Sitting of 18 November 1914

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Pack-Beresford Divorce Bill [Lords] (Suspended Bill).
Read a second time, and committed.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 211 and 236 be suspended, and that the Committee on the Bill have leave to sit and proceed forthwith.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

WAR IN EUROPE.

  PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES.
  Mr. LOGAN: I desire to present a Petition signed by over 125,000 persons of all shades of political and religious opinions in various parts of the country. It has been collected in the past ten days by a committee formed for that purpose. The humble prayer is: "That this House will be graciously pleased to grant just and generous pensions and allowances to all our soldiers and sailors disabled in this Wear, also to the widows and other dependants of those who fall in the War." I feel that it is not necessary for me to commend this Petition to the consideration of the House. The whole community demands this simple act of justice at our hands.
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is some difficulty about this Petition, because pensions and allowances can only be granted if the Crown proposes them to the House. I will call upon the hon. Member to present it but he must take the risk of the Public Petitions Committee reporting that it is not in order. Will the hon. Member please bring the same to the Table.

  SHOPS ACT, 1912.
  Copies presented of Orders made under the Act by the undermentioned local
  402
  authorities and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—
  The Council of the county of Lancaster (urban districts of Prescot and Huyton-with-Roby and township of Rainhill);
  The Council of the city of York;
  The Councils of the boroughs of Carmarthen, Dover, and Morecambe;
  [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
  Copy presented of Return of Proceedings of the Irish Land Commission under the Land Law Acts, the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, and the Land Purchase Acts, during the month of April 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAY ACTS, 1898 AND 1912.
  Copy presented of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, entitled The York Corporation Light Railways (Extensions) Order, 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACTS, 1877 AND 1907.
  Copies presented of Orders declaring certain areas to be infected with Wart Disease and an Infected Area for the purposes of the Wart Disease of Potatoes (Infected Areas) Order of 1914 (D.I.P., Nos. 126 and 128) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  FINANCIAL STATEMENT (1914–15), RATES OF INCOME AND SUPERTAX.
  Copy ordered "of Statements showing the amount of Tax payable on certain Incomes, and the virtual Rate charged in the £, under The Finance Act, 1914, and under the proposals made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 17th November, 1914."—[Mr. Montagu.]
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 46.]

  DIVORCE BILLS.
  Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to communicate to this House copies of the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings, together with Documents deposited, in the case of Pack-Beresford Divorce Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee on Divorce Bills that they do hear Counsel and examine Witnesses for Pack-Beresford Divorce Bill [Lords], and also that they do hear Counsel and examine Witnesses against the Bill if the parties concerned think fit to be heard by Counsel and produce Witnesses.—[The Lord Advocate.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR IN EUROPE.

    FRENCH PORTS (BRITISH SHIPPING DELAYED).
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if his attention has been called to the delay and loss to British shipping entering French ports, loaded with cargo, owing to the insufficient accommodation; is he aware that in some cases
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): There has been delay because there is congestion at the ports, but in the present exceptional circumstances some congestion and delay is unavoidable, and the French Government have shown a readiness to do all in their power to mitigate the inconvenience.

    BRITISH SUBJECTS (RETURNED FROM GERMANY).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if he can now say how many British subjects who were in Germany at the outbreak of hostilities have returned home?
    Mr. ACLAND: The Foreign Office has record of about 2,000 British subjects who have returned from Germany since the beginning of the War. This is not exhaustive, as no doubt some persons have returned about whom no inquiries were made at the Foreign Office; and many persons on whose behalf the Foreign Office took considerable trouble have not notified the office on their safe return.
    Mr. EUGENE WASON: Can the hon. Gentleman state the number who have returned from Austria?
    Mr. ACLAND: I cannot for the moment. As far as my memory goes it is something like 1,200.

    ALCOHOLIC DRINK (RUSSIA).
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there has been any correspondence between His Majesty's Government and the Russian Government with reference to the action of the latter in not only stopping the sale of vodka but also prohibiting the sale of alcoholic drinks of any kind wherever Russian martial law prevails; and, if so, what was the nature of that correspondence, and whether he will lay Papers?
    Mr. ACLAND: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the remainder, therefore, does not arise.

    RETIRED INDIAN ARMY OFFICERS (INTERPRETERS).
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether retired Indian Army officers who are acting as interpreters to the Indian Expeditionary Force are entitled to the pay and allowances of their rank in the Indian Army; and, if not, will he state the reason for such pay not being granted?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. C. Roberts): Retired officers of the Indian Army employed by

    405
    the War Office as interpreters continue to draw their Indian pensions, and in addition receive the pay and allowances of the appointment. This is in accordance with the terms of re-employment laid down in Article 496 of the Royal Warrant, from which there, appears no reason to depart.

    GERMAN AND AUSTRIAN BANKS.
    Sir CLIFFORD CORYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the licences of the Home Secretary, dated the 19th September, 1914, give Sir William Plender power to make any assets, including cash balances, of the customers of German and Austrian banks available for paying debts due to British creditors of such customers as far as may be practicable; and, if not, whether Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer will extend the powers of such licences so as to enable Sir William Plender to make such arrangements?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): The result of the operations of the banks under the licences is to realise assets which become available for meeting their liabilities to their depositors who are thus placed in a position to meet their liabilities to their creditors. It would not be desirable or practicable to empower the official supervisor to interfere between depositors and their creditors except to the extent of preventing payments to, or to the order of, depositors which may appear to be contrary to national interests. The supervisor has full powers to prohibit such payments under the existing licences.
    Sir C. CORY: By the supervisor or controller releasing the assets of customers of German banks, is he not doing English creditors of those German banks out of getting payment?
    Mr. MONTAGU: It only allows them to meet their liabilities to their customers when such liabilities do not appear to be contrary to the interests of English creditors.
    Sir C. CORY: Is it not a fact that the subjects of neutral Powers are claiming the right of having these assets transferred to them, and, therefore, are doing English creditors out of payment?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I would ask my hon. Friend to give notice of that question.

    ROYAL NAVY (LOSSES).
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is able to state the total losses in the Royal Navy since the commencement of the War, giving, if possible, particulars of killed, wounded, and missing, respectively?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): The figures asked for are as follows:—

    Officers.

    Killed

    222

    Wounded (of whom 14 are severely wounded)

    37

    Missing

    5

    Total

    264

    The figures for men do not include those missing from the Royal Naval Division or the ship's company of His Majesty's ship "Good Hope," the lists in these cases not having been yet completed. As regards the Royal Naval Division the approximate number missing is 1,000. As regards the "Good Hope" the number of men on board was approximately 875. These figures do not include, of course, the officers and men of the Royal Naval Division interned in Holland.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the numbers of those killed and wounded in the Royal Naval Division?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: They have been published, I think, as far as we know them. Of course, there may be some among the missing who are killed.

    ROYAL NAVAL DIVISION (OILSKINS).
    Mr. HOGGEasked why sailors at the Crystal Palace have to buy their own oilskins, collars, and silkies?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Oilskins are not part of a sailor's compulsory kit. All ships and naval establishments, including the Royal Naval Division Depot at the Crystal Palace, are allowed a certain number of oilskin suits or long waterproof coats for the use of those on exposed duty, and the men may purchase waterproof coats for

    407
    their personal use from Government stocks. Blue jean collars and black silk handkerchiefs are not part of the kit laid down for the recruits, Royal Naval Division.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make oilskins part of the kit, or, failing that, will he see that all the men are supplied with winter overcoats and not confine them to men who have been sent to camp?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I will look into it.
    Mr. WATT: Have no extras been given to these men on account of the War in the way of clothing?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, the whole question of the winter clothing of the Navy has been most carefully studied, and a very large percentage amounting, I think, to more than £300,000, has been incurred in extra warm clothing.

    PEACE TREATIES.
    Mr. JOHNasked whether treaties identical with the Peace Commission Treaty recently arranged between the United States and Great Britain, purporting to cover the entire range of possible disputation, including the difficult field of I national honour, have also been arranged between the United States and twenty-eight other countries, including France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Argentina, Brazil, and Chile; and whether it is the settled decision of the British Government that to enter into such arrangements with any country other than the United States of America is either unnecessary or undesirable?
    Mr. ACLAND: The United States have signed Peace Commission Treaties with a number of other Powers besides Great Britain, including those specially mentioned by the hon. Member. The terms of the treaties are not identical in every case, but the main principles of the treaties—that investigation shall be resorted to in all cases where the ordinary resources of diplomacy fail, and that there shall be no appeal to force until the investigation is completed—are maintained in each treaty. As regards the second part of the question, His Majesty's Government have not yet decided to enter into a similar treaty with any other Power.

    NEW TAXATION.

      FOOTBALL MATCHES (GATE-MONEY).
      Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will propose special taxation on all gatemoney at football matches where professionals are employed?
      Mr. MONTAGU: My right hon. Friend fears he cannot see his way to adopt my hon. Friend's proposal.
      Mr. C. WASON: I beg to give notice that, in view of the importance of this matter, I will bring it forward on the Motion for Adjournment.

    FOOD SUPPLY.
    Mr. JOWETTasked what steps the Government intends to take in reference to fostering British agriculture with a view to assisting the food supply of the country in poultry, fruit growing and grading, and industries connected with fruit, such as fruit bottling and canning, and drying of fruits and vegetables?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Harry Verney): The Board have issued special leaflets on the various subjects referred to by my hon. Friend, and these leaflets have had a very wide circulation. Experiments under the direction of the Board are being conducted in fruit and vegetable drying, and intensive poultry keeping and competitions, with a view to popularising instruction in poultry keeping, have been arranged for. I shall be very glad to give the hon. Member personally further particulars of the methods adopted by the Board for placing all possible information at the disposal of farmers and small holders.
    Mr. TICKLERasked the Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he is aware that the exportation of potatoes and vegetables generally has been prohibited by practically all the European States; and if he will take measures at once to stop the exportation of these articles from the United Kingdom, and thereby prevent the exhaustion of one of the staple foods of the people?
    Sir H. VERNEY: I am aware that certain of the European States have prohibited the exportation of potatoes and

    409
    vegetables, and the question whether it is desirable for His Majesty's Government to take similar action is receiving the most careful consideration.
    Colonel SHARMAN-CRAWFORDasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) what steps are being taken by the Department to encourage farmers to sow more wheat and other grain for human consumption, and thus help to make the country less dependent upon foreign sources of supply?
    Mr. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to the similar question of the hon. Member for North Westmeath.

    HOUSING SCHEMES.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the desirability of including local authorities to proceed with housing and town improvement schemes so as to provide employment during the War, the Government will, at an early date, introduce a measure for simplifying and cheapening the present procedure for the acquisition of land for such schemes?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): This suggestion was considered by the Government some weeks ago, but it was not found possible to frame any proposals which would be free from controversy.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some corporations have passed resolutions in the sense indicated in the question?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not recall any at the moment.

    ALIENS (REGULATIONS).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he is aware that Franz Boehm, an alien enemy, was convicted at the Altrincham Petty Sessions, on the 18th September, 1914, for not registering his address and also for travelling without a permit; whether he was sentenced to three months' hard labour for
    410
    each offence, which was subsequently reduced, on the 19th October, 1914, by the Quarter Sessions at Knutsford to three months' hard labour in all; and whether he has released or is proposing to release such alien enemy; and (2) whether, before deciding to release Franz Boehm, he consulted the clerk of the peace of the county or the chairman of Quarter Sessions; and by whom representations were made to him causing him to order his liberation?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The facts of the conviction are as stated in the questions, except that the first charge was not that Boehm failed to register, but that on changing his residence from Cheshire to Manchester and registering there, he omitted to notify the county police of his removal. I received a petition from the prisoner and representations through the American Embassy, and I made inquiries which showed clearly that the alien had no intention to conceal his residence and that his offences were due—in part, at any rate—to a misunderstanding as to requirements. In these circumstances I felt it my duty to advise the remission of the criminal sentence, but, as he is an alien enemy of military age, he has been handed over to the military authorities for internment by them and he is now interned.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the second question. Did he consult the magistrates of Quarter Sessions? It will be seen from the report of the magistrates of Quarter Sessions that they took a strong view in regard to the case.
    Mr. McKENNA: I am sorry I have not looked at that. We looked at the papers to see if any communication was made to them.
    Mr. BUTCHER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be right and proper to consult the local magistrates in such circumstances?
    Mr. McKENNA: That would be the usual course, and I do not understand why it was not followed in this case.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will put down another question on this matter.
    Mr. McKENNA: I would ask the hon. Member to communicate with me privately.

    FOREIGN-MADE GOOD'S (MARKING).
    Sir GEORGE SCOTT ROBERTSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information showing that certain goods now marked "Made in Holland" are identical with goods formerly (before the War) marked "Made in Germany," and are actually of German manufacture; and, if so, will he say what, if any, steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): Allegations have been made to my Department that certain goods marked "Made in Holland" have been in fact made in Germany. Any such marking would, of course, be a breach of the Merchandise Marks Act, and if sufficient evidence of an offence of this character can be produced in any instance I shall be prepared to take proceedings under that Act.

    LAND VALUATION.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Land Valuation Department has been taking on, as temporary clerks, men over thirty-five years of age at a wage of £1 per week; if so, whether he will state the duties of these men; and whether he is aware that the customary rate for a qualified adult clerk is considerably more than £1 per week?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Men above the age limit of thirty-five are, wherever possible, given the opportunity of acting as substitutes for junior temporary clerks in the Valuation Office who have enlisted or been called up. There is no change either in the duties, which are of a purely routine clerical character, or in the rates of remuneration. The wages vary according to the value of the work and the wage-standard of the particular locality, the general limits being 20s. to 30s. per week.

    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Secretary for Scotland what districts in Scotland the provisions of the Intoxicating Liquors (Temporary Restriction) Act, 1914, have been put into operation, and the hours during which licensed premises have been closed in each case, under the powers conferred by Section 1 of the Act?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I have been making inquiries into this matter, but they are not yet complete. As soon as I receive full information I shall send a note of it to my hon. and learned Friend.

    COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC SAFETY.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the Prime Minister whether, in the public interest, he will consider the question of instituting a Committee of Public Safety, with branch bureaux in all the great centres, to inquire into and report on alien enemies; whether the responsibility at present is divided between the Home Office, the War Office, and the Admiralty; and whether that divided responsibility results in confusion and inefficiency?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The three Departments mentioned co-operate with one another, and I cannot agree with the suggestion that the division of responsibility has resulted in confusion and inefficiency. Division of duties is inevitable, because they relate partly to civil and partly to naval and military matters. The Home Office and the police are responsible for the steps taken to register alien enemies and to enforce the provisions of the Aliens Restriction Order. The internment of alien enemies of military age is a military measure for which the War Office is, and must be, responsible, though the Secretary of State for War is assisted by the civil authority in giving effect to his policy. As regards the dangers of espionage—a subject which the Noble Lord has, no doubt, especially in mind—some time ago, on the advice of the Committee of Imperial Defence, there, was established at the War Office an Intelligence Department, which co-operates with the Admiralty, and has the assistance of the civil power wherever necessary. This Department has done invaluable work. The powers which the naval and military authorities possessed before the War to deal with espionage have been materially supplemented by the passing of the Defence of the Realm Acts, and the question of strengthening the staff of the Intelligence Department to cope with the new duties imposed upon it is now being considered. I would point out to the Noble Lord that his suggestion would not remove any responsibility from the existing authorities, unless he proposes to transfer to his Committee of Public Safety the

    413
    naval and military forces of the Crown, and the police, forces now controlled in the Metropolis by the Government and elsewhere by the local police authorities.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is the greatest anxiety and irritation in the country about this question of spies, and that the general sentiment of the country is undoubtedly that the precautions taken are not adequate?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is a matter that is receiving the constant attention of the Government.
    Colonel YATE: Are we to understand that the initiation of all proceedings against foreign spies rests with the Home Secretary?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No.
    An HON. MEMBER: It is just the opposite.
    Mr. BUTCHER: When did the Intelligence Department of the War Office begin to deal with espionage?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I could not give the exact date. It is a considerable time ago.

    ISLAND OF HERM.
    Sir WILLIAM BULLasked what will be the future of the Channel island called Herm, which was sold by this country some years ago to a German prince, who has persistently refused to allow any English visitors access to it?
    Mr. McKENNA: The statements in the question are not quite correct. The island has not been sold, but it was leased by the Crown in 1889 to a German company which sub-let the house and grounds to a German prince. Access to the island has been allowed under restrictions, and it is much visited by excursionists. The Government has asked the States of Guernsey to consider the steps to be taken to terminate the German company's lease.

    CIVIL POPULATION (INSTRUCTIONS IN EVENT OF INVASION).
    Mr. CLOUGHasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the lord lieutenant of the East Riding of Yorkshire has issued instructions as to the
    414
    conduct of the civil population in the event of an invasion by Germany; whether those instructions were issued under the advice of the military authorities; and whether and when it is proposed that other lords lieutenant shall issue similar instructions?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. I understand that the lord lieutenant of the East Riding has issued instructions on this subject to the chairmen of emergency committees in the riding, but these instructions are at present confidential. The instructions were issued on the advice of the military authorities, and I am in communication, on behalf of the Government, with other lords lieutenant.

    BRITISH DOMINIONS (GIFTS IN KIND).
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the Prime Minister how the different gifts in kind, given by the British Dominions, have been and are being utilised?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this, question.
    In addition to valuable gifts such as oats, hay, meat, condensed milk, and other foods for the service of the Navy and the Army, gifts have also been received for the relief of the Belgians in Belgium which are being distributed through the organisation established by the American and Spanish Legations. Fruit and wine are being sent for the sick and wounded soldiers and sailors in this country, and some of the fruit has already been delivered to hospitals supported by voluntary contributions where the wounded are being received.
    The greater part of the gifts have been allocated for the relief of distress. As examples, I may mention 1,000,000 sacks of flour given by the Dominion of Canada, 150,000 sacks from Ontario, and 50,000 from Manitoba, 4,000,000 lbs. of cheese from the Province of Quebec, 100,000 bushels of potatoes from New Brunswick, a gift of cheese from Prince Edward Island, canned salmon from British Columbia, and other gifts too numerous to recite in a Parliamentary reply, from associations, newspapers, traders, and farmers who have vied with one another in their desire to give practical testimony of the feeling they entertain for the Mother Country.

    415
    The distribution of these gifts is being gradually made by the Government Committee for the Prevention and Relief of Distress to the local representative committees in districts where any considerable degree of distress exists. Some are also being used for the assistance of the Belgian refugees who are being maintained in this country.
    Further gifts in kind have been sent from Australia and elsewhere for distribution through other than official channels. The persons to whom they have been consigned have in all cases, I believe, been good enough to consult me as to their allocation. Gifts of money have also been very numerous, including sums of £20,000 each from the Province of Nova Scotia and from Ceylon. These sums have been contributed to the Prince of Wales' Fund.
    It is proposed shortly to lay another Parliamentary Paper relating to these gifts in continuation of Cd. 7608. All the gifts in kind have been stored and handled by the Port and other authorities, by carriers and other private firms, free of charge in every case. I am sure that the House will desire to join in an expression of the country's thanks to the generous donors in the Dominions and Colonies of these numerous and valuable gifts, and to those in this country who have so kindly undertaken gratuitously their storage and distribution.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long the flour is likely to last in good condition, and are precautions being taken to use it?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The flour is now being gradually distributed. The condition of the flour is being watched by the Local Government Board food inspectors.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Have any gifts been declined?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Not so far as I know.

    ENCOURAGEMENT TO BRITISH MANUFACTURERS.
    Sir WILLIAM BULLasked the Prime Minister if he will consider the advisability of making a pronouncement, without prejudice to free trade, to the effect that, if manufacturers in this
    416
    country will set up factories and machinery to manufacture goods which before the War were almost exclusively manufactured in Germany and Austria, after the War is over the old conditions will not prevail by which their capital and enterprise will be lost, and thereby encourage the further employment of capital and labour?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I fear I cannot say more than that the Government will do all in their power, consistent with their general policy, to encourage the further employment of capital and labour.

    DURATION OF PARLIAMENT.
    Mr. HOGGEasked whether there have been any negotiations about prolonging the life of this Parliament on account of the War, or whether the Government intend to allow things to take their natural course?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I fear I can make no statement as regards the second part.

    FOOD SUPPLIES (BELGIUM).
    EARL of RONALDSHAYasked the Prime Minister whether the British Government has given its consent to large shipments of flour and food being sent to Belgium by an American committee; whether some of these foodstuffs are being shipped from the Port of London; and whether, seeing that Belgium is in German occupation and requisitions of food and money are constantly levied upon the inhabitants, he will say what steps are being taken to secure that these shipments shall not benefit the enemy?
    Mr. ACLAND: On the 16th October Marshal von der Goltz gave to the United States and Spanish Ministers at Brussels a written guarantee that foodstuffs imported into Belgium by the Relief Committee acting under their joint patronage for the maintenance of the civil population would not be requisitioned by the military, but would remain at the sole disposal of the committee. In consideration of this guarantee, and at the request of the United States, Spanish, and Belgian Governments, His Majesty's Government

    417
    have undertaken not to interfere with shipments of foodstuffs from neutral countries in neutral bottoms consigned to the United States and Spanish Ministers at Brussels, or to the United States Consul at Rotterdam. I understand from the United States Ambassador that consignments shipped to the United States Consul at Rotterdam will be warehoused at that port and will be forwarded as need arises to the United States and Spanish Ministers at Brussels. His Majesty's Government have made a Grant of £100,000 to the Belgian Government for the purchase of foodstuffs towards the cost of these supplies. This undertaking does not apply to general shipments of foodstuffs from this country. Any application for permission to export foodstuffs to Belgium from the United Kingdom is, therefore, considered by the Board of Trade in each individual case in the same way and on the same principles as are held to govern other applications for permission to export articles the export of which is restricted or prohibited. Permits have, I believe, been given in certain cases to export foodstuffs to Belgium, consigned to the United States and Spanish Ministers at Brussels. Where a permit is so granted, the foodstuffs exported are, of course, protected by the guarantees which I have mentioned. I believe a great part of these food supplies are purchased by money subscribed in the United States to relieve distress of Belgians, and the greatest care is taken that it should go to that and to no other object.

    PRESS CENSORSHIP.
    Mr. KINGasked whether a Press Censorship is exercised over pamphlets, magazine articles, and books, or whether the censorship extends only to newspaper publications?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Stanley Buckmaster): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; consequently the answer to the latter part of the question is in the negative.

    CONVEYANCE OF RUSSIAN TROOPS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he can state, without injury to the military interests of the Allies, whether any Russian troops have been conveyed through Great Britain to the Western area of the European War?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): I am uncertain whether it will gratify or displease my hon. Friend to learn that no Russian troops have been conveyed through Great Britain to the Western area of the European War.

    TEMPORARY CLERKS (WAR OFFICE).
    Mr. HOGGEasked whether temporary clerks are working as much as twenty-eight hours' overtime in the week; and why the War Office cannot make more businesslike arrangements?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. H. Baker): I appreciate my hon. Friend's sympathy with those called upon to work overtime at the War Office. As many temporary clerks as the office itself and suitable adjacent offices can hold, subject to efficient supervision, have been and are being engaged. The twenty-eight hours quoted added to the normal forty-two hours weekly represents ten hours a day, of which the ten hours worked on Sunday all count, and are paid for as overtime.

