of giving them occupational work had been adopted very much sooner.
There is another point which is rather outside the scope of this Question, and of course I do not expect an answer from my noble friend, as it is not entirely in his department, but I am quite sure that he will be as interested in the matter as I am. It is this. When men are discharged from the Army for mental disabilities they are usually sent to the county lunatic asylums. They are supposed to be given different clothes, and to be given some money which they can spend as they like, but it is really intended to improve their diet and their feeding arrangements. I understand that in a good many cases the men have not received these clothes, and that in very few cases it is possible to give them a different diet from that of the pauper patients with whom they are arraigned; and what really happens is that men who have been in the

339
Army, who have suffered in the service of their country, are put into asylums with pauper lunatics. I am quite sure there is nobody either at the War Office or anywhere else who would approve that policy; and it may be that at the moment, owing to the numbers, it is impossible to do anything else. But if my noble friend will inquire into it from the point of view of the soldiers he will find, I am afraid, that there is a certain amount of foundation for the statement., and I am sure when he does find that out he will do his utmost to rectify it. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: My Lords, before the Under-Secretary replies may I intervene for a moment? I ask to be heard on one part of the Question put by my noble friend where he asks which is the better treatment, occupational work or idleness. Is it not rather a new position that this House is being put into by this question—that the Government should be asked to subscribe for patients, or that they should intervene perhaps where doctors may differ? It seems to me that that puts the Government in rather a difficult position. But let that pass.
Without any claims to being a medical man, I can answer the noble Earl's question with absolute certainty. I happen to have been responsible ever since the war began for six hospitals for officers suffering from neurasthenia. At these hospitals we have treated no fewer than 3,000 officers all suffering from acute and less acute forms of neurasthenia; and I cannot help thinking that the noble Earl who has asked this question has been misled seriously by information which has reached him, because there happen to be a great number of people who have constantly misrepresented—I do not know why—the treatment of neurasthenic patients. I say emphatically that there can be no answer given to this question as to which is the better treatment. There can be no general answer given to it, because you have to treat each man according to the complaint he is suffering from, and according to the degree of the complaint. It would be just as sensible to ask which is the better treatment for indigestion, starvation or a blue pill, as to suggest one form of treatment as being universal for these various forms of nerve disorder.
Neurasthenia covers an extraordinary
340
number of nerve disorders. There is a nerve disorder which conies from a bodily injury, where a man has been buried by a shell. There is a nerve disorder which comes from the actual concussion of high explosive shells. Then there are the very much more difficult cases of men losing nerve balance because of the strain of work carried on under different and varied conditions which they were not used to before. Then there are the nerve disorders which come from men constantly controlling and keeping down natural instinct, such as fear and other natural instincts which they had to keep down in the face of the enemy. All those are reasons for neurasthenia.
But—I do not know why—everybody seems to think they can cure neurasthenia. I am the victim of a number of letters from all sorts of people suggesting marvellous cures. One lady wrote to me to say that when she played upon her guitar it had a most soothing effect—would I try it? I said it had been tried by David without great success when he played before Saul. Another man wrote to me to say that neurasthenia was a gas that was escaping from people, and that he was a mechanician and could at once stop the escape of the gas by means of a machine which he had patented and he was prepared to sell it at a reasonable price; he could stop the leak. Another man had actually a colony started for allowing these men to go and live in the woods in a state of nature with no clothes on and enjoy baths in the morning dew. Actually a colony of people was started by people who otherwise were quite sane and sensible, and the only reason the colony was closed was that the Highland dogs bit the patients and so the colony came to an end.
As I say, everybody seems to think that they can cure neurasthenia. But, speaking quite generally, the treatment for neurasthenia combines both the suggestions of the noble Earl. The first treatment is absolute quiet and rest where the patient is kept entirely away even from his relatives. That is the time we get most abuse. We receive letters from relatives of all-sorts asking, "Why am I not allowed to see poor John, who is so ill? It would comfort him very much," and so on. Then after that treatment, when a man has recovered his balance a little more, we give him what is called a sort of modified activity on a very, very carefully thought