    DEATH DURING TRAINING.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Under-Secretary for War whether it is the intention of the Government to make any provision for the dependants of men who, having enlisted since the commencement of the War, die of some illness contracted during their period of training and before they are sent to the front?
    Mr. BAKER: The question of the rates and conditions of pension for dependants is under consideration, but in the meantime the separation allowance and allotments received during the soldier's lifetime are being continued pending a decision.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Does that answer apply to the men who die during their period of training and before they are sent to the front?
    Mr. BAKER: It applies to any case in which separation allowance was being paid, but I imagine that is one of the questions which will come under the consideration of the Committee which is to be appointed.

    RECORDS OF HEROIC REGIMENTAL DEEDS.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he can see his way to issue a report of the gallant deeds of other regiments in the same manner as the heroic action of the London Scottish was brought before the public?
    Mr. TENNANT: Gallant deeds of regiments and individuals which come to the notice of my Noble Friend will be made known as far as the exigencies of the military situation permit.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that invidious praise of one regiment is not conducive to good comradeship, and that praise of one regiment is naturally resented by all regiments equally gallant?
    Mr. TENNANT: The answer I gave does not presuppose that one regiment is singled out as against another.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Cannot the gallant deeds which have been done by other regiments be made public where there is no detriment to the exigencies of the military forces?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think possibily that is a true statement, but the matter is at present under the consideration of the Government.

    RAILWAY EMPLOYES.
    Mr. THOMASasked (1) the Under-Secretary for War whether a ticket collector employed by the Great Eastern Railway Company, having volunteered for service and having been accepted and served 60 days, was eventually discharged from the Army as being medically unfit owing to bad teeth; that he immediately reported himself to his former employers, the Great Eastern Railway Company, and asked to be reinstated in accordance with the promise made by the railway company that all men's positions would be open to them on returning to civil life; that he was told that he would be informed if his services were required further; having regard to the fact that this man is now out of employment and not receiving any payment from the Government, will he state in what way the Government contemplates recompensing men who have been deceived in the promises held out to them; and whether he is aware that actions of this
    420
    kind have a deterrent effect upon recruiting; (2) whether a man named Charles John Beaumont, an Army Reservist, was called up for service and went through three engagements, was eventually injured and, after being in hospital, was discharged from the Army as being medically unfit owing to hernia; that he immediately applied to the Rhymney Railway Company for work in accordance with the company's previous promise to reinstate all men, but, after having been examined by the railway company's doctor, was told that he was no longer fit for duty and was dismissed; and, as this man is not now receiving any payment from the Government, and the railway company have broken their promise to reinstate all men who volunteered to serve their country, what steps he proposes to take to see that this man is at least given an opportunity to live; and (3) whether two men, named E. J. Smith and C. J. Austin, employed by the Great Northern Railway Company, were called up as National Reservists, and in accordance with the company's published statement that their wages should be made up to four-fifths of their ordinary earnings and all privileges hitherto enjoyed by wives and families would be continued; that these men's wives have been informed that privileges to them are stopped owing to their husbands having enlisted; and that no money was to be paid by the company to them; whether, having regard to the fact that the Government are now nominally controlling the railways, he will take steps to see that men are not deceived by promises held out in order to induce men to enlist and eventually refused immediately when men do their duty; and whether he is aware that actions of this kind are calculated to destroy all confidence in the efforts or inducements made for men to enlist?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this and the two following questions. I am in communication with the railway companies concerned and will inform my hon. Friend of the result.
    Lord CLAUD HAMILTON: As Question No. 42 contains an aspersion on my honour and the honour of the company I represent, may I be permitted to state the facts of the case? The question—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can make a personal explanation at the conclusion of questions, not in the middle of questions.
    Lord C. HAMILTON: If this question remains on the Paper there is a continued aspersion of the company I represent, and I am prepared to state accurately—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lord should not mind. I have had a Motion which aspersed me on the Paper through nearly the whole of one Session.
    Lord C. HAMILTON: Some are more sensitive than others.
    Lord C. HAMILTONrose at the conclusion of the questions—
    Mr. PRINGLE: The question to which the Noble Lord intends to refer deals with the Great Eastern Railway Company. Is a reference to a public company such a reference as would be considered to include a personal reference to a Member of this House, and in virtue of which reference he is to be allowed to make a personal explanation?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is pretty well known that the Noble Lord is chairman of that company. I suppose the suggestion in the question is that the Noble Lord, acting in that capacity, has given some promise which apparently has not been carried out.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I desire, on the point of Order, to ask you whether it is in order for a Member to speak for and represent a company as against his constituents when this fact is borne in mind? The question on the Paper has reference to a promise made not by an individual but by a corporation. In the ordinary way an attempt to break through that promise could be negotiated, but if that corporation refuse to recognise any communication whereby redress can be obtained, and it can only be raised on the floor of the House, is it in order, under these circumstances, for an hon. Member to speak for a company and not for his constituents?
    Mr. SPEAKER: He is speaking, I understand, in the same way as the Prime Minister speaks on behalf of the Government. If the suggestion is made that the Government have not done something or other, the Prime Minister speaks on behalf of it. The suggestion is made that the Great Eastern Company has not done something or other, and the representative of the company is here and wishes to make a personal explanation.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Having regard to the answer of the President of the Board of Trade that he was in communication with the railway company, would that not be the time then for the railway company to give their explanation to a Government Department?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I quite agree. I think that would be the best time, but the Noble Lord seems to think there is some aspersion cast on him in this question, and he is desirous of clearing his personal character at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Are we to understand that the Great Eastern Railway is responsible to this House in the same sense as His Majesty's Government?
    Lord C. HAMILTON: My only reason for wishing to make a statement is that, as one of the results of that statement, this question may be removed from the Order Paper. The question is with regard to a man who was discharged from the Army on account of bad teeth. He applied for reinstatement at the station where he had been previously employed before joining the Army. The local station-master, acting in error at that station, told the man he could not be immediately re-engaged because his character, his discharge from the Army, was not quite satisfactory. In making that statement the stationmaster was doing what was wrong. His duty was at once to reinstate the man, quite apart from what character he may have possessed. The moment this information was reported to the chief traffic manager of the Great Eastern Railway, the man was reinstated and his wages were ordered to be paid from the moment he was discharged from the Army. What I wish to point out to the House is that the whole of this took place prior to the question appearing on the Paper of this House.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a personal statement. It may be a very satisfactory one, but it should not have been introduced as a personal statement.
    Lord C. HAMILTON: It vindicates my honour.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lord is not affected in the least by the mistake of the stationmaster.

    NUMBEE OF RECRUITS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he will state, or give in a White Paper, the number of recruits obtained in each recruiting area since the 1st August last for each branch of His Majesty's Forces, and stating also the figures for each county and county borough?
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he can state the number of recruits obtained from England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, respectively, since the beginning of the War?
    Mr. TENNANT: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave such information on this matter as is considered desirable and as is possible in his speech on Monday evening. The matter has been carefully considered, and I trust the hon. Members will not press for the further details asked for, many of which could not be given without throwing a heavy additional burden of clerical work on the War Office and on the recruiting authorities all over the country.

    ARMY CONTRACTS.
    Mr. BRACEasked the Under-Secretary for War if he will place upon the Table a complete list of Army contracts given out during the months of July, August, September, and October, indicating the firms to which contracts have been allocated and, where possible, the firms to which contracts have been subcontracted?
    Mr. BAKER: I regret that in present circumstances it is not practicable to prepare this Return. I think my hon. Friend will also understand that in some cases it would be contrary to the public interest to give such information.

    MILITARY HUTS.
    Mr. HADDOCKasked the Under-Secretary for War if immediate steps are being taken to line the huts at Seaford from the floor to say four feet, to prevent the draught the men are suffering from while sleeping?
    Mr. TENNANT: The first object is to have sleeping huts built for the men to enable them to be under better cover than tents. The question of lining the huts will be taken up later, as it can be done while the men are in occupation.
    Mr. HADDOCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the men say that the huts are colder than the tents?
    Mr. TENNANT: I hardly think they are justified in making that assertion.

    FUR OR SKIN JACKETS.
    Mr. FALLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if any provision has been made for supplying our troops at the front with sheepskin or other fur or skin jackets for the winter?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, sir. As I stated yesterday, in reply to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, large quantities of fur greatcoats and jackets have been and are being sent to the troops.
    Mr. FALLE: Is there a sufficient number for the troops now at the front?
    Mr. TENNANT: You cannot send 200,000 fur-lined coats all at once. Those in greatest need are first supplied, and we hope eventually to be able to supply them all.

    MUSKETRY INSTRUCTORS.
    Colonel PEELasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that, on mobilisation, the appointment of musketry instructor in the extra Reserve battalions ceases to exist; and whether, in view of the fact that many more men in each battalion have to be instructed in musketry at the present moment than in normal times, this appointment may be revived, or permission may be granted for the appointment of assistant adjutants in the Special Reserve for musketry duties, as is the practice in battalions of the Regular Army?
    Mr. TENNANT: This question had already been carefully reconsidered in the light of experience gained since mobilisation, but the military authorities are satisfied that the appointment should not be revived.

    STUDENTS' COLLEGES (MILITARY TRAINING).
    Mr. AGG-GARDNERasked the Under-Secretary for War if, in view of the valuable material for the Army that can be supplied by the training colleges, the War Office would, acting in conjunction with the Education Department, afford facilities for providing students at training colleges with opportunities for military training and for appointments where merited?
    Mr. TENNANT: The matter is at present under consideration.

    ARMY CLERKS (OVERTIME).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Under-Secretary for War, whether Army clerks throughout the country are working from forty to fifty hours per week overtime and are only receiving overtime pay for twenty-four hours, and that no extra pay is given for Sunday work; and whether, in view of the work performed by these men and of the fact that the maximum pay of the great majority is only 30s. a week, the question of more adequate recompense will be favourably considered?
    Mr. BAKER: The limitation of overtime pay to twenty-four hours per week was fixed in the interests of the men. I am not aware that the hours actually worked habitually are as long as the hon. Member suggests; but if he will communicate to me any cases that have come to his knowledge I will make inquiry, as I agree with him that it is most desirable to prevent such excessive hours.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: Can the hon. Gentleman himself make inquiries into this?
    Mr. BAKER: I should have to make extensive and general inquiries, but it will help matters if the hon. Member knows of any particular case.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Where it is necessary for twenty-four hours overtime to be done, will the hon. Gentleman take care that the men are paid for that overtime?
    Mr. BAKER: I will consider the matter.

    OFFICERS' TUNICS.
    Mr. FALLEasked the Under Secretary for War if he is aware that during the South African war both officers and men had a high collar to their tunics, that is, the tunics were similar, but that now the collar to the officers' tunic has been cut down and is entirely different to that of the private, and the fact that the officer can in consequence be so easily distinguished even at a great distance may be the cause of the heavy loss of officers; and if he can have the question looked into with a view to restoring the collars to officers' tunics?
    Mr. TENNANT: The service dress jacket for officers was altered to its present pattern on the recommendation of a committee of senior officers, in consequence of a general request from officers. A large proportion of the officers of the Army were referred to at the time by the Committee regarding the alterations and opinions were unanimously in its favour. No adverse reports regarding the present pattern have been received from the Army in the field, and in these circumstances it is not proposed to revert to the older pattern jacket.
    Mr. FALLE: Has any opinion been asked?
    Mr. TENNANT: One does not go about asking for opinions about things which do not need to create any feeling at all.

    PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Under-Secretary for War whether separation allowance will be granted to the wives of soldiers and sailors now in the Service who marry after the date of Order Cd. 7662 was issued?
    Mr. H. BAKER: The Paper referred to lays down new rates of allowances, etc., but does not vary the existing conditions as regards date of marriage. While the War Office is prepared to give and has given special consideration to individual cases of hardship, and while no restriction is placed upon the enlistment of men already married, my Noble Friend does not contemplate the removal of all restrictions upon the marriage of serving soldiers.

    SCHOOL OF MUSKETRY.
    Mr. STEWARTasked the Under-Secretary for War if he will say how many commissions have been given to the staff instructors at the School of Musketry, Hythe, since the commencement of the War?
    Mr. TENNANT: So far only two have been given, but other cases are under consideration.

    ADOPTED CHILDREN.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Under-Secretary for War if he will state on what grounds children adopted before the War and living in family with, and supported by, men who have now joined the Colours, are excluded from receipt of any allowance; and whether he will take steps to have their case dealt with so as to secure for them the same allowance that is made for other children?
    Mr. BAKER: The ground of the existing regulations, which have been in existence for a long time, was presumably that the State had performed its duty if it supported the soldier and his proper family, but the question is now under review.
    Mr. MILLAR: Cannot the hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that many of the men who have enlisted have done so on the distinct understanding that their adopted children would be cared for, and does he not agree that the matter is one which requires careful consideration?
    Mr. BAKER: I do not know how the understanding could have arisen in view of the existing regulation; but, as I said, the question is being considered.

    BLANKETS (SUPPLY TO TROOPS).
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that there are still several men in the different camps who are compelled to sleep on the ground without sufficient blankets and with no chance of changing their clothes; and whether he will consider the advisability of inviting the assistance of civilians to help the commanding officers in matters of this kind?
    Mr. TENNANT: Inquiry is being made as to the alleged deficiency of blankets in particular cases. There are ample stocks of blankets in commands, and general officers commanding are authorised to issue as required. It has not been found possible at present to provide men with two suits of uniform, but every step possible is being taken to meet the deficiency.

    INTERNED ALIENS (WIVES AND CHILDREN).
    Mr. DICKINSONasked the Under-Secretary for War whether a large number of the wives and children of aliens who are now being interned are left in a state of destitution, and that many of the wives are of British birth and the children are of British nationality; and whether His Majesty's Government will take measures to relieve these persons in their distress?
    Mr. TENNANT: Funds have been placed at the disposal of the Local Government Board by the Treasury for the relief of these cases. The distribution will be through the agency of the boards of guardians.

    PAYMASTERS.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, if he will state why Members of Parliament cannot even get replies to civil inquiries about the rights of their constituents from Paymasters?
    Mr. BAKER: The orders of the War Office are that all such inquiries are to be promptly answered. I much regret it if the hon. Member has experienced any failure in this respect, but I have already explained the exceptional conditions under which these officials were working.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of us never get any reply at all?
    Mr. BAKER: I have explained the reason and expressed regret.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is it possible to increase the number of the Paymasters' staff?
    Mr. BAKER: The staff has been very considerably increased, and I really do not think that the hon. Member will have need to complain now.

    ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (TEMPORARY COMMISSIONS).
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether a medical practitioner now serving in the Royal Army Medical Corps with a temporary commission is entitled to a pension for wounds at the same rate and under the same conditions as officers holding permanent commissions; and whether, in the event of his death, his widow and orphans would be entitled to a pension, and, if so, at what rate?
    Mr. BAKER: Yes, Sir. The rates and conditions are fully set out in the Pay Warrant.

    ROYAL MUNSTER FUSILIERS.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether Mrs. George Pickett, wife of Colour-Sergeant Pickett, of the Royal Munster Fusiliers, has received the separation allowance due to her and two children as from 21st September; if so, when it was paid; and, if not, whether he can give any reason for the delay in making such payment?
    Mr. BAKER: The Regimental Paymaster, Cork, reports that a, book of postal drafts in respect of separation allowance due to Mrs. Pickett, wife of Colour-Sergeant Pickett, of the Royal Munster Fusiliers, was issued on 17th October, to the post office at Avondale Road, Peckham, and it was ascertained by telegraphic inquiry yesterday that the book is still there. The necessary identity certificate to enable Mrs. Pickett to cash the drafts was sent to her on the same date (17th October).

    POST OFFICE (OVERTIME).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Postmaster-General whether much overtime is being worked by the indoor staff of the Post Office; and whether this overtime could be avoided by employing qualified postmen inside and replacing them by temporary outsiders?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hobhouse): A certain amount of overtime is being worked by the indoor staff of the Post Office at present owing to the absence of officers on military duties and the shortage of trained substitutes. The
    430
    expedient suggested has, in fact, been adopted in a number of cases when no other course was possible, but there would be difficulty in adopting the arrangement generally. Steps are being taken to engage and, as necessities arise, train temporary officers for indoor work as far as they are available.
    Mr. HOGGE: Why is it that the Post Office which advises the country to carry on business as usual should employ so many fewer men at present?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is not the case. The Post Office have sent nearly 30,000 men to the Colours, and their business is brought down by something like fifteen or twenty per cent., and they have taken on 21,000 men in place of those sent away.
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Postmaster-General whether there is an age limit of forty-five years to qualify applicants for temporary employment in the Post Office, and, if so, whether he will consider the desirability of removing it in order to open employment for older men affected by the War and to set an example to employers?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: It has been the practice to impose an age limit of forty-five for the temporary staff engaged by the Post Office during the Christmas pressure. This year I have raised the limit to fifty.

    BRITISH PENSIONS TO GERMAN SUBJECTS.
    Sir JOHN JARDINEasked whether any of the kings, grand dukes, dukes, or other sovereign princes of the German Empire, or any of their relations, being subjects of the German Emperor, are in receipt of pensions, allowances, or other money payments out of the public funds of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am circulating a full statement on this subject with the Votes.—[See Written Answers this date.]

    BRITISH PENSIONS TO GERMAN SUBJECTS.

      Agricultural Credit Banks.
      Mr. JOWETTasked whether the Government is considering the question of credit banks to help small growers in this time of stress, with a view to keeping them from sacrificing valuable crops in order to meet their obligations of rent, etc.?
      Sir H. VERNEY: I am afraid that the present is not a favourable time for the establishment of agricultural credit banks on any considerable scale.

      Houses of Parliament (Alterations).
      Mr. KINGasked the hon. Member for Dumfries, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he can state the plan and progress of the work now being carried out on the Terrace of this House, adjacent to the Strangers' Smoking Room?
      Mr. GULLAND (Lord of the Treasury): The work in question is all in connection with the new tea room. The design has already been exhibited in the present tea room. The work is progressing satisfactorily, and it is hoped that it will be completed early next year.
      Colonel LOCKWOOD: May I ask whether the plan has been finally approved of and settled?
      Mr. GULLAND: I understand that it was in the tea room for a long time for inspection.
      Mr. KING: Is the hon. Member aware that there is intolerable dust in the Library, and, if so, can he get something done to remedy this?
      Mr. EUGENE WASON: May I ask the hon. Member whether any steps have been taken to provide a room for the chairman of the Scottish unofficial Members, and also whether he knows what has become of the papers which were left in the room formerly used by him?
      Mr. GULLAND: I will do what I can for the right hon. Gentleman now that he has returned home safely.

      Kensington Palace.
      Mr. KINGasked whether it is in tended to reopen to the public at an early date the rooms previously shown to the public and the Orangery at Kensington Palace?
      Mr. GULLAND: The question of reopening to the public the State Apartments and Orangery at Kensington Palace at Easter next will be considered.

      Companies (Registration).
      Sir CLIFFORD CORYasked whether it is the duty of every company incorporated outside the United Kingdom which establishes a place of
      432
      business in the United Kingdom to comply with the requirements of Section 274 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908: whether the Registrar has power to enforce observance of such duties; and in what cases during the last twelve months such powers have been exercised?
      Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is the duty of every company incorporated outside the United Kingdom which establishes a place of business within the United Kingdom to comply with the requirements of Section 274 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act. 1908. The provisions of the Section are enforced by the Board of Trade. Since the 1st January, 1914, the Board have been in communication with the representatives of thirty-four companies which have not complied with the requirements of the Section. Twelve of these companies are still in default, and proceedings will be taken in any case where the default continues, and I am advised that proceedings are likely to be successful.
      Sir C. CORY: Is it not a fact that the Registrar has omitted to enforce that Section, and that he has only done so when it was brought before his notice?
      Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would like notice of any question relating to the action taken by the Registrar previously.

      Scutch Mill Workers.
      Colonel SHARMAN-CRAWFORDasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland, if he has received resolutions passed by Flax Mill Owners' Associations and other bodies, representing the need that exists to induce small farmers' sons to become scutch mill workers; and if the Department of Agriculture is prepared to initiate a scheme by which apprentices will be induced to learn this trade?
      Mr. RUSSELL: The Department have received from the Flax Mill Owners' Association and from other bodies resolutions calling on them to initiate a scheme for training young men in the scutching of flax. As it appeared that the scarcity of flax scutchers was due largely to the insufficient number of qualified scutch mill foremen capable of training young men who might wish to take up the trade, the Department have arranged for the special training as foremen of a number of experienced scutchers who will, it is hoped, on completion of their training, be competent to instruct beginners.

      Primary Education (Ireland).
      Colonel SHARMAN-CRAWFORDasked what steps have been taken by the Commissioners of National Education to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into Primary Education in Ireland?
      Mr. RUSSELL: The Commissioners of National Education submitted to the Irish Government, on the 31st August last, their observations and decisions on the recommendations of the Committee referred to, together with certain proposals requiring the sanction of the Treasury. The Commissioners were, however, informed that their proposals could not usefully—or, indeed, possibly—be laid before the Treasury at the present juncture. I understand that the Commissioners are taking steps to give immediate effect to such of their decisions as do not require Treasury sanction.

      Plural Voting Bill.
      Mr. HOGGEasked whether the Government intend to proceed with the Plural Voting Bill this Session?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot at present make any statement with regard to contentious business.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Prime Minister if he will give us the course of business for the next few days?
  The PRIME MINISTER: To-day, after the discussion on the Motion which stands in my name (Pensions, etc.), we shall take the Second Reading of the Small Rills upon the Paper 1, 2, and 4, Land Drainage Bill, Land Drainage [Expenses] Committee, and House of Commons (Commissions in His Majesty's Forces) Bill.
  To-morrow we shall take the general discussion on the Budget and the remaining Ways and Means Resolutions.
  Upon Friday the Reports of Supply and Ways and Means Resolutions, and the Committee stage of Bills on the Paper.
  Upon Monday we shall take the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill and of the Finance Bill.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask if it is proposed to take the Second Reading and Committee stage of Trading with the Enemy Act (1914) Amendment Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is only being introduced to-day, and I would rather answer that to-morrow.
  Mr. BOOTH: May I ask is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Item No. 4, House of Commons (Commissions in His Majesty's Forces) Bill, will arouse a considerable amount of controversy?
  Sir H. DALZIEL: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to move the Adjournment on Thursday of next week?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That depends on the progress made.

  BILL PRESENTED.
    TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT (1914) AMENDMENT BILL.
    "To amend the Trading with the Enemy Act, 1914." Presented by Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 6.]
  WAR IN EUROPE.
    NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES.
      PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

        SELECT COMMITTEE APPOINTED.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider a scheme of Pensions and Grants for men in the Naval and Military Services wounded in the present War, and for the widows, orphans, and dependants of men who have lost their lives:
        That the Committee do consist of Six Members:
        That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:
        That three be the Quorum"—[The Prime Minister.]
        Mr. BARNES: I need scarcely say that I welcome, and I am sure we all welcome, the setting up of this Committee, and the evidence it gives that the Government desire—
        Mr. BONAR LAW: On a point of Order. The House will remember that my right hon. Friend behind (Mr. Hayes Fisher)—and I say this without any discourtesy to the hon. Member—had an Amendment to the Address on this subject, and it was generally understood and agreed that the initiation of the discussion should take place by him. I hope, therefore, that that arrangement can be carried out.
        Mr. BARNES: On the point of Order. I shall be very glad to give way to my right hon. Friend, but in justification of my getting up I may say that some arrangement was made between my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Labour party (Mr. Arthur Henderson) and the Government Whips with regard to getting a day for the discussion.
        Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid it was my fault. I looked to the Opposition, but I did not see the right hon. Gentleman rise, and when I saw the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division rise I called upon him. It was only after I had called upon him I saw the right hon Member for Fulham rise. If the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division is prepared to give way, I will call upon the right hon. Member for Fulham.
        Mr. BARNES: I shall be glad to give way.
        Mr. HAYES FISHER: I should like to express my obligation to the hon. Member for giving way on a question in which he has taken at least an equal interest to that which I have taken. Immediately on the declaration of War I joined with other hon. Members in urging the Government to make as early a declaration as possible that the widows and orphans in connection with this War would be at least as well provided for as the widows and orphans created by the Transvaal War. I little thought then—nobody in this House would have thought—that the problem which we should have to solve in connection with the disabled and wounded and the widows and dependants would assume such gigantic proportions as it is likely to assume. The Prime Minister the other day very properly pointed out the difference which exists to-day as compared with the time of the Transvaal War, and called attention to the fact that we are now recruiting some millions of men for our New Armies under entirely novel conditions and circumstances—men drawn from comfortable homes, and earning wages and salaries of £2, £3, £4, £5, and, as I know myself, £6 a week, and yet serving in the ranks not as officers, not even as non-commissioned officers, but as privates. The fact that we are recruiting men in social circumstances so varied as that makes this problem very different from that which had to be solved by a previous Government after the Transvaal War. Therefore, I am not surprised that the Government should have taken some time before announcing their decision on a matter of such a complex and difficult character.
        But when I saw their decisions, which are embodied in the White Paper, I, for my part, was certainly dissatisfied with some of them. I therefore put down an Amendment to the Address, asking the Government to appoint a small Committee of this House, representing all parties, which should review the scheme of the Government and come to some decision which would be satisfactory to the great majority of the House and to the country as a whole. I understood perfectly well that the Leader of the Labour party was moving in the matter as well, and, so far, I desire to join hands with him. The Prime Minister met us very graciously, and at once told us that, so far as the Government were concerned, he desired to share the responsibility of the matter with the House, and he has himself moved a Motion asking for the appointment of a small Select Committee to consider a
        446
        scheme of pensions and grants for men, in the naval and military services wounded in the present War, and for the widows, orphans and dependants of men who have lost their lives. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, in the form in which he has framed the Motion, he intended to include officers as well as men. I hope he did. Sometimes "men" has been taken to include "officers." I am sure that Members will be able to show that the pensions and gratuities for wounded officers and for officers' widows were fixed a great number of years ago, and that the scale has not advanced at all to meet the requirements of the time, the increased cost of living, and the many obligations which fall upon these unfortunate people.
        The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I may say at once that we do mean to include officers.
        Mr. HAYES FISHER: I am very glad to have that answer, and I thank the Prime Minister for it. The reference is, I think, a little faulty in another respect. I know the Prime Minister is enormously busy. There is the phrase, "men in the naval and military services wounded in the present War." There is no mention of disease. I think the reference ought to run "who are discharged by reason of wounds or disease contracted in the present War." I know from experience that the system of pensions divides itself into pensions for wounded and pensions for men discharged on account of disease. If the word "wounded" stood alone, the Committee would not have it within its power to inquire into the pensions for soldiers discharged by reason of disease. I hope, therefore, that the Prime Minister will amend the reference in that respect, so as to include those who are discharged by reason of wounds or disease contracted in the present War.
        The PRIME MINISTER: It must be "arising from the War."
        Mr. HAYES FISHER: The words I have quoted are commonly used in the warrants, but I do not mind at all what form of; words is used, so long as the Committee I has it within its power to review the pensions given to officers and men discharged by reason of disease arising from or contracted in the War.
        The PRIME MINISTERindicated assent.
        Mr. HAYES FISHER: I thank the Prime Minister for agreeing to enlarge the reference. I need hardly say that I shall not discuss the question in any controversial or, at any rate, any party spirit. Controversial it must be: directly we differ we are controversial; but we need not adopt a partisan or an unfriendly spirit, or make any personal attack upon anybody in discussing a question of this kind. I entirely agree with the Prime Minister's view that it would be tragic indeed if one portion of the House or one party were to try to compete for the favour of the country by advocating some form of increased pensions. I shall enter upon the discussion of the problem without any desire whatever to compete with anybody. But in order to obtain the views of the House I must put forward my own views as to what I think is a just and adequate pension for these widows and orphans and wounded soldiers and sailors. I have some claim—perhaps a greater claim than most people—to speak on the subject. As chairman of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation for fourteen years, and a commissioner of Chelsea Hospital for three years during the Boer war, I have had unusual opportunities of discussing this question. Week in and week out I have been in contact with it, and with the administration of these pensions, both for discharged soldiers and for widows and orphans.
        I will deal first of all with the pensions given by Chelsea Hospital and by the Admiralty to soldiers and sailors discharged on account of wounds or disease contracted in some war. This is an excellent example of the gradual change that has come over public opinion in this country. When I was first appointed to Chelsea Hospital—I am bound to say I was appointed to protect the Treasury more or less, being there as Treasury representative—I discovered that the maximum amount that the country allowed the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital to give to men who had been totally disabled and could not gain their livelihood was 8d. to 1s. per day. If you wanted to be really generous you gave the man a shilling. This was 7s. a week to the man which had been rendered wholly incapable by wounds or disease from obtaining any living. I do not think that even a Treasury representative could have stood that very long. If you have to do that work for a whole day in each week you very soon become rather sympathetic towards all those unfortunate
        448
        victims of war, and before I left Chelsea Hospital as a representative, I am glad to say that I succeeded in raising that rate for wholly disabled men to a minimum of 1s. 6d. and a maximum of 2s. 6d. per day. That works out at 17s. 6d. a week, which is given for total disablement, with partial disablement from 6d. to 1s. 6d.
        I wish to say to the Government that I think this scheme is an advance on that scheme. It is a decided improvement. I have really very little criticism to offer upon it, but, from an administrative point of view, I should like to point out to those responsible for drawing up the scheme that 16s. 6d. a week, running up to a maximum of 23s., for a married woman without children, does not work out to any clear scale per day. I think you will find on the warrants and the books kept by Chelsea Hospital that a scale per day has been arranged. It is, of course, machinery, but the machinery and books and scales have always been adapted to so much per day, and you cannot work out 16s. or 23s. per week to so much per day—certainly not to so many sixpences. It is a mere matter of machinery, but I think it is worth while to call the attention of the Committee to small points of this kind. Chelsea Hospital will have to consider another question for the first time The pension there is for unmarried men and for men without children, and the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital will certainly take some time in ascertaining the number of dependants. If there be too much work of this description cast upon them, inevitable delay will take place in granting these pensions. That is another matter worth thinking about. I am not at all sure that this question of dependants ought to be before them at all. Let me tell the Government they must first of all make a definition of what dependants are.
        Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain that in addition to the 16s. 6d. and 23s. there is an allowance of 5s. under the Insurance Act?
        Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: They have to pay for that!
        Mr. HAYES FISHER: The hon. Member can explain all that for himself. I am not going now into all the details. I have already said this scheme is a considerable improvement upon the old scheme; indeed. I have very little fault to find with it. I should like to call attention to this fact: If hon. Members will look at the scale of

        449
        pensions for officers they will find that lieutenants and sub-lieutenants may get actually less than privates in the Army for very serious and very permanent injuries. I need not say anything more than to call the attention of the Government to that fact, that this scale for very serious and very permanent injury is absurdly low, especially for young officers with these pensions at £35 to £50 per year. All these matters want reviewing. Then I observe these allowances will be applicable as from the outbreak of the War, but not in cases which originated before that date. I am not at all sure that the Government will be able to stand upon that ground. It is not impossible that men will come forward and say, "I lost my leg; it was so shattered that I have been unable to earn my livelihood. I lost it fighting for my country in the Transvaal War. I have got a much lower pension than the man who lost his leg, and perhaps was not even quite as badly injured as I was in,"—let us call it—"this European War." I doubt very much whether the Government will be able to stand upon the ground they have taken. The Government may have to consider, in raising the scale of pensions for wounds and disease contracted in this War, that that scale possibly will have to be applied to those who have similarly suffered, at all events in the Transvaal war.
        We all know that there are widows who were made widows by the Egyptian war of 1882–4 who have no pensions of any sort or kind, for that was a date before the State recognised its obligations in any way to those who fought its battles and laid down their lives for it. I say nothing more about the pensions and allowances to disabled and wounded. I think that probably very little alteration in the scale of the Government will suffice to give what may be considered adequate compensation in cases of that kind, and I congratulate the Government upon taking this step. I take up this Paper, and in no controversial mood, but I cannot help wondering, when I look at page 8, whether the Government think that they have completely satisfied the widows and the orphans and the country when they have proved that their scheme of pensions for the widows and orphans is an improvement on the scale of the late Government for those widows and orphans who were created by the Transvaal war. That, to my mind, is not the way to approach this question at all. If we look at it from a
        450
        purely historical point of view, the State did not recognise its obligations to the widows and orphans at all until the Transvaal war. There were other wars. There was the Egyptian war that I have mentioned. There was then no such thing as State pensions. The first Government that ever recognised its obligations to the widows and orphans was the Government which was in office from 1900 to 1906. They put forward a scale of State pensions for the first time. It might not have been wholly adequate, but at all events it was very much better than no pension at all.
        4.0 P.M.
        My own view of this question is broadly this: that it does not matter what flat rate you adopt, there ought to be a capital sum of money placed in the hands of some body or another, such as the Royal Patriotic Fund, which has administered the pensions for the Transvaal war. Whether the flat rate adopted be 7s. 6d., or 10s., or 12s., or £1 a week, you will never really satisfactorily and equitably solve this question unless you put a capital sum of money in the hands of some body which shall differentiate and discriminate between the different cases which have to be met. That is my broad proposal, and I shall try to make it good. But, first of all, let me criticise this scheme of the Government. The Government boast in the White Paper that this scheme is very much more favourable to the widows and orphans than the present scheme, which was inaugurated by the Unionist Government. Is it? I venture to say it is not. It is an improvement in some respects: it is an improvement for some widows but not for others, and in some particulars it is much worse than the old scheme of general provision made for the widows and orphans of the Transvaal war, and I shall attempt to prove that. On page D the Government are anxious to make a general comparison between the old age scheme and the new scheme. Take the case of a widow without children. They say the old scale only-shows 5s.; the new scale 7s. 6d. Now that is very misleading, both to the House and to the country. The real pension which a Transvaal widow gets is not merely the Government pension of 5s., but she also gets a supplementary pension of 2s. from the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation.
        The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): In every ease?
        Mr. HAYES FISHER: In every case where she needs it, and more than that if she needs it. Then again, the country is led to believe that under the old scale a mother only gets 1s. 6d. for each child. She gets 1s. 6d. for each child from the State, but to that the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation adds a shilling, making a half crown, exactly the scale which the Government have adopted. Their scale is just a little better for a childless woman, and for a woman with four children. This is how the Government put it. A woman with four children, they say, under the present system only gets 11s., and under their system she gets 20s. Not at all. A woman with four children gets 19s., and not 11s., and therefore the Government scheme is only one shilling better for a woman with four children than the old scale. Take the dependants of unmaried men. Under the new scale additional grants or allowances on the recommendation of the old age pensions committee are to be given to the dependants of unmaried men who now, according to this very misleading White Paper, get nothing from public funds. Why do the Government say that? Dependants do get something from public funds. The Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation administers public funds. It is a public body chosen by the Government, very largely administering public funds and can be made responsible to this House for the administration of public funds, and they make allowances regularly to dependants' relatives wherever it can be proved that the son made an allowance—and we take very flimsy evidence—to father or mother, and we give not only grants but pensions. It is not fair to the House or the country to put this forward as a difference between the new scale and the old.
        I go back to the widow who, according to this White Paper, is so much better off under the new scheme than the old. Is she? She is a little better off with 7s. 6d. than 7s. where she has no children. She is considerably better off if she has one child; she is better off where she has two children and where she has three, but she is only one shilling better off with four. When she reaches sixty years of age, when the boys reach fourteen and the girls sixteen she is exactly on the same scale as under the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. When she comes to sixty does the Government scheme increase her allowance? Not at all. She gets 7s. 6d. if a childless widow. What does the
        452
        Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation do? It increases the allowance from 5s. to 9s., so that at sixty she gets 9s. under the old scheme and only 7s. 6d. under the Government scheme. At seventy under the Government scheme the childless widow still gets her 7s. 6d., unless the pensions' officer advises the amount should be raised. When she comes to seventy under the old scheme she gets from the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation 12s., just as much without going to the old age pensions officer. So that I am confident when this scheme comes to be examined and compared with the old scheme there will be found to be points in favour of the Government scheme and points in favour of the old scheme which is State pensions coupled with the supplementary allowance from the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. When the Government of the day fixed that scale of pension they were perfectly well' aware that the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation had in its hands a very considerable sum of money out of which to grant these pensions where necessary. But that is not all. Again, under the old scheme, the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation gave sick allowances and money for apprenticing boys and for outfits for girls. They gave extra allowances wherever necessary, and they educated an immense number of girls in the Royal Victoria Patriotic School and gave them an uncommonly good education, and that is a great advantage, and before many years pass over our heads there will be serious need for another school of that kind to educate the orphan children of those who have fallen in this war. Therefore in all these respects the old scheme is superior to the new. It really comes to this, that the new scheme has some good features which the old scheme had not, and the old scheme, on the other hand, had some good features which the new scheme has not. I hope the Committee will be allowed to examine both schemes, and will take the best out of both. That is what I hope will result from the setting up of this Committee.
        The Government have made the choice of putting the old age pensions officers in place of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. The Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation will continue to administer pensions to the Transvaal widows. The pensions officers will have a very great deal of discretion as to what supplementary pensions at all events shall be given to women who lost their husbands in connection with this War. They will

        453
        have very difficult decisions to make, and I doubt whether the Government quite realise the work they are putting upon the pensions officers. Let me tell the House one or two decisions the pensions officer will have to come to. He will have to decide—I suppose it will be he—whether the death is due to wounds or diseases contracted in the War. That is a very difficult question to answer. I have had to investigate many hundreds of these cases. It is not so difficult in the matter of wounds, but it is very difficult to say at the end of five or six years whether death is due to disease contracted in the War or to more or less normal causes and diseases. It makes an immense amount of difference to each of the persons concerned as to what view the Commissioners take, because it means either a pension, and full pension, or no pension at all. I do not think that hon. Gentlemen opposite make a good exchange in substituting some State officers. I doubt it from my own experience. I know this, that the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation in the last few years have taken ninety cases which have been rejected for pensions by the War Office, where we thought there was evidence enough to satisfy us that the death was due, not to wounds but to disease contracted in the war. I think we all know that State officials must take a rather more rigid and stubborn view in these matters than other bodies not composed of State officials, and dealing with funds subscribed by the public yet not being in the same position as funds derived from taxes.
        Another thing will have to be decided; I do not know how it is to be dealt with. What we discovered as our experience of the Transvaal War is that now and again cases occurred where the medical evidence clearly established the fact that the death of the men was actually due to disease contracted as long ago as the Transvaal War. You get that clearly shown upon the medical evidence. What is the Government going to do in cases of that kind? It is open to the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation to deal with cases of that kind out of funds placed at its disposal. It will not be so with the pensions officer. The seven years' limit will be a rigid watertight compartment, and if there are cases of men—and there will be hundreds of them who contract disease in this War and who will die in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, or seventh year, and whose premature death will most assuredly
        454
        be due to diseases contracted in this War—how are they to be dealt with? I quite agree the Government must have a rigid system and stand by seven years, or eight years, or nine years. I think they are right in choosing seven years, but there ought to be some way of reviewing these cases where the evidence clearly establishes that, although seven years have elapsed, death was due to wounds or disease contracted in this great War. I could put many more cases before the House which would show the real difficulty underlying the administration of funds of this description; and again I say I believe, for my own part, that it would be infinite better, while having a State system of pensions of settled amounts, to set aside a sum of money—say, £2,000,000—as capital in the hands of somebody or another who should be entrusted with the duty of discriminating and differentiating in pensions wherever necessary to do so, and who should be entrusted with the duty of solving some of these problems which, from long experience, I suggest to the House arise in these matters.
        The particular pension which has attracted most notice and the most opposition is the pension of 7s. 6d. for the widow without children. I agree with the Prime Minister that it is exceedingly difficult to fix a flat rate, and it is more difficult in the case of the present War than it was in any other war, because of the varying incomes of the different classes from which you are recruiting. I do not think 7s. 6d. is enough, and on the Committee I shall certainly be prepared to make that pension 10s. The lower the flat rate, the more money you ought to place at the disposal of some other body with discretionary power. I am convinced that even with the flat rate of £1 you are going to put a penalty upon the widow of the man who has been earning £2, £3, £4, or even £5 a week. That is a penalty far greater than the nation ought to put upon a widow and you are going to penalise the widow of a man who had been earning such a large income in a way she has never been penalised before. I am not in favour of the flat rate at £1 per week. If £1 was paid to every widow it would mean real riches to thousands of widows as compared with the money which those widows had when their husbands were alive, because you would put them in a better position. I am sure that would be so in all the rural parts of England, and certainly all over Ireland, and in the case of a great majority of the

        455
        widows of men enlisted from those who offered their services as soldiers in the past.
        But while you would be enriching thousands of widows and making them better off than when their husbands were alive, to offer £1 per week to thousands of others would be wholly inadequate. If your aim is to try and keep the home of the widows together and to prevent the unfortunate woman, besides losing her husband, losing her social status, then £1 per week where a woman has been having £3, £4, or even £5 a week regularly coming in, will not effect your object. These are the women who are going to suffer the most, and they are the wives of those being recruited now from these standards, and they are very often Reservists. I know of many of these men who are earning £3, £4, and £5 per week, and constantly I hear of cases of £3 per week. We were talking yesterday about the Budget, and there were those who thought the Income Tax and the Super-tax might amount to 5s. in the £, which is one-fourth of the income. Even if a man had to pay that proportion, he is better off than the unfortunate woman who, having £4 a week coming in, finds herself deprived of her husband, and three-fourths of her income. The Prime Minister saw this difficulty, but he said he did not see how to remedy it. He said that he could not see how they could differentiate pensions according to the amount of the incomes the men had. I do not feel so sure about that. When the separation allowance was fixed after the Transvaal war, it was fixed at two-thirds of the amount of the income coming into the house when the man was called up. I am aware that this was done out of funds collected from the public. Let me take another case. The Prince of Wales' National Relief Fund now allow rent to be taken into account to the extent of augmenting the flat rate of 12s. 6d. by no less a sum than 8s., and therefore we do differentiate in those two cases.
        Let me now call attention to the Government scheme of pensions. Even here they differentiate, because they allow the pension officers to make a rule that 7s. 6d. is not enough for a woman to live on, and he can increase that amount up to 12s. 6d. If you are going to allow the pension officer to differentiate in this way, why not carry that principle further? What we want, if possible, is to get some kind of equality of treatment of these dif-
        456
        ferent widows. One woman will be more than well off with £1 a week, while another woman will be heavily penalised with the same amount. I know it is an uncommonly difficult problem to solve, but I offer a solution on the old lines that some body—it may be the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation enlarged, or some other body—should have at its disposal a large sum of money to be spent on lines thoroughly well considered, and on principles thoroughly well laid down, by which they may augment the State pension in cases where it is really necessary to do so in order to avoid the acute hardships of which I have spoken, which are so patiently suffered by many of these most unhappy women. So far as the scale on page 8 of the White Papers is concerned. I think the pensions to widows with four children, three children and two children are all fairly satisfactory, and they are an improvement on the old scale. With regard to the pension of 12s. to the widow with one child, I should like to see that raised. The widow without children only gets 7s. 6d., but I think we ought not to go lower than 10s. I will not now go into the question of these officers' pensions beyond saying that that scale was fixed a very long time ago, and it is now causing most awful hardships amongst widows, and more especially the widow's of the younger officers. I am informed by those that have had a larger experience than I have that what is most needed is a larger lump sum given at the time of death, because very often there are a number of small debts to be cleared up; sometimes the unfortunate widow has to move from one house to another, and all kinds of arrangements have to be made. I hope the Government will consider all these things and see whether they cannot increase the amount of gratuities to be given on such a sad occasion as that which I have spoken of.
        As regards dependants, the Government intend to leave the whole question of allowances to the pension officer. I hope they will lay down some very clear rules by which the pension officer may be guided. What I forsee is, that the pension officer in one part of the country may take a very different view from the pension officer in another part of the country, and we may have all kinds of discrimination going on. If all this difficult and delicate work is to be entrusted to the pension officers I think there ought to be some sort of appeal from their decision. I have had