341
out plan, and a plan suited to each man's idiosyncrasies. But you cannot lay down a plan that would suit one man and say it would necessarily suit another.
Then the man is encouraged to associate with his fellow man, and there comes another time when we get into trouble because people who know all about it say that then he wants cheering companions and should associate with men who are quite well. On the contrary, if he were to do so he would be driven back to thinking how very much less well he was himself. Gradually he is taught to associate with other patients, and they talk about their improvements, and that does them good, and then they are induced and stimulated to take up occupations which they did before. If a man was an artist he is encouraged to draw, and we find that that is very much better for the patients than teaching them to knit stockings or other fancy occupations. We try to stimulate what was in the men before, and then they go to games, and so on, and I wish before I sit down to give some testimony to the extraordinary generosity of Sir Leicester Harms-worth and Miss Alexander, who gave up two most beautiful houses on Campden Hill and went away to live elsewhere. Those beautiful gardens are exactly suited for these! acidified activities. Then after that the patients have the advantage of going to the War Office and the Ministry of Labour and being sent to Oxford or Cambridge or other schools, where they can learn different employments.
In that way, my Lords, almost all these men have been cured. Really I have seen men, I do not like to say it, but they were hardly human, and almost all, and I think I might say all, have been cured. One can say it with pride and satisfaction and gratitude, because the very best neurologists in this country have given up the whole of their time with extraordinary devotion and single-mindedness to the study of this very difficult and complex disease. I do not know what answer the Under-Secretary of State for War is going to give, but I feel sure it would be misleading and mischievous if he were to say that any one treatment is better than another for a disease which has so many different causes and of which there are so many different forms.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, no one, I am sure, will criticise my noble friend Lord
342
Stanhope for using the term "shell-shock," because I think it is only in the last few days or weeks that the doctors have decided that it does not exist, and therefore he was probably using the ordinary term. I must, however, say one word about the speech which has just been made by the noble Viscount opposite, who speaks of course with great personal experience on these matters and whose contribution to the discussion was, I think, greatly interesting to the House. May I say also that it is rather pleasant for a member of the Government to have the unique and refreshing experience of a noble Lord rising in his place and actually defending the Government. It does not often happen in these days. I have only one criticism, if I may make it, of the statement of my noble friend, and that was that surely he did scant justice to David, because I understood that the effect of the playing of David was that the gloom was removed from the brow of Saul, and therefore his playing had a useful and refreshing effect.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: I understood he threw a javelin at David.
VISCOUNT PEEL: He missed him, and that was at the commencement of the treatment, I think. I cannot give myself so good an answer as was given to the first part of the Question by the noble Viscount. And may I say that I do take some exception to the phrase used by Lord Stanhope when he asks whether idleness or occupational work is considered to have the better curative effect. Surely idleness is rather a severe term to use. If a man is in sickness you do not say he is idle because he is not doing something. Idleness rather suggests a man who can get work and ought to work and is not working, and not a patient in a hospital. Of course I can only give a general answer—namely, that it must, depend entirely upon the particular case, and that it must be left entirely to the judgment of the doctors as to what, if any, form of occupation is good for the patient. It may well be that in the first stages in hospital a man may not be fit to do anything at all, and that rest may be the very best cure. Besides, as am sure Lord Knutsford would say, every case has to be most carefully studied, and therefore seine little time roust elapse before the doctors can make up their minds definitely what would be precisely the best

343
kind of occupation to lead a man back into health. Of course generally speaking no doubt when any kind of occupation can be taken up by the man he will be more likely to recover rapidly than if he is left doing nothing.
The second Question is how many officers and other ranks have been discharged from the Army owing to neurasthenia? I will give my noble friend the figures. The number of officers suffering from shell-shock is 295, from neurasthenia 212, and from miscellaneous nervous diseases 441. The figures for the men are not quite comparable, because they are not analysed in the same way. Men discharged from nervous diseases number 34,592. A third question was how many officers and other ranks are at present in military hospitals suffering from neurasthenia and shell-shock, and how many of them are receiving vocational training? I have had a telegram sent to the different hospitals to try to get the figures together, but up to date, I am sorry to say, I have not been able to obtain them, and therefore my noble friend will see that I am equally unable to answer the Question of how many are receiving vocational training, because I have not the numbers of those suffering at present in hospitals.

MILK AND CHEESE PRICES.
LORD HINDLIP: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government—(1) If any decision has been arrived at as to the price, wholesale and retail, for the sale of milk for the summer months, commencing on 1st May; (2) whether any decision has been arrived at as to the price of cheese, and if so, for what period and at what price.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I have a somewhat complicated statement to submit to your Lordships, and I will ensure that an adequate report is printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow morning. It is now possible to announce the summer prices (i.e., from May 1 to September 30) fixed for producers, wholesalers, and retailers of milk. These prices have been fixed after careful examination of the costs of production made by a travelling Commission which was specially appointed by the Food Controller for the purpose, and included representatives of the Central Agricultural Advisory Council,
344
the Consumers' Council, the Board of Agriculture, and the Costings Department of the Ministry of Food. The Commission has held twenty meetings, of which fourteen were in different parts of the country, and has received evidence, oral and documentary, from many reliable sources. Its recommendations have been approved by the Agricultural Costings Committee of the Ministry of Food.
The maximum prices per imperial gallon for sale by wholesale by or on behalf of the producer are as follows:—

May.