        457
        some experience in these matters as Chairman of the Old Age Pensions Committee for London, and it was very easy to discover there that a good deal of the personal factor and human element came into the decisions of the various pension officers. I think there ought to be some appeal from those decisions when such great latitude is being given to these officers. Fifteen years ago I was a member of a Joint Committee of the House of Lords and the House of Commons which sat under the Chairmanship of Lord James of Hereford to consider the distribution of public funds in connection with the war. I then advocated, and I want to advocate it now, that a little later, when the Government have more time to give to it, they should seriously consider whether the whole of this question of the allowances to wives and children during the War, and pensions for disablement, whether from wounds or disease after the War, and the question of pensions and allowances for widows and dependants after the War, ought not to be handed over to one body sitting in one building under one roof. I have had experience of all these bodies for many years, and for the life of me I cannot conceive why we do not amalgamate all these bodies under one roof so that these cases may be considered by one body always controlled by the Government of the day, and always answerable to Parliament. I believe that will be the only satisfactory solution of this great problem. At present part of the question is considered by one body, part by another, and part by a third body, and consequently there is great perplexity and a certain amount of overlapping, necessitating sending for papers here and there. After a very great experience I say that these questions could be very much more satisfactorily settled if we had one body under Government control.
        I hope this Committee will apply itself, first of all, to the question of the settlement of the pensions of those who are discharged from our Army from wounds and disease. I do not believe that the Committee need sit long to make up their minds as to what scale of pensions ought to be adopted, and I do not believe there will be much dispute. As regards widows and orphans, I do not think the Committee need sit long to settle a scale of pensions which will be satisfactory to this House and to the country. Do not let hon. Members be frightened by the figures in this White Paper as to the excessive cost of doing all this. Perhaps hon. Members will
        458
        listen to a few figures from me, and then they will be able to separate the question of widows and orphans altogether from the question of allowances to wives and children. In this Paper the matter is hopelessly mixed up. The flat rate for widows is 10s. I will take a thousand widows receiving £26 per year and that will amount to £26,000. I estimate that there will be 20,000 widows caused through this War. [An HON. MEMBER: "We shall have more than that!"] An hon. Member says we shall have more, but I will give him the figures up to date. I do not take such a pessimistic view as the hon. Member, and I frame my estimate at 20,000. Up to today in consequence of this War we have 525 widows without children, widows with children 1,853, making a total number of cases which we have had to relieve at the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation of 2,378 widows, 4,042 children, and 981 other relatives. Of course, when we get the long lists in from the loss of the "Monmouth "and the "Good Hope," and those who are reported missing, whose death will have to be presumed in many cases, that estimate will jump up by leaps and bounds. Nevertheless, I believe I am just as correct as any body can be in basing my estimate at not more than 20,000 widows. Taking the flat rate of 10s., that means £520,000 a year. I am assuming that each widow has two children, which is about the average, that is 40,000 children. Taking the Government rate of 2s. 6d. each, that is £260,000 a year, making £780,000 a year for 20,000 widows and 40,000 orphaned children. If you were to adopt my particular plan, of putting £2,000,000 capital aside, then, taking the interest and sinking fund on that capital sum at 6 per cent., amounting to £120,000, and adding that £120,000 to the £780,000 a year, you have £900,000 a year as your highest cost, the high-water mark, of giving these widows and children a flat rate of 10s. and 2s. 6d. for each child. After all, that is not a third of a penny in the £, and I say boldly, both as regards the widows and orphans of our soldiers and sailors, and as regards the increase of pensions to our officers' widows, that the whole of it can be well and generously done for less than a halfpenny in the £ on the Income Tax. Therefore, do not let us confuse these figures with all the other mass of figures relating to separation allowances, and so on. Let us face our problem, and I believe the House, and the country, will consider it is a duty of honour which ought to be adequately and generously discharged.
        Mr. BARNES: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having caught your "second eye." There is no man in the House to whom I would more willingly have given place for personal as well as other reasons. He and I and an hon. Friend who sat beside me some time ago, had the honour of a triangular fight some years ago, and I do not think there is a man who has a more honourable record with regard to pensions than the right hon. Gentleman. We, to a large extent, owe what has already been granted to our soldiers after the Transvaal war to his efforts. I welcome, as he has done, the appointment of this Committeee by the Government. I welcome it for various reasons, chief of which, of course, is that it will be a Committee untrammelled, I take it, by purely official considerations. Therefore, I hope that its report will embody and be a fair reflex of the views of the whole House. I am thankful that it is a small Committee, because there has been a good deal of delay in regard to this matter already, and it would be very regrettable if there were more unnecessary delay. I take it the smallness of the Committee is, to some extent, a guarantee that it will get about its work promptly, and report before long. I hope that it may be possible to report this side of Christmas.
        There are two things in regard to the terms of reference to which I will refer. The right hon. Gentleman has alluded to one already, and I think he elicited a satisfactory reply from the Prime Minister—that is to say, the narrowness of the terms of reference in regard to disease and the causes of death generally. I was looking at the Royal Warrant a minute or two ago, and I find that hitherto men have been entitled to pensions who have either been wounded in war or disabled by sunstroke or disease or various other things enumerated, and I hope it will be no less wide in the future than it has been in the past in that respect. I hope it will be the same in regard to the widows. Widows are entitled to pensions if the husband is killed in the performance of duty, or dies within seven years of wounds or injuries received in the performance of duty or from disease, and so on. I hope, although it is not laid down in specific terms, that all these conditions will be included in the terms of reference. It is very regrettable that the terms of reference do not include such questions as the stoppages in the married soldiers' pay, which I know have been giving a great deal of dissatisfaction recently. Although not mentioned,
        460
        I take it—and I am strengthened in my view by the speech to which we have just listened—that we are not debarred from discussing the question of allowances, pensions, and stoppages.
        Before entering upon the discussion of the figures in the White Paper, I should just like to say that I agree entirely with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. A. Henderson) the other day about the War itself. I very early came to the conclusion that, if a war in Europe were unavoidable, then this country could not keep out of it with credit or self-respect, or even consistent with ultimate safety; and, if we had tried to do so, we should probably have been drawn into it by some untoward event, when our participation would have been less effective. I also early came to the conclusion, so forcibly put by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, that if the country had to go to war, then the country ought to see to it that there should be something like equality of burdens. Those who have to go to the front have, of course, to make the heaviest sacrifices, but we should see that those who cannot or will not fight at any rate pay. It would be absurd of me to put myself in a special category in saying that, because all the evidence goes to show that it is the general view. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bonar Law) spoke very early in that sense, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) and the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) have also spoken in that sense. It is the general view on both sides of the House, and that it is the view outside is borne upon us, for instance, by the petition presented by the hon. Member for the Harborough Division (Mr. Logan) and by the perfect avalanche of resolutions that have reached us from trade unions, friendly societies, churches, and chapels.
        All sorts of bodies, including no less than forty-two town councils in Scotland—I do not know how many in England—embracing Glasgow and Dundee, have passed resolutions in favour of £1 per week being given as the minimum to every widow of a soldier or sailor, and to disabled men. The newspapers have now taken the matter up, pioneered, I am glad to say, by the "Daily Citizen"; and last, but not least, the Miners' Federation, one of the largest, if not the largest, industrial organisations of this or any other country, have put forward a programme of £1 per

        461
        week for each widow and 3s. 6d. per week additional for each child. I merely mention that as the distinctive programme of labour, if we can be said to have a distinctive programme, and I leave my hon. Friend the Member for one of the Division of Glamorgan to speak of it in more particular detail later on. Everybody agrees that we are all in favour of liberality, whatever our distinctive programmes may be. I should just like to say here that it was not always so. I know of people having "Mafficked" when our soldiers have done something special, and I have taken part in cheering them when they come home, but we have often left the widow to hide her sorrow in the darkness of poverty or forget it in her struggle for a living. It is a somewhat arresting reflection that this improvement in public opinion has come about only when we have ceased to draw our soldiers from the poorest and least articulate section of the community, and have begun to draw them from the homes of the better-to-do and those who make public opinion. However, whatever the cause, we all welcome it, and I hope shall give effect to it. My point is that the White Paper does not fully give effect to it.
        I want to take the best thing in the White Paper first, and so on in a descending scale. I put it to the Committee that the best thing in the White Paper is the provision for the widow of a soldier or sailor getting her separation allowance for twenty-six weeks after his death. The separation allowance, of course, is more than the pension. I do not know why it should be. The Government have laid down the sum of the requirements of the woman while her husband is alive. I think they are no less after he is dead, but still the separation allowance is more than the pension. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham upon his well-directed and successful efforts in that matter. I only wish they had been successful sooner, because I know that a great deal of sorrow and trouble would thereby have been avoided. The next point of a satisfactory character is the relief of the married soldier of 1d. per day in respect of each of his three children. It was a mean and paltry thing of the Government to make this stoppage from the soldier's meagre pay, and a step in the right direction has been taken in relieving the married soldier of that 1d. per day. It makes 1s. 9d. difference to him in his pay of 7s. per week.
        462
        There is one thing put forward in the White Paper as a concession which, to my mind, is going to be a very doubtful blessing. I refer to the gratuity of two years' pension to the widow on remarrying. Hitherto a woman on getting remarried has only had one year's pension. At the low pension rate of 5s. per week that amounted to £13 per year. In future she will get a dowry of £39, being two years' pension at 7s. 6d. per week. I am afraid that £39 will be a bait to a mercenary-minded man, and I believe that many widows will live to rue the day they had that £39 hanging on to them. Consequently, although this is put forward in the White Paper as a concession, and there is a calculation made as to how much it is going to cost, for my part I rather regret its inclusion. I hope the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hayes Fisher) will make a note of the point, and put it before the Committee that it might be given up in the interests of the widow herself in lieu of a larger pension being given. I return to the married soldier. I do not think that the Government have quite realised the debt of obligation we are under to these men who are now coming up to the Colours. Neither do they realise the pay which these men have been in the habit of receiving. I heard an hon. Member say the other day that some of the men in his constituency who had joined had been getting £6 a week, and the great bulk £3 or £4 per week.
        Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: No, I said a very largo number of them.
        Mr. BARNES: I do not want to misrepresent the hon. Member. But I do know that many of the young fellows who have joined in the City of London have come from offices and commercial houses, and have given up more than £3 or £4 per week. They have given up prospects as well. Even the ordinary workman who has been getting £2 per week is making a great sacrifice in order to respond to the call of the nation, and I repeat I am afraid that the Government do not quite realise the whole of the debt we owe to these men. Most of them are young men. You are going to give them 7s. per week, pins their keep and a shelter. When you have done that your debt in regard to them is to be deemed to be at an end. The great bulk of these men are risking their lives and, in the event of their death, the Government will have no commitments whatever in regard to them. But some are married.

        463
        How many we do not know. The White Paper places the proportion of married to single in the existing force at about 30 per cent. married and 70 per cent. single. I should say that the proportion of married to single in the New Army is much less. Still, I do not know. However it may be, anything that may be done in respect of this proposal regarding married men is not going to cost a very vast sum of money.
        Some married men have already joined. That I know. But many more would join if it were not for the onerous conditions they find after they have joined—if I may be allowed to use an Irishism. Knowledge is now spreading in the community of the stoppages made from these men's pay, and of the meagre allowances to the wife. That is a consideration, because, after all, the marriage lines of these men are the scrap of paper for which they ought to have regard over and above everything else. I believe if you make the conditions for married men better, and put an end to these miserable stoppages from their pay, you will induce more married men to join. The married man, as well as the single man, gets 7s. per week. It is true you give him shelter and board of a kind, but many of these men have been accustomed to shelter and board of a far different sort. They have been getting four meals a day at home as a rule. You only give them three. Moreover, they have to pay for their tobacco, newspapers, and stamps, as well as their drop of beer, and all that comes out of the 7s. If you make the stoppage in respect of the man's wife and other stoppages in addition, it leaves very little for him. The least you can do is to give the married man his full 7s. Let him, if he likes, allot a part of it to his wife. That is his business: not ours. We, as workmen, have always contended that stoppage is no payment. A man has a right to allot his pay as he thinks proper. We ought to adhere to that principle so far as the soldier is concerned. I hope the Government will make a note of that.
        I come next to the widow. She is to get 7s. 6d. per week instead of 5s., and there is the further provision that if she is totally incapable of working, she shall have 12s. 6d. That, however, is only a paper provision. There is nothing in it. It is merely shop-window dressing, and the Government must know that perfectly well. We are not dealing with old women, but with women mostly under thirty years of age, and, therefore, the proportion that
        464
        will be totally incapable of work will be infinitesimal. Then they have to convince somebody that they are incapable of work—not a very easy matter. The woman gets 7s. 6d. and not 5s., which it used to be. You are giving an increase of 50 per cent. But I submit that this war is more than 50 per cent. more terrible than any previous war. It involves more than 50 per cent. more privation than any other war since perhaps the Crimean. The issues are immeasurably greater than those in any previous war, and, therefore, the services rendered are proportionately greater. Take the case of Belgium. If we only think of Belgium, we shall not stick at any sacrifice in favour of these men and their dependants, seeing that they are saving us from a fate like that which has befallen the Belgians. I say the allowance of 7s. 6d. is miserably inadequate.
        I cannot follow the argument of the Prime Minister in regard to this matter. He said the other day it would have a bad effect on the Labour Market to give pensions, or that, at all events, an increase of the pension might have a bad effect on that market. I agree if you give small pensions it would be so. It all depends on the amount of the pension. Bear in mind the experience we have had. Over and over again, we on these benches have protested against the small pay given to commissionaires and port watchers in Government employ. We have said £1 per week is not sufficient, and the Government Department has not been ashamed to point out that these men are already in receipt of a pension. If it is possible for a Government to say that in regard to these men, how much more easy would it not be for private employers of labour to use the same argument regarding defenceless women? The principle I want to lay down is this. That a woman who is left a widow as a result of this war shall be kept out of the Labour Market altogether, and shall be given such a pension as will maintain her in something like the same standard of life as that to which she has been accustomed. That, I submit, is a very modest demand.
        Take the case of the widow with children. I am glad to acknowledge there is a very considerable improvement so far as the first child is concerned. She is now to get 5s. instead of 1s. 6d. By-the-by, this is no more than is now given by many boards of guardians for boarded-out children. It is a sum which has been granted

        465
        in Scotland for many years. I remember that twenty years ago the Glasgow Corporation were paying 4s. per week for boarded-out children, and at this moment boards of guardians here in London—Poplar for instance—are giving 5s. per week. Willesden is doing the same, and so are many others, and I would point out that these boards of guardians would never think of putting a child out with, and paying 5s. per week to a woman who was only getting 7s. 6d. per week, because they would know perfectly well that that child was not going to get the worth of the 5s. In paying 5s. in respect of the first child, you are putting the child of the soldier, who lays down his life for his country, on the same level as the child maintained by the board of guardians. Further than that, the guardians do not limit it to one child. They pay the same amount in respect of two or three or even half-a-dozen in one family.
        Take the woman with two children. Here again we have an improvement on the old scale. She is to get 15s. I believe I am right in saying that the old scale was 5s., plus 1s. 6d. per child, and in addition she might get 2s. from the Patriotic Fund—that is one shilling in respect of each child. Now she is to get 15s., and I want to give full credit to the Government for what they are doing in that respect. She cannot maintain her two children on 15s. per week. It is impossible, and it means that she will have to go out to work. The children will have to be neglected, and perhaps will not grow up as they ought as a result of that neglect. Here, again, I want to lay down a principle for the Government in regard to this matter, and that principle is that the woman who is left a widow by this War, and who has children, shall be deemed to be the agent of the State, which shall pay sufficient for the board of the children, and give her a sufficient amount to keep herself and children in the comfort to which they are entitled. I do not propose to go into details. The hon. Member for Mid-Glamorgan will deal with that point more fully. But I do submit that that should be the principle which should guide the Government. I know there may be administrative difficulties, and I am quite aware of the differences in the particular state of life to which these people may belong. It is true you have the agricultural labourer at one end of the scale and at the other end you have men who have been earning £5 to £6 per week. Still, if we have some guiding
        466
        principle in our mind, we should try and work out that principle on the lines I have laid down—a principle which embodies the idea of justice, and which provides that no woman shall be worse off after the War than she was before.
        5.0. P.M.
        I come now to the disablement allowance. I find that a man totally disabled is to be entitled to 14s. per week. That, again, I say is miserably inadequate. No man can live on 14s. per week, and it means that he is to be a burden to his friends and relatives. If he is going to be a burden to anybody, the burden should be borne on the broad back of the whole community. Here, again, the Government is laying down a scale which is appropriate only to the very lowest class—appropriate to the agricultural labourer, for instance. Other considerations ought to be borne in mind. No doubt there are agricultural labourers and men of that class who have joined for the War. But you are going to place every class which joins on exactly the same level. You are giving men who are animated by generous motives, men of outstanding intelligence and ability in their own class, the same as you give to an agricultural labourer. I submit it is unfair to stereotype the conditions even of the labourer because you are getting men who would not have remained agricultural labourers. And it is wrong to assume that because the sum may be sufficient for the agricultural labourer, the standard must be equally applicable to other classes. Having regard to that, I say that 14s. per week is far too small. When you come to the married men, the disparity is greater still. A married man totally disabled is to have 16s. 6d. per week, as against 14s. for the single man. That is not very flattering to the woman. It assumes, I suppose, that a man's wife can be maintained for 2s. 6d. per week. I do not know whether that is the intention, but it looks like it. At all events, 16s. 6d. is not sufficient for a married man. It was mentioned a little while ago that many of these men might be entitled1 to another 5s. per week in respect of National Insurance. But, before a man becomes entitled to that, he has to make 104 payments into the Insurance Fund. The vast bulk of the men who are now joining the Army cannot possibly have paid that, and many will not be insured at all. Even if they were insured, and if all the men got the 5s., the burden would not fall upon the State as it should do. The money would

        467
        come from the approved societies, and to that extent it would increase the expenditure of those societies. I feel that the charge should fall on the nation as a whole and not on the members of the approved society. The Government have no right to put that 5s. forward as a supplementary amount that is to be paid over and above the 14s. and the 16s. 6d. I come now to partial disablement. I find that 3s. 6d. up to 17s. 6d. is to be paid. Why 17s. 6d. should be paid for partial disablement and 14s. and 16s. 6d. for total disablement, I cannot make out. I should like to know what partial disablement is. It is not defined. Would the loss of an arm be partial disablement? I remember that when I was secretary of the engineers the employers used to keep expert witnesses, and those expert witnesses went round the Courts and had no hesitation in swearing, at any rate, some of them, that a man could see as well with one eye as with two.
        Mr. JOHN WARD: Some said better.
        Mr. BARNES: As to partial disablement, the White Paper says it is to be gauged by the man's capacity for earning a living. It these expert witnesses come before the authority, whatever it may be, and say that these men can see as well with one eye as with two, I suppose these men may be entitled to 3s. 6d. I want to lay down a principle, and I am encouraged to do that by reference to the case of the officers. I want to make a comparison, but before doing so, I want to guard myself by saying that in making a comparison with the officers I do not want to say a word or to be thought to have said anything disparaging to the officers. On the contrary, I think that the officers ought to be paid more, and paid enough to maintain them instead of being a charge on their relatives. I have nothing to say but commendation and admiration of the heroism of the officers. In every war we find they are always in front. We have such examples as that of Captain Wilson in South Africa, Colonel Burnaby, and, above all, the great soldier who is to be laid to his rest to-morrow. They have always done their duty, and have been incentives to the country as a whole. Therefore, I will say nothing which will be open to the interpretation of being disparaging to the officers. But I find that the officers' pensions are based upon an entirely different principle from the pensions of
        468
        the men of the rank and file. I find that a gratuity according to a scale is paid to an officer who has received a wound in action which has occasioned the loss of an eye or limb, or the use of a limb, and further it says that an officer may have twice the amount mentioned in this scale provided he loses two limbs or the use of two limbs. Moreover, the scale is paid for any bodily injury certified by the medical authority to be equivalent to the loss of a limb.
        I find, according to this scale, that an officer gets from £3,500 if he is a field-marshal, down to £100 if he is a second-lieutenant. Taking the captain as a standard, he gets £250 as a gratuity immediately he meets with a wound. After getting the gratuity a pension is paid to the officer, based again upon a scale coming down to £70, which is the lowest for a second-lieutenant. My hon. Friend was wrong when he spoke of £35 as the pension for a second-lieutenant. I can find no such pension mentioned here; £70 is the lowest, £40 being paid to the widow of a second-lieutenant, that being the lowest pension possible. I am not, however, concerned with the amounts. I want to point out that so far as officers are concerned you pay the pensions upon a definite principle, that principle being that the eye or the limb of the officer can be expressed in certain definite terms of money. I ask that the eye or the limb of the man shall also be expressed in definite sums of money. It is not so expressed. There is nothing in this book, from one end to the other, giving such terms. There was nothing mentioned of it by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, and I suppose he knows all about it. So far as I know there is nothing of it in the White Paper. I ask that there should be something in the White Paper, and I say that the loss of an eye or a limb of a man should have a certain value attached to it.
        There is just one more point, that is the case of the mother and the sister. How is it that there is no pension for the mother or the sister? How is it that the mother of the man who comes forward in this War is to get a few shillings per week, conditioned upon a miserable stoppage from his pay, and then, if he gets killed, she is left to the chance of the attention of an unfeeling world? Why is it that she is to be left to face the workhouse gates if her son gets killed?

        469
        Here, again, I do not want to make a comparison, but if an officer gets killed and he leaves a widow she gets a pension. If he leaves no widow his mother gets the pension, and if he leaves neither widow nor mother then his sister or sisters get his pension. I ask that the same principle should be applied to the private—and I ask it as a right and not as a charity to be paid or withheld according to certain standards of comfort or conduct or conditions laid down by those fussy people who have been visiting working-class homes during the last three months. Nothing has riled me more than to hear the daily tales I have heard of fussy people going round visiting the homes of the poor people. I am sorry to say the religious sectary has been the worst of the whole crowd. I have Roman Catholics in my Constituency, and Roman Catholics frequently have on the walls of their houses that which indicates their particular faith. By the way, there are not many Roman Catholics on the relief committees. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] At all events there are not many in Glasgow. The Roman Catholics are the poorest part of the population. There was a case of a woman whose son went to the War in the early days. She got nothing; she was entitled to nothing from the public funds, but she was visited by a man, an agent of one of those societies of which we have heard a good deal recently, who, after asking a lot of impertinent and sometimes indelicate questions, instead of giving the woman anything went down on his marrow-bones and began to pray for her, and then told her that he had nothing to give her in the way of material aid, but gave her a tract with a preposterous picture of a lawyer going up to an apple-stall woman in London and being converted by her one of those things which are never given out in London. I protest against these people going to working-class homes in that way. Unfortunately it is still going on. I had a letter only to-day from a man in my Constituency, who is acting on behalf of a body called the United Trades and Labour War Emergency Committee, who are looking after these poor people. He says:—
        "I hope there is not going to be the same muddle made of the allowances to widow dependants as was made of the case of the soldiers' wives and families."
        He goes on to give some cases, and says, in regard to one case:—
        "The mother is a widow and he is her only son; she is entirely dependant upon him. I understand from her to-night that, her son says that the allotment has at last been kept off this week only, but she has never received anything yet. Someone called on her to-day
        470
        making enquiries and asking her how much profit she had off her son when he was at home. Good Heavens, what next? Tins sort of thing is getting sickening."
        That sums it all up—"this sort of thing is getting sickening." At all events, I am sick of the insufferable assumption of superiority on the part of the agents of these societies, and I demand that something should be done by the Government of a generous sort to help the widows and dependants of these soldiers and sailors, and that it should be paid through the Post Office, or some agency of the State, and without any interference by these people.
        Dr. MACNAMARAmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
        Mr. BARNES: At any rate, many women and mothers have got nothing yet. They may begin to get it now, but they have not got it yet. The cost will be great. I heard the right hon. Gentleman opposite say that he was not frightened by the cost. I hope the House generally will not be frightened by the cost. After all, taken at its worst the White Paper puts it at £88,000,000, assuming the War to last two years. £88,000,000 is a vast sum of money, but it is not a vast proportion of £1,000,000,000, and the War will cost that if it lasts two years. The White Paper says it will cost £146,000,000, spreading the sum over the whole period during which the pensions and allowances will be paid. That, again, is a vast sum, but I think we should look at it in the light of a yearly rather than a lump sum. Looking at it in that way, the White Paper puts it as a maximum sum of £8,240,000. That means 2½d. on the Income Tax.
        Dr. MACNAMARA: That is after the War.
        Mr. BARNES: Yes, after the two years of the War, the further expenditure for pensions and State allowances is going to be £8,250,000 at the most. That is less than 2½d. on the Income Tax. I believe we can afford to pay more. I believe the country is willing to pay more; therefore I hope that we shall open our hearts and our purses and make such generous provision as will carry a message to our defenders now at the front as will stiffen their arms and gladden their hearts in the knowledge that, if they are maimed, they may at all events be sure of a decent living, and that if they fall the country will be good to those they leave behind.
        Mr. BONAR LAW: As it was at my suggestion that the Committee we are now discussing was appointed, I should like to say a few words on the subject, though I shall not go in any detail into the subject which I referred to. I need not say that the last thing anyone would do is to turn any difference of opinion into a party difference on a question of this kind. Indeed, unless the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members opposite give me credit for being more foolish even than I think I am, the fact that I proposed this Committee at all should be a proof that I was not thinking of party advantage, for obviously it is what any Government would jump at in order to get rid of, or to make easier for themselves, a very difficult task. My idea in the formation of this Committee is justified, I think, by the speeches to which we have listened this afternoon. It seemed to me that it was utterly impossible to go really in a businesslike way into the subject in the House of Commons. I thought that the only chance of the House of Commons exercising a direct influence was that representatives of all parties in a small Committee should discuss it in a businesslike way and, if possible, come to some agreement which the Government would accept. My idea in connection with that Committee was that, so far as the Government and the official Opposition are concerned, the Members composing it should carry as much authority as you can expect in advance from any Members whom you put on any Committee. I hope that the Government would put not only Cabinet Ministers, but Cabinet Ministers whose public position would make sure that the party would more or less follow them, on the Committee, and on that understanding really, chiefly because of the very strong interest which I feel, I intended to nominate myself as one of the Committee, and I hope that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain) will also join it on our behalf. But I wish to say that, of course, depends on those who are appointed by the Government, not, I need not say, from any question of the relative importance of the Committee, but I at least have this feeling, that if we are going to thrash it out in Committee I wish to make perfectly certain that, if the Government are convinced, that will end the matter so far as the support of the Government as a whole is concerned. What I mean is that I hope they will put on the Committee Members of the Government
        472
        whose presence will give us security that the Government would accept the finding of it, and will carry it through so far as they are able.
        I should like to say a word or two about the general question of the amount of generosity and the cost of pensions and all the rest of it in connection with this War. Everyone feels intense sympathy in regard to this War, and I know for myself that, when I was asked to go to the first recruiting meeting, I really honestly felt almost ashamed to stand up before men and urge them to go forward in this War, running risks such as had never been run before, when I myself knew that I was not going to run similar risks, and I said then, and I say now, and I feel it as strongly now as I did then, that we have no right to expect these great sacrifices on the part of these men unless we ourselves and those of us who are remaining behind are, in our own way, bearing a share of the sacrifice which we ask them to undertake. That was my feeling, and it would be very easy to get applause by expressing it, because everyone feels it. But what I felt then, and I think it was true, was that this Government, as any Government in the same circumstances would do, was guided by precedent. What they were thinking of was getting the necessary men and perhaps unconsciously thinking of getting them as cheaply for the country as they could reasonably do. That really was not the way to look upon this question. The risks are altogether out of proportion to those which a man who enlists in time of peace has to face, and in some way or other, so far as we can, we should make these men feel that we appreciate what they are doing, and as far as we can we are going to do our share too. That is my feeling. In saying that, I hope the House will not imagine that I have not a consciousness of the burden upon the country afterwards. That must be considered by those who deal with the subject quite as much as the other consideration, and I hope if I am on this Committee, though I shall certainly have before me the view that the men who are fighting now are doing more and are being asked to do more, in a sense, than in my lifetime they have ever been asked to do before, we must have some consideration for the total burden on the country, and we must also have some consideration for the effect it will have upon those who receive the pensions or whatever it may be. I think we must consider that. If I may

        473
        differ from the hon. Member (Mr. Barnes), I really do not agree with him in thinking that it would be for the benefit even of the widows of those of our soldiers who fall that they should be in a position in all cases in which they will never have to work again. If you are dealing with a class which has been accustomed to work, in my honest opinion, to put it beyond their necessities to do any work at all would be a very doubtful advantage to them. As regards the cost of all this, it is true it will be and must be heavy, but what is paid during the War will be the heaviest, and it will come to an end at the end of the War. As regards what is paid afterwards, though the amount is certain to be very large if we treat them generously, it is not, I think, likely—that is to say, if we go reasonably, to be a burden which the country could not with reason undertake to bear, remembering always all the circumstances in which the debt was incurred, and remembering also that it will come to an end in time. In saying this, I do not wish the House to misunderstand me. I should hate to create such a situation in this country as arose after the American Civil War. We do not want anything of that kind. But, on the other hand, I am perfectly certain that the country as a whole, and I am sure the House of Commons, will back up the Government in dealing generously, so long as they are dealing wisely, with the men who are fighting these battles for us.
        I said I did not intend to refer to any details, and I do not, but there is one consideration which has occurred to me, and I put it before the House, with the reservation that I am not at all sure that when I know all the facts, even if I am on the Committee, I shall adopt it myself. But it is a consideration which I think is worth taking into account. Undoubtedly, to my mind, some of the hardest cases, whatever we do, will be the cases of men, not business men or middle-class clerks, so many of whom have given up not only large salaries, but their prospects, but well-paid artisans. The Prime Minister said the other day it seemed to him quite impossible to have anything except a flat rate. Perhaps it is. I am putting this forward with great reserve, but I wonder if it would not be possible to have, an the one hand, a fixed minimum, and, on the other, to have an ascending scale something on the principle of the Workmen's Compensation Act, for pensions and grants. I do not know whether it is pos-
        474
        sible or not, but I think it is something which is worth considering.
        The hon. Member spoke about married men and the claims that their families have. I am inclined to think that they did not take quite enough into consideration the claims of those who have no dependants. That is my feeling. Remember how many of them are giving up situations which they may not get again, or situations which are not so good. I think we should consider them as far as we can, and this is the suggestion which I have put for the consideration of the Prime Minister or the Committee, when it comes. Ought we not to treat soldiers who come back after this War in a different way as regards employment from what we have done in the past? There are a great many sources of employment in the direct control of the Government and of public bodies. I should like to see it laid down as a principle that after this War is over, every vacancy for which an ex-soldier is suitable should be given to an ex-soldier, and that this should be made quite clear now, so that the men who enlist will understand that they will have a chance of getting employment in that way when the War is over. I am afraid I have spoken so strongly from the point of view of the claims which those who are fighting for us have, that it may be considered that I should be rather dangerous from the other point of view of responsibility towards the finances of the country. I hope not. I hope it will be possible for all of us to feel what we ought to do to these people, and at the same time to deal with it sanely and with regard to their view as well as the necessities of the country.
        The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think there is anything in what the right hon. Gentleman has said to which I can take exception, or, indeed, with which I am not, so far as I understood the drift of his argument, in more or less complete agreement. I hailed the suggestion that a Committee of this House should be appointed to consider this matter, not mainly because it shifted from the shoulders of the Government an onerous and very invidious responsibility, but rather because I felt, as all my colleagues did, that it was desirable that any scale of pensions and allowances for dependants which was arrived at, should be arrived at with general consent and meet with the concurrence of all parties and all sections of opinion. I am glad to think that in this discussion we have had to-day, as in

        475
        previous discussions, the matter has been approached not only with complete freedom from anything in the nature of Party bias, but with a large and wideminded regard to the many and very complicated interests which are involved. All of us wish to deal justly and generously with the dependants of those who are fighting for our cause. On that point, of course, there is no difference of opinion and there is no difference of temperature in the sentiment which universally prevails, but, as the right hon. Gentleman has very properly reminded us, in the application of that generous desire we must have regard to two other very important considerations. The first is the burden, particularly the permanent burden, which is cast upon the resources of the country; and the next, which is not less important, the real, permanent, abiding interest of those in whose favour their generosity is exercised.
        With regard to the Committee, I was very glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman said—that he himself was prepared to sit upon it. I may say that while we most of us—indeed, all of us—are occupied and preoccupied with the cares of administration, which leave us very little time for other matters, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be a member of this Committee—a a man qualified in every way to represent the Government and to command the confidence of the House in an investigation if this kind. I hope—indeed, I am sure—the Committee will approach the consideration of this matter keeping in view all its various aspects. I am not wedded, nor is the Government wedded, to the precise figures of the scale which has been presented to Parliament in the White Paper, though I would ask the House to believe that they were not arrived at except after very long and very mature consideration, with the assistance of all the best experts whose services we could command, and with a genuine desire on the part of all concerned to make the most liberal provision that can be made consistently with the interests of the State and those of the persons concerned. With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and my hon. Friend (Mr. Barnes), I do not think that, in view of the fact that this Committee is going to review the matter in all its details, minute discussion on particular points at this stage would be of real public advantage. I think the House will feel that
        476
        we are dealing now with very delicate matters of calculation and adjustment, on which the skilled tribunal it is proposed to appoint will be better qualified to decide than the House at large can be.
        I will only make this general observation, which I am sure the Committee will find justified when it comes to review the evidence, that in regard to the separation allowance in all its incidence and application, and in regard to the pensions to widows and children and dependants, and compensation for disablement, the scale put forward on behalf of the Government is not merely more liberal than any scale we have been accustomed to in the past in this country, but it is almost immeasurably more generous than the scale that prevails in any other country of the belligerents engaged in this War. I do not wish to say that shows that it goes far enough, and that it does not require on any particular point readjustment and reconsideration. It shows the spirit in which it has been drawn up, and which. I am sure, is shared in every quarter of the House, and by every section and kind of opinion in the country. The right hon. Gentleman referred to what took place at the end of the Civil War in America, when an enormous addition was made to the permanent expenditure of the country by the grant of pensions, which I think not only educated American opinion now, but opinion without distinction of party regards as having involved great abuses and a considerable waste of public money. I wish that we should guard ourselves against any danger of that kind now. I would repeat and emphasise the remark made by the right hon. Gentleman just now, and which I think I anticipated, although perhaps I did not express it very well, in the Debate on the Address, namely, that you must in dealing with the dependants of those who have laid down their lives in the War have regard to their own interests as well as to the other interests involved. I should not like it to be thought or drawn as an inference that what has been said of 5s., 7s. 6d. or 10s., or whatever amount you like, represents anything like a dividing line of principle. I do not think it does. It is all a question of degree. We must have regard to the fact that a considerable number of those young widows are without children and are not therefore burdened with the cares of maternity, and that they have been in the habit of working and would naturally

        477
        prefer to work as honourable and independent persons who gain their own livelihood and add to their own comforts.
        I am not criticising for a moment the figure at which you ought to fix the amount, but in fixing it you must have regard to the effect both upon herself and her fellow women in the labour market with whom she competes. If you are going to adopt the rough and ready expedient, which was rather foreshadowed than advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division, of patting them all in a position in which they need not work at all—that is the result of some of the schemes which have been suggested—it would be a very bad thing for them and the community. We all have to work—or, at least, we ought all to work—in our different spheres and different degrees. I am perfectly certain that my hon. Friends will agree with me that nothing could be worse in the interest of the working class, or any other classes of the community, than that you should establish a section of them in a position of ease and security in which they need not work at all. It would not be in the interest of their class or in the interest of the State; but I do not think the danger is a real one. I do not think that the people who take these things into view ought to be exposed to the imputation that they are wanting in generosity or in consideration for the dependants of our soldiers and sailors. I have accepted the amplification of the words of the Motion suggested by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, so as to make sure that it includes officers as well as men, and includes also not only those disabled by wounds but by disease arising out of or connected with the War. I have gladly accepted these extensions in the language of the Motion, and therefore of the scope of the reference to the Committee. I hope the House will agree that the numerous delicate points of detail-many of which have been foreshadowed in the course of the Debate—can safely be left to the decision of a representative Committee of this House. I can assure the House that the Government will accept and act upon the decision of that Committee with perfect loyalty.
        Lord HUGH CECIL: I should like to direct the special attention of the Committee to the case of the disabled in addition to the case of the widows and dependants, of whom so much has been said in the course of the discussion. I think the claims of the particular people who are
        478
        disabled should appeal to us with special force. First of all, there is, apart from the injury itself, the weight of the misfortune from the economic point of view. A disabled man ceases to be able to earn money in the same way as others who are not suffering from physical disability, and not only that,, but he becomes in some quarter a great charge with his family if he has one. He consumes just as before, but he makes nothing. In addition to that he often needs surgical appliances, artificial limbs, and special care of one sort or another, if he has suffered injury to the spine. He falls precisely into the class of persons who require special comforts which are of immense importance. Probably there is no case in which money is of more importance than the case of a man who has suffered some injury which requires surgical treatment. The disabled men are those who have fought and suffered for their country, and I think we ought to recognise that the obligation which we owe to them is continuous. There is nothing more tragic in the consequences of war than the case of a young man who has been fighting, giving his strength and vigour for the cause of his country, and who is disabled for life. I suppose everyone during the past few weeks has been much moved to see young men in the height of their strength going to fight, and hearing afterwards that they have been killed or wounded. I find it easier to contemplate with equanimity the death of such a man than his permanent disablement. There is something inconceivably tragic in the case of men who suffer in this way. Years pass on, and men return from the War to resume their normal occupations, but disabled men cannot do that. We are told that we shall return to the squalor of party politics. I do not wish to use that language, but I seem in the face of what is occurring to have lost my style. I shall not be sorry when we do come back to our normal occupations. But the unhappy man who has lost an arm or a leg, or whose spine has been injured, will still be a disabled man. I think, therefore, we ought to consider the case of these men with a special degree of sympathy. I hope we shall not lack in generosity in relieving them altogether of the crushing anxiety of poverty on the top of what must be in any case a burden almost too heavy to be borne.
        There is another point. I hope that the assistance to disabled men may be given immediately they leave hospital and come upon their own resources. It is sad

        479
        that there should be any interval during which they are hanging about expecting something to be done for them, when they do not quite know what is going to be done. I do not think that that is contemplated, but it happens sometimes through defective machinery. Great care should be taken that not the slightest interval is allowed to elapse. Of course, we must have different scales of assistance in proportion to the disablement, but I hope that there will not be any unseemly dispute because it sometimes happens that a man gets better than has been anticipated, and in the course of a year or two a cure may be effected. I hope that we will make up our minds to have the full loss upon such cases. There would be nothing more unseemly than that, because in a year or two afterwards a man has been trying to do something, and has been earning little money, some authority should come down on him with a view to having a reduction of the pension from the higher to the lower scale. Whatever pension is arrived at, after a reasonable period, ought to be at a fixed rate for life, even if he does get unexpectedly better or does find some way of earning money which was not anticipated. It does much harm that the Government should do generous things in an ungenerous way. The manner of doing such things is almost as important as the substance. I commend most earnestly to the attention of the Committee the case of the disabled men, and I am sure that if they act generously in that respect they will carry out the wishes of the people of this country.
        Mr. DAWES: I hope that the Committee will take into very early consideration the question of the Regulations, which have already been issued by the War Office, in respect of dependants other than wives and families. I do not wish capriciously to criticise the Regulations, but as a member of the London Pensions Committee I may say that we have already adjudicated upon from 150 to 200 of these cases and have found already certain anomalies which we think the Government should remedy as soon as possible. The dependants under the Regulations fall under two heads. First of all there are those under Section 2, Sub-section (a)—the father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, stepfather, stepmother, grandsons, granddaughters, brothers, sisters, and half-brothers and sisters. But there
        480
        are other cases which are not taken into account at all. Though the stepmother is mentioned, yet the aunt is not, and we have had cases where for some years the nephew has been supporting the aunt, and in these cases they would not give any assistance.
        We had a very serious case of a foster-mother. The soldier lived with the foster-mother since he was five years old. In that case we were unable to recommend any allowance, because this person did not come within the actual scope of the persons mentioned in the Sub-section. Then there is a practical difficulty of the degree of dependency. In many cases the soldier has been making an allowance of 10s. or 12s. or more per week. As was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Fulham, there should be uniformity of some sort in the instructions given to pension officers. It is quite clear that no such instructions as to uniformity have been given at all. It is obvious to every Member of this House that, whether there is actual dependency or not, yet to take away in one case 20s. a week from the contribution to the expenses of the family, even after deducting 7s. or 8s. for maintenance, is a very serious matter. Yet in cases of that kind, and in cases where 13s. and 14s. is paid—in one case 14s. was regularly paid, though the son was not actually living at home—the pension officer reports that those persons were not dependants. I say that to take away such a sum at once by saying that there is no dependency is a very serious business in that household. I can give another case where the pension officer reports that the wages of the whole family are 35s. to £2 a week, and he recommends an allowance of 6s. 6d. a week as dependency. This shows the want of uniformity.
        Then comes the question of the amount to be allowed. The hon. Member for Blackfriars mentioned the case of someone who was invalided and the question was asked what profit had been made out of that man. That is the question which the pension officer will have to put, so that he can estimate something like the amount which the man cost the dependants. For instance, the amount might be 8s. or 9s., but, before you could discover what the amount should be, the responsible officer would have to ascertain what the cost was. We have already found that in the case of London the estimates of

        481
        pension officers have varied from as much as from 12s. as the cost of a man down to as little as 6s. 2d. In the case of old age pensions we always reckon the cost of maintenance somewhere between 6s. and 8s. a week, and though I suppose that for a young man you would charge perhaps more than for a pensioner, yet the pensioner is living always at home, whereas the soldier when at home would probably lake some of his meals outside. One would have thought that something like 6s. or 8s. a week in the different parts of London would be sufficient. I would urge the War Office to give some sort of instruction to pension officers, otherwise they will get no sort of uniformity at all. It is extremely difficult for a Committee to come to any conclusion unless some rule is laid down. It has been done for some years now in the case of old age pensions, and there ought not to be such a variation as between 6s. and 12s. There is also the second question of the persons who come under Sub-section (b) of Section 2, the woman who has been entirely dependent for her maintenance upon the man and otherwise would be destitute. We have had a case this week of a woman who has been living with a man. Both have been earning money. The man was going to marry the woman, but had to leave suddenly for the War. She was expecting to have a child. In that case we were absolutely barred from recommending anything because at the time of enlistment, and for a reasonable period before, that woman was not entirely dependent on the man. Then again she had got to be destitute without what he allowed her. I hope that in those cases also the scope will be a little bit enlarged. It is quite obvious that one can conceive cases, such as we have already had before us, of women who, though earning a little money before, were maintained by the soldier, and yet could not be said to be entirely dependent on him because she was earning two or three shillings a week. I quite understand that it was not easy to frame these regulations, and the War Office had to do the best they could at very short notice, but I do hope that either the Committee or the War Office, if they can do it, will consider these two or three practical difficulties which we have had before us already, and which I venture to bring before the notice of the Government.
        Colonel YATE: I will not follow the hon. Member opposite into the details of the payments to be made. As the Prime
        482
        Minister has said we are all imbued with the generous desire to deal adequately with this question. As the Member for Blackfriars has said, we are all in favour of liberality, and when the matter comes before the Committee all these little questions can be adequately and favourably settled. I should like to express my thanks to the Prime Minister for including the question of pensions of officers with that of pensions for men. Are we to understand that the Motion for this evening has been altered to the case of officers and men instead of simply the case of men?
        The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): Yes.
        Colonel YATE: As regards the officers, I do not know whether the House knows that there has been practically little change in the scale of allowances since they were first fixed in 1830. Slight increases were granted in 1881, but they were very small, and the scale of 1830 is practically in force at the present time. There are one or two questions connected with officers' pensions and allowances which I would like to bring forward in the hope that the Committee will inquire into them. In the case of ordinary pensions there is always an inquiry made into the private circumstances of the widow, or the applicant for the pension, but when once this has been settled I do not think that these inquiries need be pursued month after month and year after year, as they are at present. It is very burdensome to the widow. There is a clause in the pension papers that the poor unfortunate widow has to sign that "My private income from all sources, including personal earnings and voluntary allowances, from relations and friends, does not exceed so-and-so." That has to be signed whenever she draws her pension. Personal earnings and voluntary allowances are extremely precarious sources of supply to the widow. I hope and believe that when the Committee, come to make inquiries they will take this question into consideration. Then, again, the widow is always compelled to sign her pension papers before a witness before the pension is paid. Where these pensions are drawn through a bank the bank can be trusted, I think, to see that everything is properly done, and if the widow is compelled to sign once a year, surely that is sufficient, and she should be saved the vast amount of trouble and inconvenience which is now involved in many cases. These are small things, but I think that, at any rate, a certain

        483
        amount of latitude should be allowed. Then there is an annual statement required from every officer's widow that her income from capital has not increased during the year. As nothing is given to her if her income or her capital is decreased during the year I cannot see why all these little questions are asked year after year.
        6.0 P.M.
        There is another very important thing which was referred to by the right hon. Member for Fulham. In all cases of pensions a widow should be given some gratuity, whatever it is, at the time. It is most important that she should have some little money. It has been given now in cases of officers killed in battle, but in the case of ordinary pensions that is not done, and I think that it would be right in all cases to give some little sum at the time of the bereavement. I am glad to say that the Prime Minister gave us hope the other day that the pay of officers would shortly be increased. The pension scale is based on the scale of pay, and if the scale of pay is altered I trust that the scale of pension will be adequately altered so as to work in a more liberal manner. But there are not only widows whom we have to consider, but the dependants of officers. Here is a very sad case which was brought to my notice this morning. A widow of an officer in a Cavalry regiment, an old lady, got a pension of £50 per year. She spent a little legacy from her grandfather on educating her son and getting him through Sandhurst into the Army. That son went out and served in Africa, and the Colonies, and places of that sort, to earn sufficient money to give to his mother some allowance over her £50. The son was killed in battle the other day, and the lady was left with only her £50 per year. Under the ordinary rule I know that no widow is entitled to a double pension in respect of her son and husband, yet I trust there will be a certain amount of elasticity allowed, and that the central authority in special cases will be in a position to give some increased allowance where necessary, and not be bound by red tape. The hon. Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) mentioned the case of second lieutenants' pensions and gratuities. I have the list of pensions and of gratuities for wounded, and I see that the gratuities are to be followed by pensions if the effects are permanent. In the case of a second lieutenant the gratuity is only from £25 to £100, while the pensions
        484
        for very severe and permanent injury are ranged from £35 to £70. In the case of a second lieutenant who is permanently disabled, the £70 does not give him 30s. per week, and I submit that a man in the position of second lieutenant ought to have more than 30s. per week. I have every hope that the Committee which will deal with this question of pensions for officers' widows and orphans will be enabled to put the whole question of allowances and pensions on a really satisfactory basis.
        Mr. BRACE: I very reluctantly accepted the view of this matter being referred to a Committee in the first instance. The speeches, particularly the speech of the Leader of the Opposition and the speech of the Prime Minister, show that this Committee is to be clothed with great authority; in fact, the Government is pledged to accepting the findings of the Committee, and to a very great degree that means that the House of Commons is also pledged. On a matter so important as this I would have preferred that the House of Commons itself should have been the authority for considering the matter, and that it would not have been thought improper for the House of Commons to review and to amend, without either the Government or the Committee feeling themselves aggrieved if the majority of this House came to the conclusion that the schedule of rates that they recommended were not such as should be finally adopted. I am still in doubt as to what the reference, with the Amendment accepted by the Prime Minister, really means. I understand from the Prime Minister that the Committee will take into consideration the question of officers as well as men. What I want to know from the Government, and I put it by way of direct question, is, whether this Committee is clothed with authority for dealing with the separation allowances of our soldiers-and our soldiers' families, in the absence of the men at the front. If this Committee is not clothed with that authority, is it the intention of the Government to set up another Committee; if not, is the Government's scale the final word so far as the Government is concerned, and is it supposed to be the last word of the House of Commons on the question of separation allowances to the wives and families of soldiers now braving dangers in face of the enemy and fighting in the trenches at the front?