June.

July.

Aug.

Sept.

s. d.

s. d.

s. d.

s. d.

s. d.

England and Wales, except the counties of Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, and Dorset, and a certain part of the West Riding of Yorkshire

1 4

1 3

1 6

1 8

1 10

Scotland

1 6

1 4

1 4

1 7

1 10

These prices are for cooled milk despatched twice daily by the producer.
LORD HINDLIP: May I interrupt the noble Earl on that point? Suppose it is impossible to despatch it twice a day, as it is in most parts of England?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The next sentence will relieve the anxiety of my noble friend. The railway charges, if any, between seller and buyer are to be borne by the buyer. For milk delivered once daily there is a reduction of ½d.; and for milk collected by the buyer at the producer's premises there is a reduction of 1d. So much for the prices on behalf of the producer. Wholesale dealers other than producers are allowed a maximum margin of 2d. per gallon over the producer's price for milk delivered to the buyer's railway station; and over the five months an average maximum margin of 5d. for milk delivered to the buyer's premises. Where milk is delivered by the producer to or for the account of the buyer in accordance with the directions of the seller, the maximum price is ½d. higher than the price chargeable to the seller by the producer. It may be added that these margins are fixed on the basis of the wholesaler finding churns.
The maximum producer's prices as specified for England and Wales are reduced by 2d. in the counties of Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, and Dorset. In the West Riding of Yorkshire (exclusive of certain food control committee districts) arrangements

345
will be made so that producers and distributors will receive an increase of 2d. per gallon. The general maximum retail price is as follows—

May.

June.

July.

Aug.

Sept.

s. d.

s. d.

s. d.

s. d.

s. d.

England and Wales

2 4

2 4

2 8

2 8

3 0

Scotland

2 8

2 4

2 4

2 8

3 0

Local maximum retail prices will be fixed in each Food Control Committee district or group of districts, according to local conditions of distribution, by or on behalf of the Food Controller. The general retail price in England and Wales is therefore 7d. a quart in May and June, rising to 8d. a quart in July and August, and becoming 9d. a quart by the end of September. As regards cheese, a reduction of 2d. a lb. to 1s. 6d. was made on March 9. The whole question of de-control is now under review, but the question depends to some extent on the quantity of foreign imports which will be available. Until the date of decontrol, maximum prices to the producer will be fixed on a parity with the milk prices.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE.
Order of the Day read for resuming the debate on the following Report from the Select Committee appointed to consider proposals for an improvement, in the Procedure of the House—
ORDERED TO REPORT,

1. That on Wednesdays, on which day there is no judicial sitting, the House shall sit, at 3.45 p.m., when prayers will be read and private business taken, and that public business shall commence at 4 p.m.

2. That the same rule shall apply to all days, and not Wednesdays alone, after the judicial sittings of the House have terminated in the latter part of the session.

3. That the introduction of Peers, and private business, shall, as far as is practicable, be taken on Wednesdays, in order to enable public business to commence as early as possible on the remaining days of the week. That publicity he given in the Orders of the Day to the intention of a Peer to take his seat in the above circumstances, with a view to the general convenience.

4. That on every day other than Wednesday (subject to the condition
346
named in 2) the House shall meet as now at 4.15, but that, in the event of there being no private business, public business shall commence at that hour.

5. That, in the event of a Debate being adjourned until a subsequent day, it is desirable, as a general rule, that, the adjournment shall not be moved until 8 p.m.

6. That, in the event of a Debate being adjourned over dinner, an interval of 1¼ hours shall be allowed for the purpose.

7. That it shall be in the power of any Peer who asks a question for the purpose of information only, and not with a view to making a speech or to raising a debate, to indicate his intention by prefixing an asterisk to his question when he hands it in to the Clerk at the Table. Such action on his part will not deprive the House of any of its existing privileges, but will be for the general convenience in the arrangement of business.

8. That the House be invited to exercise a stricter vigilance in the enforcement of its own Standing Orders, notably Standing Order No. XXVII, which prohibits any Lord from speaking twice to any question or proposition except the mover of a Motion in reply, unless it be to explain himself in some material point of his former speech (no new matter being introduced), and then only after first obtaining the leave of the House.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, it may be that some of your. Lordships will expect me to say a few words on this subject, inasmuch as I was a member of the Committee whose Report is now before you, and as a speech that I made in your Lordships' House a little while ago was in part the origin of the proposals that have now been submitted. I must apologise for not having been present when the Report of the Committee came before this House less than a week ago. A good deal of my afternoon had been spent in hurried rushes from the Foreign Office to your Lordships' House, and on the last occasion I only arrived in time to meet my fellow Peers leaving the Chamber.
The proposals of the Committee were explained and defended on that occasion by more than one noble Lord who served on the Committee—notably, Lord Lans

347
downe and the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition. They found a critic, a somewhat severe critic, in Lord Balfour of Burleigh. Anticipating that that noble Lord, who has great experience and authority in this House, might be a formidable opponent, I had endeavoured to secure his presence on the Committee in the first place, and it was a matter of great regret to me that he was unable to serve. I read his criticism with the weight that must attach to anything that comes from him, and really it amounted to little more than this—that he found fault with our proposals because they are so small. I wonder what the noble Lord would have said had the proposals been large. I can conceive that his attack would have been much more vehement. The proposals are small, and the Committee did not feel justified in submitting anything on a more extensive scale to the House at the present moment, because they know how extremely sensitive this House is of the privileges it enjoys, and with what suspicion it regards any diminution of its prerogatives.
In consequence of Lord Balfour's intervention, the discussion was adjourned to a later date, at which I might be present, and I should not have taken the adjourned discussion this afternoon had Lord Balfour desired a further postponement. I placed myself in communication with him this morning and offered to resume the discussion, if he desired to be present, after Easter, but he said—and there I agree with him—that he thought it would be to the general advantage and convenience that the matter should be settled one way or the other to-day. It is in these circumstances, my Lords, that I am addressing you now.
I said that the changes which are proposed are inconsiderable, but they are, I think, not altogether without value. In any ease they were as far as the members of the Committee were prepared unanimously to go. There is, first, the question of the gaining of time. It is true that we do not gain very much. On Wednesdays and on certain other days later in the session when the House is not sitting for judicial business we shall gain half an hour, and on other days we shall gain, in all probability, about a quarter of an hour. That is not much but it is something, and I anticipate that if we are a little more strict and regular about the hours of our adjournment we may possibly gain something at the other
348
end, too. Lord Balfour of Burleigh, criticising the inadequacy of these proposals, said, "Why do you not meet on four days in the week, instead of trying to add a quarter of an hour here and half an hour there?" The objection to meeting four days in the week has never sprung from me. I am quite prepared, if ever your Lordships desire it, to sit four days in the week. But what happens? I know it through the ordinary channels of communication. If ever I propose to have a sitting on a Friday I am told that is inconvenient to noble Lords because they are in the habit of leaving London on that day. If, on the other hand, I propose that the House should meet on a Monday I am told it is equally inconvenient to them because they have not yet succeeded in getting back. Therefore it is a little difficult to meet both strains of criticism. As a matter of fact we do meet on four days in the week whenever a general desire is expressed in that sense, and I am rather inclined to think that what we want is not so much an additional day in the week on which to meet (because it is in our power to take it) as a better adjustment and economy of the time on the days when we are sitting. That is the object we have in view in these proposals.
The second proposal is that of Questions to which it is suggested an asterisk should be prefixed. The question was put, I think by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, as to what will be the good of this new category of Questions? I think the good, the advantage, of them, not perhaps great but still sufficient to justify an experiment being made, is this. In the first place, in the case of the putter of the Question, with whom the initiative and the responsibility rest, it is an indication on his part that it is his desire to put the Question for the purposes of information only, usually on matters of fact, and that he does not contemplate occupying any large portion of the time of your Lordships' House. Secondly, it will be a decided convenience to members of the Government Bench, because they will have the corresponding indication that in so far as the putter of the Question is concerned he does not mean to embark upon an extended discussion. Thirdly, it will be a convenience to the House, because members looking at the Order Paper—instead of the complete inability which now exists to know when matters are coming on, how long they are likely to take, and when the individual Question in which they are