        485
        I am not at all satisfied with the rate of payment which is proposed by the Government. I hope that it will not be thought that I desire to stand in any isolated position, or that I want to embarrass the Government of the nation at this juncture and in face of the terrible War that we are all anxious to carry to a successful issue; but, as a representative of labour, with a series of resolutions of representative conferences behind me, I am bound to put to this House the fact that organised labour expects considerably more than this 12s. 6d. per week for the maintenance of the wife—12s. 6d. for the maintenance of the family—while the husband is about the nation's business. It is a matter of impossibility for our people to live upon any such rate as is proposed. I was gratified to hear yesterday from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we have, broadly, 2,000,000 men bearing arms and serving the nation. I have done my part, in conjunction with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and others, in getting recruits. The men who have recruited accepted at its full face value the declaration, "Go and fight the nation's battles, and the nation will look after your families." It is upon the full face value of that undertaking that men have left their well-paid occupations and have arrived in their hundreds of thousands to serve the King; and it is because, in my judgment, the proposals of the Government fall far short of that declaration that I am anxious to put the view of our trade organisations. We say that we ought to have at least one pound a week for every home, and we take the home as the unit for this purpose. The home has to be maintained; you cannot maintain a home on less than one pound a week in great industrial centres. In those portions of the industrial centres with which I am personally acquainted rents range from 5s. to 9s. per week.
        How is it possible to maintain a home on less than one pound a week, paying any such rent as that? Therefore we say that the women and children ought to have at least one pound a week, so that the home may be carried on and kept out of debt. The man who goes to battle for his nation has a right to come back, if he is spared to come back, and find that his home is not weighed down by a debt that will take the rest of his life to pay, but is as free from debt as it was when he left to serve his country. We say it is essential that there
        486
        should be a minimum of one pound a week for the home. I am not talking about one pound a week for such a class as agricultural labourers. I am talking about those who earn much larger wages than do agricultural labourers. If acareful analysis is made of the personnel of the Army at the present day, it will be found that the agricultural workers in the Army are an infinitesimal number compared with those who join from the industries to which I have referred. Apart from the fact that the agricultural workers do not form so large a portion of the Army as those who come from the centres of industry, it is the fact that we have not been able to move the agricultural districts to that enthusiasm which we have experienced in great towns. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I am speaking from experience. It is easy for hon. Members to say "No, no!" but I may state that I have been engaged on the work, and I am speaking from my own knowledge. [HON. MEMBERS: "SO are we!"] There are thirteen counties in Wales, and the two great industrial counties of Glamorgan and Monmouth represent two-thirds of the enlisting population. There are between the ages of twenty and thirty-five years in the thirteen counties of Wales and Monmouth 315,073, and out of that number Glamorgan has 158,132 and Monmouth 54,530. Therefore to base the payment upon the agricultural area basis would be infinitely unfair to the large bodies of recruits that come from those counties. Speaking from my own experience, I have found the agricultural districts very stiff to move indeed, as many of my hon. Friends who have been at this work will be able to testify.
        We say that £1 a week ought to form the minimum payment for the home; that £1 a week, without any deduction from the pay of the person serving at the front, ought to be paid to the wives and £1 per week to widows or other dependants whose husbands or sons may be killed in the War or may die of wounds received, or disease contracted; £1 a week to those who may be disabled for life, or, if partially disabled, until they are fully recovered from their injuries; and, in addition to this, we say that a minimum of 3s. 6d. a week should be paid for each child under working age. The districts with which I am concerned are those where, it may be fairly stated, substantial wages are earned. I represent the mining industry. There are between 150,000 and

        487
        200,000 mining men who have been recruited for the Army. Those are men who may fairly be described as big-wage men, the nature of their calling entitling them to big wages. We know the danger of the mining industry, yet it cannot be said that a man who leaves the mining industry to serve in the War is migrating from a deadly to a less deadly occupation. We say that if the man was entitled to have a substantial wage because of the arduous character and danger of his calling, surely he is entitled, in going to fight on behalf of his nation with all the risks of battle, to have for his wife and for his children a separation allowance which will allow the family to be reared in respectability. The captains of industry are not proverbially philanthropic. They know the value of things, and it is worthy of note that, in connection with this War, in a number of instances, they have created or laid down conditions which ought to prevail. At a number of collieries they handsomely make the allowance of 10s. per wife and 1s. per child for each of their workmen who leaves to join the Army.
        I say quite frankly, while acknowledging the very fine public spirit of the employers in what they have done in this respect, that it is one of the things that I do not care for; I think the nation itself ought to do the right thing in this matter, and not make necessary what is done by employers. The scale adopted by the employers in a number of instances, plus the 12s. 6d. given by the War Office, gives a total of £1 2s. 6d. The scale that I venture to submit to the House, and which I hope the Committee will adopt, will be £1 to a wife or widow, and therefore 2s. 6d. a week less than the combined industrial and War Office allowances recognised as a necessary payment, in the absence of the worker heroically fighting his nation's battle. For the wife and child the War Office scale is 15s., but the employer, the great captain of industry, out of regard for what he knows to be the minimum that his workman's family ought to have, makes it up to £1 6s., and all we are asking in the scale I am suggesting is £1 3s. 6d. Therefore, we are much more modest in our proposal than is the great industrial chief in his dealing with his people. The same thing works out if the extra number of children is taken into consideration. The White Paper recognises this particular principle, because it provides that the widow and children of any seaman,
        488
        marine, or soldier, who at the date of his death were in receipt of a separation allowance, will continue to receive it for twenty-six weeks after the notification of his death. Why twenty-six weeks? What is it that comes in at the end of twenty-six weeks that makes it unnecessary to continue the same payment? That is one of the things most difficult to appreciate. If it is essential for the upkeep of the home and for the rearing of the children that the same payment must be made for those twenty-six weeks after the father has been killed, surely the same argument holds good for the weeks that come after. I see no point at all in allocating the allowance simply for twenty-six weeks after the death. We, therefore, say that the same separation allowance should be continued to the home as the home received when the breadwinner was in the trenches fighting the battles of the nation. This is a perfectly simple proposition, and this is a proposition that organised labour expects this House to accept. We are prepared to rally to the Flag, and if you give us this scale, my colleagues and myself will find as many Army corps as you require, but, without this scale, believe me it is very difficult. What is behind this scale of which I am speaking? The Miners Federation of Great Britain unanimously resolved that this was the minimum scale that Parliament ought to ask their men to accept, when they are giving up their industry and the possibility of their earnings and rallying to the nation's Flag.
        I have here a letter from a father who has three sons who have gone to the front. The father is disabled. His eldest son brought to the home £2 4s. per week, and the second £1 10s., and the third son £1 4s., totalling £4 18s. Talk about your scales, even if you placed the father and mother in exactly the same category as you do the wife, to maintain a home whose breadwinners have been earning such money as that upon the Government allowance is impossible. To suggest it is simply to talk about something that cannot be done, and which is a physical impossibility. There is behind all this a further proposition; I recognise that it is going to be a substantial charge upon the Exchequer. Why should it not be? Who is going to keep them? Are they going to depend on the charity of friends, or are they to go about begging? If it is too much for the nation to keep them how can any private body

        489
        of people do so? If the whole nation cannot shoulder the responsibility of providing for our soldiers and their families how can it be expected that any system privately undertaken can do so? It seems to me that when we talk about the cost we fail to remember that the boys and girls we are talking about form after all the nation's real wealth. They are the men and women of the future. The wastage of our people, conjointly with those of other nations, which will occur in this War will be great enough, and if we are going to cancel it in some degree, then we must be sure that we are going to raise up a Nation from the present boys and girls of a very noble character and of a very high standard. How can that be done without proper allowances? We of the labour party are of opinion that when the nation accepts that responsibility it is undertaking perhaps the best investment it could undertake. Let the House not forget that it will be a diminishing responsibility. We are not asking you to endow with pensions the children's children. The separation allowances and the pensions that we are talking about will cease with the death of the widow and will cease at a certain age for the boys and girls, when they can make their own provision. Therefore it is not so substantial as anything in the shape of a great permanent debt.
        Whatever the cost may be I am not going to worry about, and I do not think this House ought to do so either. It would have been good argument perhaps to have considered the cost before we ventured on the War, but we have undertaken the War and we could not help undertaking the War. I stand here as one who has been attempting to defend this country in connection with this War. I am certain that we could not keep out of the War with any honour to ourselves. Consequently we are in it whether we like it or not, and to talk about the cost is to misconceive the whole problem. We are in the War now and we could not stay out. We must accept the responsibilities of the War, and it is as much an obligation on this House to accept the obligations of those women and those children as it is to give our men the very best cannon and the very best rifles and the very best ammunition that science can design and that money can purchase when they are waging battle for us in the trenches in Belgium and France. I shall want to know, and I hope I am not putting it offensively or too high, from the
        490
        Government, do they intend to broaden the terms of reference, so that this Committee may consider the separation allowance as well as the pensions? If they will not I shall be bound to take some action before the end of the Sitting to get in some kind of amendment, because I would be misleading the House and I would not be representing the great body of organised labour in this country if I did not say that we cannot accept the scale which the Government propose as satisfactory. We hope an effort will be made cither by the Committee that is being empanelled, or by this House after that Committee makes its report, to amend the scale in a direction which will be fair and just and honourable to the brave men and officers alike who are giving their lives and their blood for this country.
        Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I desire, if I may, to offer one or two quite general remarks because I think the House will realise as regards details cither of the cases, or as to the scale, it is really quite impossible for this House of Commons to deal with minute matters like that, and that those are matters which, as apart from the principle, have got to be left to the Committee, and are best left to it once the principles themselves are established. I should like just to emphasise one or two points, because they are of quite unusual importance in a case of this kind. I can hardly express myself as too much gratified at the personnel which the Prime Minister says will compose the Committee, and I do so for an especial reason. If there is one thing that is really necessary from the point of view of the welfare of the country it is that the findings of the Committee should be final, and that there should be no chopping and changing from week to week and from day to day. I am acting on the words of the Prime Minister a few days ago when he said that he asked for criticism if it was made in all good faith and for the sake of the public welfare. Therefore I am sure the House will be with me when I say that this Committee when it is set up should take warning by what has happened with regard to the scale of allowances. We first of all had a scale with which nearly everyone was familiar and which came out early at the beginning of the War. We were then told that the whole question of allotments was to be unified and that they were all to be compulsory; that the wife of everyone who was enlisting and serving, whether abroad or at home, was to receive the same amount,

        491
        and that complications were to be done away with. Soon after that a new and revised scale of allowances was brought out. The week was not out when there was another shift back again, some of the allowances being optional and some compulsory. An extraordinary dilemma was placed upon all those who were helping because they were put in this position. Supposing you had two wives of soldiers at the front, to one of whom an allotment was made and to the other of whom an allotment was not made, the deficiency in the second case was to be made up out of the voluntary fund, and you had an absolute inducement to the first man to discontinue the allotment. Whichever way it is regarded it is a perfectly absurd position.
        Then, lastly, there was again a change back in another direction. I am not quite sure of my facts, but I am pretty certain now that there is no compulsory allotment of any sort or kind at all for men at home. What happened when we had this last change, and I am giving it as an instance of why we do wish for finality now whatever has been done in the past—what happened on the last change? No allotment is to be compulsory, but in a leaflet which has got the extraordinary heading of "Increased Allowances" when really it informs wives that allotments are no longer to be compulsory and no increase of allowance is announced in it, the wives themselves are asked practically to dun their husbands for part of their small pay when they are at the front. If I may say so the wife of any soldier on service is put in a perfectly invidious and impossible position for any woman who has any sympathy with her husband in the trials he has undergone. I am afraid I have put this strongly, but I put it strongly for two reasons. Those of us who have been concerned in dealing with these women and in doing our best for them have found how difficult the whole situation was made, not for us (because that did not matter) but for them. You found that they did not know from day to day what was going to happen, and consequently the whole work of dealing with them with consideration and with propriety was made enormously more difficult.
        Therefore I hope, and I press this point, that whatever conclusions the Committee may arrive at now with regard to pensions there may be no changes of the kind with which we have been all so unfortunately familiar in the case of allot-
        492
        ments. The other point I would urge is this, that when they arrange their scales and when they come to their decision in regard to the amount, that the Committee or the Government will see that whatever payment is to be made at all is paid quickly, and that there is no delay. That is again a most unfortunate feature of what has been happening in the past. Again I hope that no one will think I am washing to criticise unfairly or unduly, but those of us who have had experience of this matter feel that it should not be kept secret. The Financial Secretary to the War Office the other day said that, as distinct from perhaps a month ago, or practically no cases at all now at this moment, in which payments were behindhand. For some months I was responsible partly for organising and later on for helping to administer the committee dealing with these cases in one of our big towns. I wired to them to find out exactly how the case was, and I got this answer:—
        "Five thousand and thirty-four dependants' cases helped in the week ending 7th November and impossible quite to tell how many of them are supplementary grants, how many due to actual non-payments only, but many hundreds outstanding."
        That was a telegram received this afternoon from those who, like myself, are engaged in actually dealing with these cases day by day. The motto of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association is, Bis dat qui cito dat—"He gives twice who gives quickly." I wish the War Office could have adopted that motto themselves and acted up to it in their administration. Take the case of the twenty-six weeks' allowance to the widows of those whose deaths have been announced. We acknowledge very gratefully that the system of giving twenty-six weeks' allowance has been accepted and is now established. But again, I do not know how long it took to get it accepted and established. I wrote from the committee to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) urging him, in the midst of his other duties, to press this matter of the twenty-six weeks' allowance. He did so, but it took a considerable time. All the authorities were "in favour of it," but they "could not get it done." Meanwhile, we did it ourselves locally, and carried it through, but we did it at our own risk, not knowing whether it would be approved or not. Therefore we hope that there will be no chopping and changing, and that arrangements will be devised whereby the payments will be made quickly and not delayed.

        493
        There are many points of criticism in detail, but I purposely refrain from dealing with anything of that kind. There is, however, one other main point that I would like to press upon the Government, and that is that they should have some Committee to consider the outstanding question of the allowances. I do not wish necessarily to suggest—I am not certain that it would be wise—that the present Committee should be asked to deal with this question in addition to that of pensions. In some respects that would be very undesirable. A quick decision is needed with regard to pensions, and it is not wise, by overloading the Committee, to prevent a quick decision from being reached. Of course there might be an Interim Report, as my right hon. Friend suggests. There are a large number of outstanding points with regard to the allowances. I will not take up the time of the House by going too much into detail, and anything I say in that direction is merely by way of illustration. The whole question of allotments and deductions ought really to be taken in hand, with more practical knowledge than hitherto of the cases as they come up in the locality. Perhaps the Financial Secretary to the War Office will not mind my criticising what he says. I do it in no spirit of hostility. To say that the common scale of allotment of 3s. 6d. can be left optional, because, after all, there is a common law obligation on every man to maintain his wife and family, seems to me—I put it with all courtesy—an extraordinarily wrong way of approaching the question. When, a year or two ago, I went from one Poor Law institution to another, I came upon the common law obligation of maintaining wife and family, and perhaps it was reasonable to apply it where the man was getting 25s. or 30s. a week; but when a payment of some 7s. a week is being made to a soldier it is really out of place to talk about the common law obligation of maintaining wife and family, just as is done in every Poor Law institution in the country.
        Mr. HAROLD BAKER: The point is that the obligation does exist. In fact, wives do enforce it, and you cannot prevent them from enforcing it. I was asked a question to-day as to the proper procedure. You cannot get away from that obligation.
        Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member says that wives do often enforce it. I do not quite understand to what that is intended to be an answer. Because
        494
        some do it are all to be encouraged to enforce the common law obligation against a payment of 7s. a week? I wish I could take the Financial Secretary to visit some of these wives. He would find that the vast majority—probably 90 per cent.—would look with horror upon having to try to enforce that common law obligation against their husbands. If I speak with heat, it is because I have seen these women, have dealt with them, and know the facts from the practical point of view. If the common law obligation is defended on that ground, why was an allotment ever made compulsory at all? I do not want to labour the point in a controversial way. Take one other matter which really needs settling. I will give one instance which has been told me by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain). A non-commissioned officer gets a commission for conspicuous gallantry in the field coupled with general ability. He not only gets a commission, but is decorated as well. I put the case in the most general terms, because the wife is a woman of great pride and does not want the case identified. What happens? His allowance stops, and his wife has absolutely nothing to live upon until, he now being a commissioned officer, the system affecting commissioned officers is applied. A woman of that kind would not go to get help. She had to be sought out and made to receive help. I do not give the case in more detail, because, although she took help unwillingly, and, as it were, under compulsion, having gone out to service to try to get a little addition to eke out her means, she did not want her case made public, being proud of what her husband had done. My right hon. Friend suggests a solution, and that is that the allowances should be continued, if need be, in just the same way as they have been in regard to dependants. Perhaps I might claim the Prime Minister's attention to that case. There are also cases affecting stepchildren; children of unmarried mothers, and extra allowances in specific parts of the country. There are half-a-dozen categories of cases which have come up. I think the question of allowances, therefore, ought to be brought under review, if not by this Committee—and I do not think that that would be wise—by some other authority, so that grievances, both as to the allowances themselves and the machinery by which they are paid could be remedied and the entire system made really good.

        495
        I have criticised some matters, and I hope the House will believe that my only reason is that having myself been largely responsible for looking after some 40,000 wives and children, I feel the situation acutely. Not only does one feel the situation acutely, but he realises that if men are necessary for the War, we shall get the best men and get them most quickly if they know that these arrangements are working without flaw or hitch. Unlike the last speaker (Mr. Brace), I do not think that we ought to disregard the question of cost entirely. I do not think that anyone who has the responsibility upon his shoulders can really do that. But I think that generosity in this case pays. It is quite conceivable that, if our administration is good and the principles are generous, the response may be such as in itself to help shorten the duration of the War. All these things have their influence in the scale of cents. I have something of the Treasury mind myself, having worked in that Department, and I have this feeling also: I say freely on this side of the House,, that I myself, as an individual, have always hated expenditure upon armaments; I recognise that they are necessary; I have strongly advocated increases, but I hate the expenditure none the less. It may be likely that out of this War we may get a limitation of this vast annual expenditure on armaments. It is quite impossible to get it for this country only, but there may be more chance than ever there has been in the past of getting some mutual limitation of this expenditure. If so, I think we can look forward to what must be a heavy expenditure on pensions, as one of the best monuments that a lamentable War like this can leave behind it, a monument that we have done our best to mitigate the effects of the evils it has caused.
        Mr. DENMAN: I wish to refer to the question of separation allowances and the possibility of adding to the terms of reference words which will cause the Committee to consider that question. I think that many Members must have noticed with some surprise that the terms of reference excluded the question of separation allowances, seeing that in last week's Debate the question was one of three matters under discussion, and even this afternoon the Prime Minister, in speaking of this Committee, said that it would have the whole of the subject under review. I do
        496
        not want to deal with the question in detail, but I want to give a prima facie case for including the subject within the terms of reference. Everybody who has taken any part in the work of recruiting must have come across the practical difficulties with which recruiters are faced owing to the smallness of these allowances. You interview in the recruiting office a man who tells you that he is getting 40s. a week, out of which he allows his mother or his wife 30s.; when he asks what he will get if he goes on service, and you tell him 12s. 6d. if he has no child, or 15s. if he has a child, you are apt to send him away sad. He is willing to make any sacrifices himself, but it is asking him to sacrifice his family to an extent that he really cannot see his way to do. Of course, we all agree in principle upon this. May I just refer to the principle which was laid down by the Leader of the Opposition the other night? He asserted that:—
        "Men who are risking their lives for us are taking risk enough. It is our duty as far as possible—I do not suggest it is quite possible—to consider that it in a big enough sacrifice for them, and that we ought to try to save them from having to make pecuniary sacrifices—as well."
        The right hon. Gentleman, as well as everybody, understood that this was rather an ideal state, and that we cannot possibly so act by the dependants of the soldiers and sailors as to prevent pecuniary sacrifices in some shape. But when we are getting, as we have been told this evening, the more highly paid artisans to enlist I would like to suggest that there is a principle which would allow for increase of allowance without causing a person to profit by that allowance. We all know, even under the existing scale, that there are some families who are better off than when the man was at home at work. We do not want to reproduce that condition. I suggest a principle that might reasonably govern our action in this matter, and that is that we should place the family in the same economic position as when the man is at home in work—with the proviso: provided that the total sum paid to the dependants shall not be more than £1 nor less than the existing scale. I am leaving out of account the allowances to the children. I am aware that, as has been said, it is a very difficult matter to differentiate in the cases and to try and judge a case on its merits. But I am bound to say that I rather agree with the Leader of the Opposition and with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham that differentiation is possible, because we are doing

        497
        it now in the case of the dependants, the wives and the children, and that differentiation would really be confined within limits, because when you have your maximum of £1 you would there be dealing with persons receiving maximum wages of 30s. and upwards. You would therefore be paying your maximum without any difficulty to persons who in ordinary times would be receiving from their husbands 30s. or upwards weekly. The Committee will, of course, if it is allowed to consider the subject, consider all that in detail.
        We have been told that it will be very expensive to increase these scales. The Chancellor of the Exchequer last night spoke of the figure of £65,000,000. He asserted that was the cost of separation allowances in one year. I think there must be some mistake about that figure. I find it impossible to bring any agreement between that figure and the figure of the actuary as recorded in the White Paper. In any case, whatever the expense of separation allowances, it is an expense limited in time and only goes on during the War. I want, in conclusion, to suggest just one economic reason for bearing the additional expense, whatever it may be. It is, I think, increasingly clear to all of us in modern times that the industrial prosperity of the Kingdom as a whole depends upon the spending power of the poorer classes. If you reduce the spending power of the poorest, you lessen their ability to buy the ordinary necessaries of life, and that reacts very rapidly upon all trades. I think if the Government desire on economic grounds to create as little disturbance as possible they should endeavour to see that economic sacrifices in the poorest families should be as little as possible. With that principle in view, I venture to urge the Prime Minister to allow the subject, of separation allowances to be included in the terms of reference.
        Mr. BUTCHER: I will add my appeal to that, of the last speaker to the Prime Minister, so that a satisfactory result may be achieved. It would be a great misfortune if the inquiry should not also include the question of separation allowances to wives, and if I might suggest to the Prime Minister, perhaps he would also extend it so that it might embrace the question of allowances for the dependants of soldiers actually serving. The inquiry deals with the question of allowances in the way of pensions and grants to wounded soldiers, and to the dependants of sailors and
        498
        soldiers who have lost their lives, but, so far as I understand it, the present inquiry cannot deal with the question of allowances to the dependants of soldiers who are actually serving with the Colours. Therefore I do urge the Prime Minister, while he is dealing with this matter to deal with it comprehensively. I believe the House and the country as a whole are anxious that this question, should be dealt with on a really liberal basis. It is not a question of bribing men to fight for us. It is a question of seeing that the man that is wounded should be adequately provided for, and should have the satisfaction of knowing that those dependent on him, whether wife, mother, or otherwise, should be adequately provided for. I think that is the least the country can do. I am sure, if the Prime Minister will embrace these other matters which are not already included in the inquiry, he will receive the unanimous support, not only of this House, but of the country as a whole.
        With regard to separation allowances to the wife, there have been considerable difficulties in this matter, as everyone knows who has been engaged in the work. The allowances have been varied from time to time. There has been a good deal of confusion to know exactly what in the first place the allowances were which were given by the State; secondly, what the allotments were which were made by the soldiers; and, thirdly, how far the allotments were compulsory. These matters have varied from time to time, and I think the whole question might be considered by the Committee. I would like to support very strongly what has been said by my hon. Friend (Mr. Steel-Maitland) as to the talk about the common law obligation on the part of the soldier to support his wife. It is perfectly legitimate to use that argument when the man is in work, and receiving good wages, but it seems to me to be perfectly out of place to talk about a common law obligation when the soldier is serving His Majesty and is getting 7s. per week. The common law obligation to support the wife when the soldier is serving at the front ought to be undertaken by the State. The State ought to see that his wife is looked after. Therefore, in considering this question, I hope we shall have no more reference to what seems to me to be a mistaken application of the law, applicable under totally different circumstances. These are the two points that I trust the Prime Minister