349
interested will be reached—will have this amount of guidance, that so far as the Question is concerned to which an asterisk is prefixed there is the reasonable presumption that it will not take much time. No one is injured by this. The House at large, and individuals in the House, will be benefited. When I say that no one is injured. I should add that it is quite clear in these circumstances that every member of the House will retain the full amount of liberty he now enjoys.
Let me suppose that a Question with an asterisk is put in a sentence, and that it is replied to in a sentence. Nobody in this House, least of all the Leader of the House, can prevent any noble Lord putting a supplementary Question, or even, if he chooses, raising a discussion. He must be the judge of that; the House must be the judge of that. The advantage will be that there will be the general indication—and I hope a general understanding on the part of the House—that Questions so introduced shall not be made the subject of prolonged debate.
Upon the subject of these Questions, Viscount Midleton made au alternative suggestion. He said, Why do you not adopt the House of Commons practice and have Starred Questions, which are Questions not put orally and following upon which nothing is admitted except the reply. I should not myself be at all averse from that suggestion. The reason it was not recommended by the Committee is this. It is no good having Questions of that sort unless you are able to group them together and put them at the beginning or end of the proceedings, as they do in another place. Why cannot you do that Because under the Standing Orders it is not possible. Questions have to be taken in this House in the order in which they appear on the Paper, and the Committee did not think it worth while to come to your Lordships' House with any proposal for an alteration of the Standing Orders for such an object as that.
The second reason for not proposing it is this. With Questions in another place, if any attempt is made to deviate from the general understanding the Speaker rises in the Chair and has full authority to correct and rebuke the transgressors. Here, my Lords, as I once before remarked, no similar authority is vested in any individual in your Lordships' House, not even
350
in the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack; and even if you hail Starred Questions at the beginning there is nothing whatever to prevent—because there is no authority which exists—noble Lords continuing to exercise their present rights. That was the reason why we were unable to follow the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Midleton.
All I would say in conclusion is this. I suggest that it is worth while to try this modest experiment. It can do no harm to anybody; it may conceivably, be of some advantage. I believe myself that it will, and, apart from the very moderate changes in our procedure which are suggested, I think the advantage of this Report is that it will call the attention of the House in a definite and formal way to its own Standing Orders. The real fault of our procedure here is our steady and studied reluctance to obey our own Standing Orders. It is with a view of enforcing a more consistent deference to them that Standing Order No. XXVII has been definitely alluded to in this Report. It may be that at a later date we may be called upon by the House to consider more extensive changes. These, I think, may do some good, and it rests with your Lordships' House more than with any individual Peer, to see what use can be made of them, and what advantage can be derived therefrom.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, no one can complain of the action of my noble friend, who had a statement to make on the Report of this Committee, which he did so much to call into being, that he has selected this afternoon to make that statement, to which we have listened with great interest. I think, perhaps, it would have been more useful if his statement had been made on an afternoon when it was likely that a great many of your Lordships would be in attendance. My noble friend has explained, and his explanation I am sure satisfied all of us, that upon the last occasion when this matter was under discussion he was not able to be present. He is a man of many engagements; and we quite understand. But the result has been that the debate has been broken up. The statements of Lord Balfour of Burleigh and Viscount Midleton were made in the absence of the Leader of the House, while the speech of the Leader of the House has been made in the absence of Lord Balfour of Burleigh and the noble Viscount.

351
I do not know whether there is very much to be said on this Report. It is not a very important document. I agree with it as far as it goes, but personally I regret that it does not go a good deal further, and especially in regard to the time of the House. My noble friend has referred to the difficulties in persuading the House to sit on Fridays and Mondays. May I suggest to him that the difficulty principally arises because that is not a fixed engagement of your Lordships. If after everybody has made their arrangements to do their business in the country on Fridays, or to do their business in the country on Mondays, there is ordered a sitting of your Lordships' House on those days, it does amount to a very great inconvenience. I do not think that your Lordships are open to the charge that you are always anxious to be away from London at the week-ends in the pursuit of pleasure. Most of us are away from London at the week-ends in order to do a great deal of business which awaits us in the country. Everybody who knows anything about the subject knows that most of your Lordships are very busy men indeed, and if we have made arrangements to visit our estates, or to see our agents, or to do our county business on the Friday or on the Monday, and suddenly there is a meeting of your Lordships' House on either of those days, there is, as I say, a great inconvenience. The same inconvenience would not arise if it were a fixed arrangement, and if one of those days were habitually set aside for debates in your Lordships' House. That used to be the case, not on Fridays but on Mondays. Up till quite recently Monday was a regular day of meeting in this House.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: So was Friday, but not Wednesday.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My noble friend corrects me. The arrangement was that the House sat on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday. Wednesday was a day off. When the House of Commons changed to a Wednesday sitting your Lordships shortly afterwards followed suit, and made Friday occupy the place which Wednesday had formerly occupied, so that we sat on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, and there was no sitting on Friday. But we always sat on Monday, and I venture to think, looking at the programme of business which awaits your Lordships this session, that we shall
352
have to meet upon Mondays. I think, therefore, that it would be worth while that the noble Earl should consider whether we should not, if not after Easter, at any rate after Whitsuntide, have a sitting on Mondays. I think that we will have some difficulty in getting through the work before us unless some such change is made.
As regards the other suggestions, I am afraid that I am rather disappointed at our only having, after these great efforts, obtained a quarter of an hour more for the ordinary days of sitting. It was hardly worth while making so much to do in order to gain a quarter of an hour more time. The difficulty of course, as the noble Earl knows very well, is to fit in our sitting with the judicial sittings of your Lordships' House. That is a difficulty; but I think it ought not to have been one, if I may venture to say so in the presence of noble and learned Lords. I am not sure that there are any noble and learned Lords present, and if not I must say it in their absence. I think that it is a difficulty which ought to have been got over in a session of very great legislative occupation. In such a session surely there ought to have been a possibility for the House of Lords to meet as early as 4 o'clock. Formerly the judicial sittings used to begin a little earlier than they do now, but not so long ago the noble and learned Lords, for whom we entertain great respect, found that it was not convenient to start quite so early in the morning, and no doubt that makes it additionally difficult that they should adjourn a quarter of an hour earlier in the afternoon. I do not know whether it would be disrespectful if I were to suggest that noble and learned Lords might revert to the older practice without an undue strain, so that then one branch of the Legislature of the United Kingdom might be allowed to meet as early as 4 o'clock. That does not seem to me to be at all an exaggerated claim. I do not suggest that we should do so now. The noble Earl's Committee goes as far as we could persuade noble and learned Lords to go for the moment, and I do not know that there is any advantage in pressing the matter further at the present time. But I do not despair. I am convinced, as people come to consider it, that they will realise that we ought to sit at 4 o'clock as a fixed arrangement. That is much more satisfactory than to sit at a quarter past four. The quarter of an hour's gain, on Wednesday I think it is, is a very doubtful concession, because the

353
very uncertainty of the particular time when you sit—that is to say, not having the same fixed time for each day—will, I am afraid, militate against a full attendance of noble Lords.
As regards Starred Questions, there again I am in agreement with the noble Earl the Leader of the House. I think it is worth while trying the experiment, but I am quite sure that it will only succeed if it is carried out in the spirit which the noble Earl suggested—namely, that not only the noble. Lord who puts the Question should not make a speech, but that the Minister who replies to it should not make a regular speech, but should do no more than answer the Question, and that other noble Lords if they wish to put. supplementary questions should act with similar self-restraint. They should be questions and not speeches. Of course, that is a matter for noble Lords, who can do exactly as they like. Indeed, it would be impertinent to suggest that they should take any other course than they think it is their duty to take, but unless they adopt the line indicated the only effect of the arrangement will be that the noble Lord who knows most about the subject will be the only noble Lord who is not to make a speech. That would be so ridiculous that the thing would break down.
May I say, in conclusion, that I listened with humility to my noble friend's criticisms of the conduct of business in your Lordships' House. No doubt, we are not perfect, but I think that on the whole we do our business admirably. I do not believe that my noble friend differs materially from me on this point, but it would be a mistake if it were thought outside that your Lordships were dissatisfied with the conduct of our business. On the whole we have an extremely business-like method of carrying out the legislative functions which are entrusted to us. Personally I agree that sometimes the Standing Order about relevance might be more closely attended to, and also the Standing Order which prescribes that no noble Lord is to speak more than once to a particular question; but on the whole, considering the great mass of business that has to be done, and considering the immense complexity of it, I believe that every one will concede that the deliberations and decisions of your Lordships' House are on the whole very satisfactory, and it would be a pity if any
354
one saw that so great an authority as my noble friend the Leader of t he House thought otherwise.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I had no idea what views the noble Marquess behind me was going to express on some of these matters. I simply rise to say that on one point I hope that the noble Earl opposite will consider what has fallen from the noble Marquess—namely, regarding the propriety, and I think the great advantage, of returning somewhat later in the session to the custom of sitting four days a week. The habit of three days a week is a recent one. The noble Marquess explained the practice in the past with perfect accuracy. He did not add, what of course is the case, that the unwillingness to sit on Friday and the lesser unwillingness to sit on Monday have arisen from the quite modern custom of leaving London for the end of the week. In the old days nobody thought of going out of London for Sunday except by a rare chance. Therefore it was inure convenient to take the interval of rest in the middle of the week, on Wednesday. But even now, if people find -it necessary for one reason or another to go away from London on Friday, unless they go to quite the remote parts of the kingdom, it surely ought to be possible for them to reach London by 4 o'clock on Monday, supposing they desire to attend your Lordships' House.
And therefore I hope that when business becomes urgent later in the year the noble Earl who leads us will consider whether it is not desirable to make Monday a regular sitting day. I am in particular agreement with what the noble Marquess said, that it is the uncertainty of not knowing what the sitting days are which is infinitely more inconvenient to noble Lords than the regular addition of the fourth clay. It often happens late in the year that we are suddenly told that we have to sit on a Friday—sometimes even, in matters of extreme moment and urgency, on a Saturday—although fortunately that is rare—but very often on a Monday. I think, if the noble Earl would agree to make Monday a sitting day at some later stage of the session, he will find it is of general service to the House, and also that it will not be found to add unduly to the burden which is placed on the Front, Bench opposite.
On the general question, I am glad that these minor changes are about to be made.