        499
        will consider when he sets up the inquiry—the question of separation allowance to the wives of men who are actually serving, and the allowances to the dependants of those who are serving. The Committee will have gathered from this Debate that it is the desire of the House—and I feel sure of the country also—that these matters should be treated on a thoroughly liberal basis, and that the first consideration in dealing with these matters should be how you are fulfilling your obligations and the obligations of the country to the soldiers who are fighting for you and those who are dependent on the soldiers.
        The PRIME MINISTER: I think my hon. Friend behind me did not move?
        Mr. DENMAN: No.
        The PRIME MINISTER: I think we can arrange the matter. When the request for the Committee was made by the Leader of the Opposition I understood, and I think he understood, that it was to be confined to that part of the proposals of the Government which dealt with pensions and allowances to those who are left behind, and allowances to the disabled soldiers and sailors. All the criticism, or the greater part of the criticism, that I have heard or read with regard to this matter has been, certainly mainly, if not exclusively, directed to that part of the Government scheme. We have heard little or hardly any criticism in regard to separation allowance. I think that matter has met with general acceptance. I do not believe if that stood alone there would be any desire for inquiry by a Committee, but the two subjects are so intimately connected that it might be impossible for the Committee to conduct its inquiry satisfactorily if the terms of reference were such as not to allow them to consider the other question. Therefore, although I do not anticipate or cannot forecast the possible course of events, or think that the Committee are likely to devote a great deal of their time to the consideration of the separation allowance scale, yet I do think, for the purpose of making the inquiry adequate and comprehensive, that the subject might well be added to the terms of reference and words added to make it clear that the matter is within the scope of the Committee. I do not think my hon. Friend's words meet the case, and I think perhaps that words might be added: "and whether the existing scheme"—
        500
        that is the scheme now before us—"of separation allowances to wives, children, and dependants ought not to be amended, and, if so, in what way? If the Committee answer the question in the affirmative, they will also say in what particular the Amendment is to take place. I think that will meet with the general assent of the House. The reference to the Committee is so extended that there is no material fact in connection with the whole of this difficult subject to be excluded from the scope of the inquiry. I would suggest the addition of those words. I do not know whether it is in order for me to move them?
        Mr. SPEAKER: The other Amendments have not yet been accepted. I think the best way will be to insert them now, and then I will put the Question as amended.
        Amendments made: After the word "for" ["Pensions and Grants for men in the Naval and Military Services"] insert the words "officers and."
        Leave out the words "wounded in" ["wounded in the present War"] in order to insert instead thereof the words "disabled by wounds or disease arising out of."
        After the word "of" ["dependants of men"] insert the word "officers and."
        The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move, after the words "men who have lost their lives," to add the words "whether the existing scheme of separation allowances to wives, children, and dependants, should be amended, and, if so, in what way?"
        Question proposed, "That those words were added."
        7.0 P.M.
        Mr. WALTER LONG: I only rise for the purpose of saying very briefly that while, so far as we on this bench are concerned, we accept with gratitude the Amendment of the Prime Minister, I want also to say that I think there was some little misunderstanding the other day—a very natural misunderstanding, perhaps. Some of us certainly thought that the Debate to-day would include the question of separation allowances. Perhaps the Prime Minister will remember that I myself, speaking on the subject, said that we did not propose to go into details because we would take advantage of a subsequent Motion for that purpose. I am not suggesting for a moment that that was a clear

        501
        understanding. Some of us believed that the Motion would cover the two, but the Prime Minister has now been good enough to amend it so as to enable the whole question to be considered by the Committee. Of course, the additional words of the Prime Minister, I take it, would enable the Committee to discuss the amount of the allowance, and in regard to this the Prime Minister is absolutely accurate in what he says that in this Debate, and outside the House of Commons, there has been little, if any, comment upon the allowances in their new form. [HON. MEMBEES: "No, no!"] I do not see why hon. Members interrupt me. All I say is that as far as I know in this Debate, all the comments have been in regard to pensions and allowances for wounded or sick men, or of the system by which the payments of another kind have been made. The payments themselves have found very little criticism in this Debate, or outside. What has been criticised is the method by which these allowances or payments are conveyed to the recipients, and I imagine that this Amendment will enable the Committee to consider, and if they see fit to do so, to recommend some system which will cover the ground more adequately than it has been covered by the existing method.
        The Financial Secretary to the War Offire speaking the other day told us that the grievances in regard to the non-payment of these allowances were reduced now to very small dimensions. I wish the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to find me somebody in the War Office to answer the letters I have received since that Debate, because it is past my ability in writing, with the ordinary assistance I get, to cope with the letters I receive from all parts of the country. I am not going to quote them, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister I have a whole series of cases from all parts of the country of telegrams and letters which have reached me giving cases, and whole collections of cases, and in addition to that I have sent to the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association headquarters long list of claims on behalf of the wives and children of men who have received nothing, or only partial amounts.
        In some quarters it has been alleged that the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association have not been doing their duty. That great association has done most admirable work in many parts of the country; but they suffer from the same diffi-
        502
        culty from which the War Office suffers, that is the enormous and constant addition to their labour, and if they have made mistakes it is not in the least to be wondered at. But what I hope will be one of the results following from this Debate to-day, and made complete by the report of this Committee, is this, that it is not within the power of anybody, whether an association like the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, or any other body, to treat these allowances to the wives and dependants of soldiers as if within the discretion of anybody. Let me beg the House to remember what happened. The whole thing has been altered by the creation of the New Army. In the old Army, before the appeal made by the Government the other day, you enlisted unmarried lads of 16 or 17 years of age. They knew perfectly well when they entered the Army that amongst other conditions they accepted was the condition that they could not marry without the consent of their commanding officers. When you made the appeal the other day you opened up an entirely new field, and you took an entirely new set of people into the Army. The House must realise that you have to a large extent exhausted your supply of unmarried men without liabilities. Already you have had many married men, and you will have more as you demand more for the Army, and consequently you have created a new problem because you are taking in men with wives and children. What was the promise made all over the country at every recruiting meeting? Surely it was: "Go to the Colours and we will take care of your dependants." We said to them, "You may be perfectly certain that you will find your home going and your dependants happy if you come back." That was the promise made broadcast. We must see that these promises are fulfilled, and they cannot be fulfilled unless it is laid down that the allowances to dependants are automatic and come into existence the moment the man leaves home. And being automatic, and authorised, we must see that they are conveyed to the recipients.
        I said the other day, and I venture to repeat it, because I am extremely anxious that this Committee should include it in the scope of its inquiry that this cannot be done unless you draw much more largely upon civilian assistance in the country. The Financial Secretary the

        503
        other day, I am afraid, thought that we were bringing charges against the War Office. We had no such desire, and have no such desire. We do not want to attack the War Office or anybody else. What we want is to secure the object we have in view, namely, that the women shall get their money as soon as the men go, and that can only be done if the whole system of the distribution of these payments is radically altered. The Financial Secretary, defending with great courage and propriety the great Department of which he is one of the distinguished representatives in this House, told us "We are overwhelmed with letters. The returns are inaccurate; men say they are not married when they are married and have children. They give wrong addresses. Women fail to give the proper names and designation of the men. And all these difficulties have made the work of the War Office almost impossible." Certainly, and it will remain impossible if you try to send all this volume of matter through the very narrow neck of this one bottle. You can only get it done easily and smoothly if you extend and broaden your administration through the assistance of civilian help ready at hand. See how it stands. You have got your work now in equal districts. It does not follow that your Army is divided into equal numbers according to population. There is no similarity in the numbers to be found in large towns and cities. They vary in the most extraordinary way. When you ask a Civil servant in the War Office to secure there the accurate description necessary in order that the right persons may receive separation allowances, I believe you are asking permanent officials to do what it passes the wit of man to do.
        If you lay down the principle of dividing the country into small districts and seek the assistance of civilians there, I believe the system will work with the utmost smoothness, and there will be no difficulty at all. In saying this I am speaking entirely out of the book, because, like my hon. Friend, though in a lesser degree of usefulness, I have taken in the last weeks some small part in looking after the dependants of soldiers and sailors when the men have gone to the Colours, and I have found by personal and practical experience that if you choose you will find in every village, and much more in every town, people who are accustomed to work of this kind and who will be only too glad to do it for nothing, and who will give accurate lists of men, their wives and children, with
        504
        the Christian names, within a few hours of the men's enlistment. When you have got that, it is a simple matter to send it on to the local district pay office, which I suggest should be created for the purpose, and within forty-eight hours after the sending of information you will get the money down for the dependants. Let the House remember that unless you have got some great organisation, like the Prince of Wales' Fund, with a body like the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association to administer the money, if you do not adopt some system such as I have endeavoured to describe, you will leave these women and children without the money necessary to carry on in a few weeks after the men go to the Colours, because it often happens that the poorer of these men leave their wives with little money. I have come across cases of respectable men who, owing to their system of economy, leave their wives with three, four or five children without any means. If you do not pay the woman the first week she will get into debt, or else have to leave herself and children without food. You ought not to expose her to a burden of that kind. Still less ought you to expose her to want, and you can only obviate that by breaking up the system into small parts, and in that way only will you secure that the beneficent intentions of the country are carried out.
        Mr. HAROLD BAKER: I may inform the right hon. Gentleman that every man now enlisting is asked whether he is married, and the particulars are taken of the wife and children, and they are sent off the moment to the pay office.
        Mr. LONG: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman, and I am aware of that, and I sincerely hope it will be effective, but I do not think it will be completely effective unless you break up the country into small areas, because the numbers are overwhelming. I know the difficulty; I have investigated many cases. I have gone to the women and asked the simple question, "What is your husband's name?" They give it, but when I ask for the man's number and battalion, in nine cases out of ten the wife cannot tell. But anyone on the spot who knows the battalion to which the man belongs can by telegram, and certainly by sending a postcard, get the information from the battalion paymaster or from men in the barracks. It is only when these cases multiply exceedingly, as they do, in the way they are being dealt with

        505
        by the War Office, that the thing becomes impossible. The Prime Minister was good enough the other day when I was referring to the scales of pay, to ask whether there was any system by which you could deal with this very difficult question of the higher paid men who join the Colours and only get allowances on the lower scale. I ventured then to make a suggestion to ham, which I am anxious to repeat now. I did not for a moment suggest that allowances should be fixed, or could be fixed, on any other basis primarily than that of a man's rate of standing in the Army; nor do I suggest because a man is earning much higher wages he necessarily makes in reality a greater sacrifice than a man who does not receive so much wages, but who places his service and his life at the call of his country. On the other hand, I do not want to see as a result of the enlistment of this New Army, the statement made afterwards that in many cases, homes have had to be given up which were kept going before the War, and for which considerable rents were paid. I come back to the same proposition which I made with regard to the distribution in these matters. If you would only consent to break up the system into smaller districts and make use of your local government organisation, including the pension officers, you could, without any very large, expenditure, deal with these special cases, and I am sure nobody would regret it if a little extra money were spent in keeping together the homes of these people.
        In many cases the expenditure will not be so very serious, because a great many of these men, if happily they live, will, when they have done their service, and the War is over, go back into private employment. It is not like making arrangements for the Regular Army, because these men have enlisted for three years, or for the duration of the War, and consequently it is not a problem which is going on for ever. It is limited, and I commend these suggestions to the attention of the Prime Minister, and I hope they will form the subject of inquiry by the Committee, because I am convinced that this is one of the questions which affects materially the willingness of the men to offer their services. I believe you will get all the recruits you want, but if you want to get them rapidly and smoothly, and if you want the soldiers at the front to think only of their work there, and to feel confident that those at home are being looked
        506
        after by us, you must not only improve your methods of pensions and other things, but you must so oil your machinery that these women will easily and promptly get the money to which they are entitled to to look as their right, and not simply as a gift to reach them under certain conditions. It is in the hope that this may be the result of this inquiry that I have ventured to add these few words.
        Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: There is no question which is agitating the country so much at the present time as the question we are discussing, and I agree that from the point of view of recruiting it is essential that we should have an assurance that the whole matter is going to be immediately and fully discussed and settled, in order that those who are asked to join our Army may know exactly the conditions under which they and their dependants are to be provided for. From the experience in recruiting I have had during the past few weeks, I should like to say that I believe there is a general desire that the question of separation allowances should be fully reconsidered, both in regard to the question of the amounts and the allotment made at the present time, as well as the manner of administration. I am sure the Prime Minister in agreeing to include this subject within the scope of the Committee's inquiry will satisfy public opinion to a very large extent. I hope that the result of that inquiry will be that the scale of separation allowances will be increased in many cases. I also hope that the burden of allotment may be diminished. I have reason to believe that in the case of some of our Colonial troops, the burden is not thrown upon the Colonial contingents as it is in the case of the Home Army. In the case of the Canadian troops twenty dollars per month is provided as a separation allowance, while the soldier may make an allotment up to four-fifths of his pay. It is unfair to many of our soldiers that they should have to deprive themselves of what is necessary for their upkeep beyond the Army provision when they are at the front in order that they may secure proper provision for those who remain at home.
        In regard to the system of administration, I welcome the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Long) that this also should be thoroughly overhauled by the Committee. I have had some experience of the many defects of

        507
        the present system, and regret that offers made by civilians to assist in this matter have been declined. I happen to know one case where the separation allowances were paid punctually without a single complaint having been made, simply because a professional gentleman who had offered his whole time to deal with this matter had had his services accepted. I think if many others in a similar position had had their services accepted Members of Parliament would have had fewer complaints. I should like to pay a tribute to the courtesy and industry of the right hon. Gentlemen who represent the War Office, who have sought to meet our complaints at the earliest possible moment. I do not blame them, but I wish to point out that there are many pay offices throughout the country which during the past few weeks have been acting in a manner which we cannot interpret or understand. I do not want to mention the individual cases, but I think one of the worst cases in Scotland has been that of the Perth depot. There has been the greatest difficulty in getting cases attended to in that district. I may mention that in one case a telegram was sent on one occasion informing me that an allowance had been paid that evening, when in point of fact it had been paid several days before, and this was not known at the office itself. I hope the Committee will consider seriously the advisability of taking the advice and assistance offered gratuitously and voluntarily, of men of business capacity, who, while unable to serve their country at the front, are anxious to serve it in some form at home.
        In regard to the question of the assistance which is to be given by voluntary associations, I believe that the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association has done its very best to render assistance under very difficult circumstances, but I think we have ample evidence that it is quite beyond the resources of such an association to deal with the great problem which is presented at the present time. I hope our experience has taught us that instead of voluntary associations making up something beyond what the State is paying in cases of necessity that necessity ought not to arise, and the State ought to be charged in the first instance with making adequate provision. Take the question of separation allowances at the present moment. It is suggested that
        508
        the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association should add to the State allowance a certain figure for the payment, of rent where that rent cannot be met out of the allowance. That is an admission that there is a burden placed upon these dependants which they are not able to meet, and which it is suggested should be met by a voluntary association. I hope the Government will see that a sufficient sum is paid to these people without making it necessary for them to apply for such assistance. The same applies to the work of other voluntary associations. I trust that it will be decided in the future that the State shall pay direct and pay a sufficient sum in every case without making it necessary for these voluntary associations to intervene. I gather from the Financial Secretary to the War Office that so far as the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association is concerned their work has ceased in so far as they may have to add to the allowances which the State is now going to pay direct.
        I should like to add a word with regard to dependants. I think that at this time we should not allow any question of cost or prejudice to arise in regard to those who are true dependants of our soldiers at the front. I mentioned one case to-day in a question which I put to the Financial Secretary to the War Office. It was the case of children adopted before the War broke out. It seems to me a great hardship that where a man has supported an adopted child, that child being dependent upon him, it should not be allowed to have an allowance. I hope that matter will be carefully considered, and that some allowance will be made in these particular cases. I hope, further, that in the case of the widows of soldiers who have fallen at the front and who are incapacitated for work, better provision will be made than a maximum of 12s. 6d. I represent a constituency where we have a very large number of industrial workers, well paid men, such as miners and steel workers—many of whom have volunteered for active service—and it is quite impossible for those who are dependent upon them to keep up their homes on the figures proposed. Now that we have succeeded in getting our first million men, we have, to a certain extent exhausted the younger men and those who may have been out of employment in various industries, and we are now seeking to obtain from the ranks of the industrial workers the additional men required, and many of them would

        509
        be married men earning large wages. In these circumstances it is essential that more generous provision should be made.
        Our nation at this time is no doubt facing a heavy burden in regard to the payment of allowances for dependants. But after all we have to keep in view that the wealth of this country is being protected now by our soldiers at the front, and as those men are giving what money cannot buy, they ought to receive the highest form of consideration for the personal sacrifices they are making. I trust that the outcome of the Committee's work will be to secure that in every case the dependants of these men shall be put beyond the reach of want, and that no home will have to be broken up on account of those who have volunteered having gone to the front. I also trust that in the future we shall have a better form of administration of these allowances through a special department, distinct from the War Office, which will devote its whole time to securing prompt payment and every consideration for the dependants of our gallant fellows at the front.
        Sir JOSEPH WALTON: I welcome the announcement of the Prime Minister that the scope of the inquiry of this Committee will be extended to include the question of separation allowances. I trust that the result of that investigation will at any rate be that the whole of the deductions which are now being made from the 7s. per week paid to the soldiers will be discontinued and will be borne by the State. I have taken part in some thirty to forty recruiting meetings within the last few weeks, and I can tell the House that the response we have had on the part of highly paid workmen from Yorkshire has been one that made one proud of their patriotism. We have to-day 16,000 Yorkshire coal miners enlisted to fight for their King and country, and that number is increasng every day. Of the 1,120 men forming a new Barnsley Battalion, no fewer than 412 are married men. At those recruiting meetings I ventured to say, knowing as I do the feeling of the House of Commons, that men of all parties would join together and pass through such a scheme dealing with this important question as would be generous to the dependants of those who are fighting our battles at the front, whether in regard to separation allowances or in regard to pensions in cases where the breadwinners lose their lives at the front, or in regard to pensions for disabled men. I assured meeting after meeting that they
        510
        need not hesitate to enlist, because we would see that their dependants were generously and liberally provided for.
        I hope that the question of whether highly paid men who enlist ought not in some form or another to receive a higher grant for the maintenance of their dependants than the present flat rate in force or proposed will be considered. When I remind the House that a large majority of the 412 married men who have recently enlisted in the Barnsley Battalion are earning wages of from £3 to £5 per week it brings it home to one the enormous sacrifice which those men are making through their patriotic attachment to their country. I submit that it is our duty, as a House of Commons representing the nation, no matter what the cost may be, to make adequate provision so that the homes of those men into which from £3 to £5 per week had been going up to the time they enlisted should not be reduced to the small pittance at present proposed to be allowed them. I know that it is a difficult and complicated question, but I trust the Committee will see their way to abandon this completely flat rate system under which the dependants of a man who has been bringing into his home from £3 to £5 per week only receives the same as the agricultural labourer whose dependants probably receive a larger sum than he was bringing into the home when he was at work. I submit that all the men who enlist take equal risks in regard to their lives and their possible disablement, and in my judgment we ought to have some approach to equality of financial sacrifice made by them when they give their services to their country. I trust, therefore, that the Committee, which I am sure the House can trust to investigate the question thoroughly, will come to a prompt and early decision. That is of the highest possible importance if we are to proceed to enrol the second Barnsley Battalion rapidly. They are some of the finest men that can be found in the United Kingdom. They are as hard as nails and full of courage and Yorkshire pluck. The one thing which stands in the way of enabling us to rapidly enrol that second battalion is that this question is not finally and completely settled. The Committee, therefore, ought to know the importance of promptly dealing with it and reporting as speedily as possible to the House.
        Mr. ROWLANDS: The hon. Member for South Glamorganshire (Mr. Brace) tried a

        511
        task which is impossible. Burke said that he could not indict nations, and I do not think the hon. Member can indict a huge class like the rural community of this country. He may be thoroughly well conversant with what the rural districts in Wales have done. I leave him to settle that with his colleagues representing that portion of the country, but no Member who has a large portion of rural area in his constituency, and who knows what has been done in neighbouring counties, can allow his remarks to pass unchallenged. Many of the rural districts have done their duty thoroughly. The men have come up remarkably well, and have joined the ranks and done their duty to their King and country. I do not believe for one moment that it is wise to draw any of these class distinctions. I have set my face against it at all the recruiting meetings at which I have taken part, and they have been very many. I have always said, "Let us appeal to every class of the community to do its duty, if you can get up a spirit of emulation amongst them, do so, but do not slur one particular class unless you can prove the matter thoroughly." Even when you see figures which have been got out as to the amount of enlisting, they are not complete. First of all, they do not contain those drawn from that particular village or locality who were already in the Reserves or the Territorials, and where the Reservists and Territorials were strongest the locality must show a less percentage of its population joining the New Army.
        I am very pleased indeed to think that the scope of the investigations of this Committee is to be widened. Everyone who has been round the districts knows that in our appeal to men to join we have taken upon ourselves the responsibility of telling them that we would, as far as it was possible, see that their dependants were well looked after. The scale at present in existence is not adequate to meet the requirements of the families as a whole. I am not going to compare one class of the community with another. I do not think it is necessary. If you attempt to give according to the wages earned you will find yourself in great difficulty, but without that there is ground for hoping that this Committee will see its way to widen the scope of the present separation allowances. Suggestions have been made as to how the block of work at the War Office
        512
        might be reduced and as to how the correspondence, where it is delayed, might be dealt with more promptly. I would like to point out one organisation which has not been made use of as much as it might have been. Immediately upon the outbreak of the War the Local Government Board communicated with all the county councils and all the urban councils throughout the country asking the authorities connected with them to bring into existence representative committees. In many urban districts widely representative committees were formed of very capable men, and I think very much more might have been turned over to those bodies than has been done. I do not want to condemn the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association as a whole, but I know that in some counties they have not a representative body, whereas this body was of a thoroughly representative character and would have had the entire confidence of the whole of the community. I know that it had its hands on all sections of the community and could have supplied any information in any direction that was required with regard to the wives and families of any of the men who had gone to the front.
        I have had a great deal of communication with the War Office recently; I have taken a good many cases there, and I wish to say, so far as the Financial Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for War are concerned, that I have received the utmost attention at their hands and that I am not complaining of anything that they have done. I have not taken a single case there which they have not attended to as speedily as they possibly could. We are criticising to-night the whole of the organisation of the War Office, which we believe is far too centralised. Much of the work might be distributed amongst those who are only too willing to go on these committees. There are capable men prepared to do the work if asked by the departments, and you could get your work done in a manner which you cannot do so long as you centralise it as you have done. I have asked a great number of persons in all sections of the community, employers as well as employed, what is their idea with regard to the extra charge which must be made if much more generous terms are given to the men, and I have received on all hands one reply to my inquiry. "We believe it is our duty, those of us who cannot go and take our share at the front, to be prepared to pay

        513
        adequately those who go and do the work for us and to look after their wives and families thoroughly. I have received, possibly many other hon. Members have also, from my urban council and other local authorities long resolutions urging me to put before the House and the Government their desire that more adequate terms should be given to the families of the men at the front. I therefore welcome the fact that this inquiry is to be widened, and I hope when the result of its deliberations is brought before this House that we shall have a broad and a generous scheme which we can all accept with gratification. I am sure that while the burden may be very heavy indeed it will be no more than we ought to bear on purpose to look after the comfort and interests of those who are left behind while the men are struggling for us in the trenches.
        Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I desire to join with other speakers in thanking the Government for enlarging the scope of the Committee and giving an opportunity to Members in all parts of the House of touching upon matters which I am confident seem to all of us of the greatest importance, both for recruiting and for the permanent welfare of the relatives of those fighting at the front. Much has been said, and certainly not too much, as to the extreme importance of securing universally the prompt payment of separation allowances. Separation allowances are paid by different authorities and in a different way to the relatives of Territorials than to the relatives of those in the New Army. I know of one town in the North of England where recruiting for the moment is really positively injured by the fact that there are some persons, relatives of Territorials, who have not had their allowances with the same promptitude as relatives of some men in the New Army. Everybody knows that if you have one or two instances in a locality where there has been long delay, it is naturally the subject of conversation; it does very great injury to the person concerned, while it also results in a very great hindrance to rapid and extensive enlistment in that particular area. With regard to the matters with which the formation of the Committee was primarily concerned, I desire most warmly to support what was said by the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) with regard to assimilating the treatment of non-commissioned officers and privates with that of officers from a financial point
        514
        of view, in cases where they are wounded on active service. I do not know if we are to take it that the Royal Warrant is intended to secure such treatment. At any rate, it is not easy to read it into it. It must be remembered that all ranks take the same kind of risks, and the more nearly you assimilate the financial treatment given to the rank and file with that given to the officers under the same conditions, the more are you prompting that community of feeling which we are so proud to notice among all ranks in our Army.
        With regard to the flat rate and its possible modification as affecting pensions, I desire to say that the scale now proposed by the Government does not seem to me to fully meet the case. You cannot arrive at a satisfactory scale either by taking the best paid artisans who volunteer or the smallest paid agricultural labourer. I agree with the last speaker that this is not a time for pitting town against country, as all parts of the country alike are responding with enthusiasm when the case for enlistment is put forward properly. All parts of the country also wish for and require, and ought to require, fair and adequate treatment for those our soldiers leave behind, and for the maintenance of the home. I hope that the deliberations of this Committee, which is now fully informed of the current of opinion in this House, will see its way to combine, as has been pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition, a general flat rate, which I trust will be 12s. 6d. for the widow without a child, with such modifications as may be suggested by the analogy of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and which shall do something to meet those cases—very numerous indeed—in many parts of the country where the standard of comfort of home life cannot be kept up on a flat rate of universal application. This is not a Debate. It is merely testimony given by different Members of that which they believe to be necessary, both for the welfare of those left at home and to promote recruiting in all parts of the country. Like other hon. Members I have been working at this problem, and I desire respectfully to put these views before the Government. I am confident that the various organisations to which the last speaker referred in the different English counties and boroughs are ready and willing to take on more work and to assist the War Office in this department of its administration. I am convinced