355
With regard to what fell from the noble Marquess on the subject of Starred Questions, I do not hope for a great deal from them, but they may have a certain effect of bringing about a state of things which will make the asking of Questions in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Hindlip, asked his Question to-night tolerably frequent. It certainly would be a convenience to Ministers to know that a Question can be simply put and simply answered. But it is also quite true that, in training the replies to Questions of that sort, it will be necessary for noble Lords opposite to stick closely to business, and not introduce matters of argument into the replies which they make. There will otherwise be a risk that a debate may be started which will run away with those who take part in it. But on the whole I think-the proposal is decidedly a sound one, and it is quite possible that a habit may grow up of treating these Questions precisely in the way that they ought to be treated.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: It is only by leave of the House that I can reply to the question put to me. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, pointedly urged your Lordships to be more scrupulous in your deference to Standing Order No. XXVII, which limits the right of speech to a single occasion. I was greatly shocked after that appeal to find that the first transgressor was the noble Marquess who sits next to him, because the noble Marquess is sufficiently, a master of our procedure to know that he exhausted his right of speech on the first stage of this debate last week.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: No. The same point had occurred to me, but I remembered that I then spoke on the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I consulted the authorities at the Table, and I may have been mistaken, but I was under that impression; and I confess I noticed with keen satisfaction that a partner in the many transgressions that I have committed was the noble Marquess himself. However that may be, the question he put was whether later on in the session it might not be desirable to have Monday sittings. I think very likely that will be the case, and my recollection of the important Bills
356
that we have had up during the last two years—the Reform Bill, the Land Bill, and the Corn Production Bill—is that on those occasions we almost always have had Monday sittings. With the pressure of business that is likely to conic before us particularly in the case of very important Bills, I expect that will become our procedure. Anyhow, the suggestion is one which I shall carefully bear in mind.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: My Lords, as no noble Lord has risen from the back benches, perhaps I may be allowed to offer one or two observations; because the noble Earl, in inviting me to join this Select Committee—I am giving away no confidence in saying this—invited an expression of opinion from the back benches. I disclaim any right to speak for the back benches, and I will only speak for myself. I expect that, having been a member of this Committee, I may be taken by the House to have given a general assent to its recommendations. These recommendations fall into two parts. With regard to the time which it is proposed to give at the beginning of each session, there really does not seem to be a very great deal in it, but I hope that it may be useful, and I believe that a great many Peers would sooner have twenty minutes tacked on to the beginning of the proceedings than twenty minutes added to the end. Because for some reason or other, having had certain experience of whipping in this House, there seems to be in all arrangements outside—the nature of which I will not attempt to specify—a disposition on the part of some noble Lords to leave the House about twenty-five minutes past six. The next batch appears rather anxious to leave about twenty-five minutes or half-past seven. Those who wish to get away at the comparatively early hour of half-past six we need not take into account. But perhaps the views of several noble Lords would be met if they could gain that coveted quarter of an hour between half-past seven and a quarter to eight. I do not suppose that what I am saying will be reported, so it really does not matter talking confidentially about these things.
There is one point about the recommendations of this Committee which is important, and it is particularly important because the noble Earl who leads the House added a suggestion at the end which might be interpreted into saying that this was only the thin end of the wedge. The noble

357
Earl, I understood, said that the idea of the Starred Question should be tried as an experiment, and that at some future time, if it is very successful, we might possibly still further consider the alteration of our procedure with regard to Questions.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: No; my observation was not made with a limitation to that part of the subject. I was explaining that these proposals were in their general compass very small and inconsiderable. I was saying that the House might conceivably be dissatisfied with them, and the House might itself decide at a later stage—as indeed the noble Marquess suggested—to proceed on larger lines.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: I quite understand the noble Earl. Although this proposal with regard to Starred Questions is apparently innocuous, it no doubt does alter—a self-imposed limitation, I admit,—the freedom which we have always had. I put it to the noble Earl—and this I say with the deepest conviction—that the One great advantage of the House of Lords, both inside as we know it and outside as the general public know it, is that, it is as unlike the House of Commons as it can possibly be. I say it is different, not better or worse although I may have my own views about that. The noble Earl appears to have suggested that the matter of Starred Questions should go further, but I for one sincerely hope it will do nothing of the kind, because in the House of Lords we have a power of doing what everybody has been always trying to do in the House of Commons ever since that House was started, and that is to ask a Question and make a speech about it at the same time. We have nobody here to prevent us from doing that; it is our most cherished privilege; and for my part I will be no party to surrendering that privilege in any one degree. That is why I look upon this new procedure which we are apparently about to adopt, and which I probably will agree to, with a certain amount of misgiving. The defence to it is that after all "it is only a little one." It is sincerely to be hoped that it will not be carried any further. It is doubtful if the general public outside really take a careful and intimate and affectionate view of our actual procedure in here. But what the public outside do know about the House of Lords is that it is the one place in the kingdom
358
where we have absolutely free speech, and where one can say what one likes without I being called to order. That is a privilege which has never been abused in this House, I and I hope we shall not be led from one step to another to impose limitations which will do away with the whole spirit and character of the debates of this House.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not rise to take any part in this debate, for which the recency of my arrival among your Lordships would disqualify me; but I rise because of an observation made by the noble Marquess. I had been summoned from the House, but the noble Marquess's observation has been supplied to me. I understand that the noble Marquess suggested that the Law Lords might at least have usefully considered whether they could not revert to an older practice under which they began their daily sittings at an earlier hour. I hope that before the noble Marquess makes that proposal in a definite form he will discuss the matter with me and some of my colleagues, because I think we could satisfy him that it would not be a very reasonable request to address to them. There never was a time, I think, in the history of our Courts when so many complex and difficult problems are arising in litigation which require decision in this House. The events of the war themselves are so wholly without precedent, and the adoption in the course of the war of a temporary legal code has raised a hundred questions in respect of which no authority or precedents exist, that decisions of the Final Court are almost monthly invoked. Those circumstances alone have added a burden to the labours which the Law Lords have had to sustain. I hope it will not be supposed that I should not be willing to support any effort which my physical strength enables me to, but your Lordships will readily appreciate that if I began sitting as a Judge at half-past nine and worked till 3 o'clock in labours which demand every particle of ability and attention which one possesses, and then were to address myself, as is and would be my duty, to extended sittings upon the Woolsack, I should be sitting here with only an interval of an hour and a-half from half-past nine, it may be, until 8 o'clock and in some cases until later, which would entail great physical strain, and I am sure your Lordships would wish to consider that difficulty before coming to any such conclusion.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I certainly should not venture to make any proposals to your Lordships on this subject without availing myself of the honour of the consultation which my noble and learned friend has been good enough to suggest.
On Question, Report of Select Committee adopted.

GOVERNMENT WORKS AT SLOUGH.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY rose to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, pending the sittings of the Select Committee to inquire into Government Works at Cippenham, the Government will restrict by all possible means the expenditure on these works; and whether it is the intention of the Government to retain the whole of the motor accessories and parts, valued at £15,000,000, with a view to their being used on Government vehicles when these works are completed.
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, in putting this Question I do not want to make a speech. I want merely to explain the words in the Question "restrict by all possible means the expenditure on these works." I do not suggest that the Government should adopt what would be in effect a very extravagant course—namely, to waste money by stopping works in progress which, if carried out at all, ought to be carried out forthwith. But I suggest that they ought not to prejudge the issue of the Select Committee and spend money when it may be found that the money ought not to be spent.
LORD RATHCREEDAN: My Lords, I think I shall be able to satisfy the noble Marquess in the answer which I shall give. The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. No fresh expenditure is being incurred. As regards the second part, in regard to the motor accessories and parts valued at £15,000,000, only about one-half are in this country, and such as are surplus to the Government's requirements are being disposed of, through the Disposals Board, to the trade.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the noble Lord who has replied to the question whether the Government will restrict by all possible means the expenditure on these works, has told us that no fresh expenditure is being incurred. That
360
does not seem to be a precise answer to the question which the noble Marquess put.
LORD RATHCREEDAN: I began by stating that the reply to the first part of the Question was in the affirmative.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Then I understand.

LOCAL ELECTIONS (EXPENSES) BILL.
Message from the Commons, That they agree to the Amendments made by the Lords to the Local Election (Expenses) Bill without amendment.
NAVAL, MILITARY, AND AIR FORCE SERVICE BILL.
Message from the Commons, That they disagree with the Amendments made by the Lords to the Naval, Military, and Air Force Service Bill, for which disagreement they will assign reasons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I understand that it will be of convenience to your Lordships to meet rather earlier to-morrow. I therefore propose that we meet at half-past three.
[From Minutes of April 14.]

EAST HAM CORPORATION.
Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the Borough of East Ham under their Corporate Seal praying for leave to bring in a Bill to alter the wards of the Borough of East Ham, to increase the number of Aldermen and Councillors of the borough, to increase the number of guardians representing the parish of East Ham on the West Ham Poor Law Union, and for other purposes; together with a copy of the said Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.

DOVER GAS.
Petition of the Dover Gas Company under their Common Seal praying for leave to bring in a Bill for conferring further capital and other powers on the Dover Gas Company; together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at a quarter past six o'clock.