        515
        also there are many people who are ready and willing to help, and I do urge that no opportunity be lost, because the work which requires to be done is work which demands the efforts of us all.
        Mr. PRATT: I do not know whether the rendering of the terms of reference by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Long) is the correct one, but I take it that they do include the question, not merely of the amount to be paid, but the method by which payment is to be made. It is, of course, a great thing to have a full and adequate sum agreed upon, but it is a very bad thing if people are to wait week after week before payment is made, I can assure hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench that delays are still happening, and that, in all parts of the country, there are people who have been waiting for weeks for what they ought to have had long ago. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division suggested, as also have other hon. Members, that civilian help, and above all the help of the local authorities, might be called in by the War Office and the Admiralty for dealing with this matter of separation allowances and pensions.
        I am glad to see from the White Paper that the wisdom of that policy has been acknowledged by the Departments already, and that they are calling in local old age pension committees, and especially the education authorities, to see that the money which is to be paid to mothers in trust for their children is spent properly for the benefit of those children. I hope that, as it is proposed to adopt that policy in regard to the payment of pensions, a similar line of policy may be followed with regard to the payment of separation allowances. It was most unfortunate that a circular should have been issued, not very long ago, calling upon the police to supervise the wives of soldiers and sailors in certain parts of the country. I think that was a very scandalous thing to do, and I hope that the new line which is indicated in the White Paper will be adopted, and that the police will no longer be asked to take upon themselves, as I think improperly, this most unpleasant duty. There is one very good test, it seems to me, by which a woman may be tried as to whether she is making proper use of the money she is receiving. The test is, is she looking after her children? Is she doing
        516
        her duty by them? If she is, then she fully deserves the money which is paid to her. That, I think, is the test—the only test—to which any married woman with children ought to be subjected in regard to the manner in which she makes use of her separation allowance.
        The question of pensions seems to me to centre round one proposition, and that proposition is this: The breadwinners who have laid down or may lay down their lives on the bloodstained fields of France and Flanders, have done so without being compelled to do so, and have chosen to do it because they felt the call of duty and have come forward to save their country. Surely, we, in such cases, are in honour bound, in return for their services, to see that we save their homes. I was very much impressed by what fell from the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Birmingham (Mr. Steel-Maitland) when he said that to make more liberal payments, both in regard to separation allowances and pensions, might, after all, be true economy, because there can be no doubt that the parsimonious, proposals which have been made so far have had a deterrent effect upon recruiting all over the country. I think the hon Member was quite right when he indicated the possibility of a more speedy and more general rally to the Colours, if you relieve, the minds of the men who, for many reasons, anxious to serve their country, have justly felt that their first duty was to their home, their wives, and their children, and if you enable them to carry away with them the feeling that whatever happens the home will be kept together and the wife and children cared for, not by receiving relief or charity but by getting what is, after all, only a proper return for what the father and the husband has done. I agree with the hon. Member for East Birmingham that that would have a good effect, and it is quite possible, too, that it might help to bring about an earlier conclusion of a war which is now costing us a million pounds a day. The more liberal the policy you adopt now, the more likely is it to prove true economy in the long run.
        There is another aspect of the question upon which I wish to dwell. It is not necessarily true economy to decide upon a scale of allowances which is similar for all, if that similar scale is not sufficient to keep the family which has been bereaved of the husband and father in a decent standard of life and to keep the home together. Even if they go into a smaller home, you

        517
        should not force them, into the slums, but you should enable them to keep up a respectable standard of life. If your pension allowances are not sufficient for that, then I say the money you are giving is badly spent, and to make the allowance sufficient to maintain the standard of life which those people have been accustomed to, will be found to be true and lasting economy. In that case you will have the children growing up feeling that the land has been indeed their Motherland, and feeling grateful, too, for what it has done for their widowed mother. There is no memory that sinks more deeply into the mind of a young boy or a young girl than the memory of a poor widowed mother struggling hard, week in and week out, to make ends meet. There is nothing that creates a deeper impression on the mind of a young growing child than that, and I say at this period of the country's fortune, when so much is at stake, we should not make this error of sweating the lives of the wives and children whom these brave men have left behind them.
        8.0 P.M.
        The scale that appears in the White Paper, to my mind, does not do justice to the woman either as mother or wife. The amount that is given—7s. 6d.—an amount which nobody has defended here to-day—is totally inadequate for any woman who is left to fight the battle of life alone. The Prime Minister said that we had to consider the effect of giving a larger sum on the individual recipient. He meant, I suppose, the giving of a sum of money to a young woman sufficient to relieve her from going out to work; he seemed to suggest that that would have a demoralising effect. But so long as there are people who pay Super-tax in this country I do not think there is any need to use that argument. If we are going to use that argument in regard to a person having sufficient to meet her needs without the necessity of working for a living, then I think that the proposition might be suggested to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this time of extreme need, that he might proceed to put a tax of 20s. in the £ on all unearned incomes whatsoever. So long as there are any people in this country who have no necessity to work, it seems to me we ought not to judge too hardly those who have lost their husbands and because of that have not sufficient to keep them in the days to come. The whole of that argument is based, it seems to me, on the assumption, conscious or unconscious, that all these widows come from
        518
        the poorer-paid classes of society. But, as has been said over and over again, that is not so. There are many women who will be left who have not had to work in their younger days, who were brought up at home and have never been thrown on the labour market, and I think it would be a great misfortune, little short of a scandal, if, because of the heroism and loyalty of the husband, they are thrown on the labour market now. I would appeal to the Committee that is to be appointed to give their close consideration to the lot of the widow who is left childless. She will have a lonely life and a hard lot, and the least we can do for her is to keep her from having to depend on odd jobs or on the cold hand of charity. When we come to the woman with one child, I should imagine that no Committee could deliberate upon that point very long without coming to the conclusion that 12s. 6d. is not enough. It is not enough in regard to all those people who come from our great industrial centres and from our large towns and cities, where rents and rates are high. What is left after the rent of a respectable home has been deducted from the 12s. 6d. for the widow and child? It has been said that in these matters the State is very apt to put the women and the children last. I hope that the Government, upon whom the responsibility in the long run rests—they cannot put their responsibility upon the Committee, and throughout the country during recent years we have heard a good deal from Members of the Government as to low wages, sweating, and the evils of living in slums—that in regard to the matter now before them will bear in mind the speeches of past days, and will see to it that a living wage is given to all those who, as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said at the Guildhall meeting, are the children of the State. Let them treat them as the children of the State, and let us see to it that the children who are left grow up well-nurtured, well-fed, well-housed, and ready to play their part, when the day comes, in the great task of carrying on the noble traditions of their fathers. Their fathers, those brave men who are fighting our battles at the front, have already done much for us. They have shed fresh lustre on our ancient British name. At the end of the day they will come back from the fields of battle bringing the sheaves of glorious victory

        519
        with them. There is something left for us and for the country to do—that is, to earn the blessing which has been promised throughout all generations to those who befriend the widow and the fatherless, who are ready to give their strength to aid the weak, and who are ready to share their riches to succour the poor.
        Mr. DENNISS: I wish to mention two matters for the consideration of this Committee. From the inquiries I have made in my Constituency, which is one of the largest in the Kingdom and entirely industrial, there is but one opinion, namely, that the basis upon which the pensions and total disablement allowances are to be placed should be £1 a week. In the case of people who have been entirely supported out of the pension or of the disablement allowance, £1 is the minimum sum upon which the home can be kept together. £1 is quite small enough in these times, when food is so dear, and is likely to become dearer. I ask the Committee to pay great attention to what the representatives of the Labour party have said with regard to £1 being taken as the basis. We might revise it, perhaps, occasionally in some special cases, but for a person who has to rely upon the pension alone for sustenance, £1 is the minimum.
        The Prime Minister rather worried me when he said in his most solemn manlier that this House must have regard to the burden to be imposed upon the people of this country. I do not think we ought to consider the burden for one moment. Once we have determined what is right, just and proper, after great and grave consideration to be given in these cases, the question of the burden upon us has nothing to do with it—it must be paid. This country is rich enough to do it, and it must be done. The Prime Minister has been Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are going to have upon this Committee two right hon. Gentlemen, one of whom is the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the other has been Chancellor of the Exchequer, and may be Chancellor of the Exchequer again in the future. These right hon. Gentlemen know the difficulties connected with Budgets. Probably they would be inclined to take into consideration what they call the burden on the people. I submit that those men who are fighting for us and laying down their lives now are really preserving to us the whole of the money that this nation
        520
        possesses. Should we be defeated our wealth would disappear. No price is too great to pay to them, so long as it does not exceed the bounds of what is just, well-considered, and right.
        Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: I do not rise to take up the time of the House in repeating what has been said before, but rather to make two points which have not been made so far in this Debate. Of course, many other hon. Members have congratulated the Government upon including the separation allowances in the work of this Committee, and have expressed the hope that both the allowances and the pensions will be settled upon a generous scale. I wish to make the point that the pension should, so far as possible, be a continuation of the separation allowance and allotment, so that when a man is killed, if he is unfortunately killed, the money should be paid to the woman and the children on the same scale as when he was alive. That is a thing which the public will understand. I do not think the public will ever see any reason—and I myself can see no sufficient reason—why the money should be less after the man has been killed than it was while he was alive. The other point I want to make is that I hope there will be no vexatious exceptions. I will give the illustration that I have in mind. Formerly wives only received separation money if they were married on the strength. Now we have put that right. But there is one class of wives to whom justice has not been done by the alteration that has been made.
        We know that there are, unfortunately, many thousands of women in this country who have been obliged, through no fault of their own, to go to the magistrates and obtain a separation order against their husbands, and have received an order for the payment of so many shillings a week—10s. a week being a not unusual sum in such cases. If the man continues in civil life he must go on paying that 10s., and if he does not do so the woman has her remedies against him. If, on the other hand, he joins the Army, as many of them have done, the woman is practically deprived of any civil right to the recovery of that money; but the Government or the War Office will stop out of his pay 6d. a day or 3s. 6d. a week, which they will hand over to her, whereas the Court, having investigated the matter, has ordered that she should have 10s. a week. She does

        521
        not get the 9s. separation allowance, which the wife gets in the ordinary case, yet she has been deprived of the breadwinner as much as in the case of the ordinary wife. The State has taken him, and I submit she should still get 10s., or whatever sum the magistrate ordered should be paid to her, and that separation allowance should be paid to her, at any rate to the extent of making up the difference between the 3s. 6d., which the War Office stops out of the man's pay, and the 10s. she is entitled to receive. If it should come to be a question of a pension, she ought to be treated as a wife and receive her pension as the others do. It is not her fault that she has had to obtain a separation order. The State has taken her breadwinner, and the State should not make her suffer thereby. I hope the Committee will consider this and other such vexatious exceptions, and will remove them. In all other respects I trust they will give us a generous, simple and complete scheme, both for the separation allowances and allotments and pensions, and that when we have the scheme it will be promptly and expeditiously administered. I know from my own experience in connection with recruiting meetings that the difficulties and delays in regard to these matters have very seriously interfered with our getting the large number of recruits we must have.
        Mr. OUTHWAITE: I wish to express my gratification that the Government have added the question of the allowances to that of the pensions which are to come under the purview of the Committee. I hope they will deal with both questions in a generous fashion. I have a particular reason for wishing it, because I have refused to speak at recruiting meetings because I could not ask a man to fight for me under the conditions imposed upon men in this country, In Australia a private is getting 5s. a day and an allowance of £1 a week, or more. I cannot understand why equal generosity, or rather justice, should not be done to the soldiers of this far more wealthy country. The effect is to leave disabilities in the way of men giving effect to their patriotic feelings. There has been a great response from the district I represent, which may be due largely to the efforts of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward). The statement has been made in public that something like half the men who have been recruited from that district are married men; consequently the question of separation allow-
        522
        ances is one that peculiarly affects the district. I desire to urge particularly that the separation allowances shall be of such a nature that there shall be no recourse whatever to charity. The allowance is too low, and inasmuch as in such a district as the Potteries rates and rents are high, and now we are going to increase taxation upon these people by way of the Tea Tax, the separation allowance might be on a more generous scale, especially in view of the fact that when these men come back from the War it is quite possible that they will be faced with a period of unemployment before they can get back to work, and they should not come back to find their homes in debt.
        As regards pensions, I cannot agree in any way with the view expressed by the Prime Minister, that it is necessary to keep the amount down to so low a figure as 7s. 6d. a week because of the fact that the young widow is a woman who has been accustomed to work, and we should be very careful not to put her in a position of not having to work in the future. I think it would be very much better for us to risk that terrible possibility than to leave many a young woman in distress and misery and starvation in future. After all, we have to remember that we are recruiting to-day many men whose wives have not perhaps been accustomed to earn a living, well paid artisans who have been earning enough to keep the home going without having to call for the supplementary work of their wives, and I can see no reason why those women should not exist in the future in exactly the same condition of life as they did before their husbands laid down their lives for their country.
        There is another point on which I wish to lay the greatest possible emphasis. I trust that when these separation allowances are granted they are granted as a right to the wife, and the same as regards the pension, and that they shall not be dependent on the good conduct of the wife as decided by the police or by those local organisations which are liable to be called in to give them assistance. It was suggested the other day by the Financial Secretary that it was customary to make the payment of a pension dependent upon the good conduct of the recipient. That may be so. But I have never yet heard of a case of the payment of a pension being made dependent upon the good conduct of the wife of the pensioner. The separation allowance is virtually a payment to the soldier, passed on by the State to his

        523
        wife, and his wife should receive it without any interference or surveillance by the police whatsoever, and it is an insult that should be repudiated immediately, and the Army Council should be prevented from calling in the police in any way to exercise surveillance over the wives of those who have gone to fight our battles. I trust the Committee will regard this matter of pensions and allowances in a generous spirit.
        Mr. JOHN WARD: I represent a very poor locality, and I think the War Office will agree that it has sent the greatest proportion of soldiers to the front of any district in the country. The proportion at any rate is 12 per cent. of the entire population, including men, women and children. If the whole population of the country enlisted in that proportion we should have nearly 4,000,000 soldiers, so that we may know that there are districts very considerably below that. It has been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) that there should be a difference made in the pay, pensions and allowances for different classes of private soldiers. I do not think that is possible, and I am sure if anything of the kind is suggested in the Report of the Committee I should have to oppose it. A man joins the Army as a private soldier. It does not matter whether it is in time of peace or war. He does the same as his next door neighbour and runs exactly the same risks. He enlists under the same conditions, and it would be a grave misfortune which would have very dire results if the social position of these men when they enlist for service was going to decide the recompense that their families should get afterwards. If any suggestion of that kind was made by the Committee I am sure it would create a considerable amount of feeling. I have been watching the proceedings to-day with the greatest delight. I have stood in this House time after time on the Army Estimates for nine or ten years and advocated better conditions for these men without ever getting a single one to assist me on either side of the House, and I am delighted that at last we have had such a splendid rally to the cause I have had so long to stand alone to defend.
        Mr. HASLAM: The great interest of this country, in fact, of Europe, is that the War should be concluded at the earliest possible moment. I feel that with
        524
        this country, especially in the Western sphere of the War, lies chiefly the balance of power, and I trust that the enormous wealth of our Empire in all the resources we have in man and material should, if effectively and rapidly brought to bear upon the situation, have the result of bringing the War to a much earlier conclusion than any other nation. Our Allies, the Belgians, have practically a devastated country, and have virtually come to the end of their resources. France, I believe, has nearly the whole of her population able to serve now serving. The industries of these countries are practically strangled. Here the position is very different indeed. The people of this country, if so determined, can bring such force to bear as to quite alter the situation, and bring about the rapid crushing of the military spirit of Germany, which we all believe to be the present enemy of the civilisation of the world. I would specially appeal that we should deal very liberally with those who are permanently injured—the men who are unable to earn a living when they come home, being wounded severely. Also the sum of 7s. 6d. for a widow appears to me too little. I admire that part of the Government's scheme by which they are paying in respect of children 5s. instead, as is suggested in some quarters, of 3s. 6d. The larger expenditure is to be approved because it is essential to the strength of this nation that the children should be brought up adequately fed and housed. From the position merely of desiring the future strength of our country to be maintained or increased, it is very desirable that a fair allowance should be made for the maintenance of such children. I am not aware whether in this scheme existing pensioners who have perhaps been injured in the Boer War or other more recent wars are to get the benefit of this scheme, but I am inclined to think it would be only fair to give the men who have suffered in those wars the same privileges as those who suffer in the present War. There may even be some Crimean veterans who do not got quite as much as they would get under this scheme. But I think those who have served in the past ought to be treated on an equality with those who serve today, as regards their future pensions and emoluments.
        Another point which strikes me as a matter of justice is that men serving at the front should be equally treated as regards their wages. The pay of married men is being reduced by 3s. 6d. a week.

        525
        I cannot see why, considering that certainly half the pay of these men goes in buying things which are practically necessary, the married man should have practically nothing left to buy such luxuries as he may desire to obtain. Both married and single men should, I think, be equal, and the allowance of 12s. 6d. paid to the wives should be paid entirely from Government sources. I wish to say once more that I feel, if this matter of pensions and other emoluments were fixed now upon a fair, just, and adequate scale, there would be a large increase in recruits, and by this means we shall not lose eventually from the money point of view, but actually gain by being liberal to the people who have given their services to their country.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
        Ordered, "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider a scheme of Pensions and Grants for officers and men in the Naval and Military Services disabled by wounds or disease arising out of the present War, and for the widows, orphans, and dependants of officers and men who have lost their lives, and whether the existing scheme of separation allowances to wives, children and dependants should be amended; if so, in what way.
        That the Committee do consist of Six Members:
        That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:
        That Three be the Quorum."—[The Prime Minister.]

      LAND DRAINAGE BILL.
      Order for Second Reading read.
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Harry Verney): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
      I wish to say a word in regard to this Bill. It is an emergency Bill of a temporary character to deal with the unforeseen contingency of unemployment arising out of the War, and I hope it is entirely non-controversial. The only point I wish to refer to is the application to Ireland and Scotland. I think my hon. Friend the
      526
      Member for North Kildare (Mr. John O'Connor) will believe me when I say that the whole system of land rating in Ireland is so different from that in England that probably the best way of dealing with the matter as regards Ireland would be to introduce a fresh Bill. I have no objection to the Bill applying to Scotland. If hon. Members representing that country will bring forward Amendments to meet the case I have no objection, but I am told that the system of rating there is also so different that probably a fresh Bill to apply the proposals to Scotland would be the better way.
      Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: I quite agree with the hon. Baronet that this Bill ought to commend itself to the House. It is probably a necessary Bill, and certainly it will provide for much employment directed in a proper manner and to a proper purpose in this country. But I do complain that no proposal whatever is made to extend the beneficent provisions of the Bill to the country in the three Kingdoms that wants it most. There are in the House hon. Members who have sat here for many years, and who will remember that year after year Motions have been introduced from the Irish Benches directing attention to the awful necessity that exists in Ireland for arterial drainage. These Motions became hardy annuals. Now there is proposed a measure which has got for its object the facilitating of drainage in the country that least wants it, while the country that most wants it is omitted from the Bill. What are the provisions of the measure? The Bill is to enable the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to "Make better provision for the execution and maintenance of Land Drainage Works." That is a most desirable thing, but I am not quite sure that it is so desirable in England as in Ireland. About Scotland I know nothing, but Scotland is sufficiently well represented in this House to make its own claim felt. It is quite possible that in England works will be promoted that are not absolutely necessary at all, and which the country could go without. The Bill is merely for the purpose of giving employment and directing it to a proper end. What are the means suggested? One of the Sub-sections of Section I states that a Provisional Order may, amongst other things, provide
      "for the manner in which any expenses incurred by the body constituted by the

      527
      Order are to be raised by conferring on that body such powers as to rating and borrowing as are exercisable by Commissions of Sewers, or by requiring contributions from other drainage authorities exercising jurisdiction within the area defined by the Order, and may for that purpose vary and extend any rating and borrowing powers of any drainage authority so required to contribute."
      Here is the provision I have craved for years in this House. I have asked that the various local authorities through whose jurisdiction various rivers run should be allowed to constitute a board among themselves to do the things proposed by the Bill. Time and again that request has been refused. I must say that more than once the House has passed the Motions made from this side of the House, but nothing happened. Take, for instance, the River Barrow. In the thirty years I have been in this House the Irish Members have tried to impress upon the House the necessity for something being done. During the 114 years since the Union not a penny has been spent to prevent that river overflowing its banks, and four times a year regularly it submerges no less than 48,000 acres. Is it not with reason we complain of the differential treatment which gives this measure to England that does not want it and refuses it to a country that does want it? I know that the hon. Baronet has sympathy for the cause I am endeavouring to urge here to-day. He suggests that there is not in Ireland a commission of sewers which might exercise the powers of borrowing, and so on, but there are other bodies in Ireland that exercise borrowing powers. You need not be tied by the fact that there is not a commission of sewers. I see my right hon. Friend the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture in Ireland. His powers might be enlarged for the purpose and he might take the place of the Commissioner of Sewers in this respect. I have more than once pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman himself that I believe he has the powers already and that he has the money which might consistently with the law as it exists be applied for this very purpose, but he has contended otherwise and he has been backed up by the Government, and therefore nothing has been done. It is a very cruel fact for
      528
      an Irish Member to recall that the very day the Union was carried—the very day on which the Parliament of Ireland was extinguished—it was discussing the ways and means of draining the River Barrow and preserving this land, and no money has since been found for it, while money has been spent in other parts of the country. Take for example the River Bann in the north, which after all is in Ireland. A great deal of money has been spent on that and the whole job has been botched, and the River Bann still overflows its banks. The provisions of this Bill are the very provisions for which I have been asking for thirty years. Nothing has been done. I am almost tired of complaining. The opportunity now presents itself at a period when money is overflowing, when money is being given to meet unemployment and for the purpose of development, and I must express my complaint that nothing has been done for Ireland in this respect. This is differential treatment which we have always complained about, which is still continuing, and which will still continue until this House surrenders its right to legislate for Ireland at all.
      Mr. WATT: I am much obliged to the hon. Baronet for his observations with reference to the extension of this Act, should it become an Act, to Scotland. He must remember that his Department has jurisdiction in Scotland in some respects, and that he is not altogether irresponsible for that country. In this matter Scotland differs from Ireland, but I understand that the provision is this, that the hon. Baronet has promised that if the Scottish Members will draw up Amendments which will make this measure suitable for Scotland, he, on his part, is quite willing, on behalf of the Government, to accept these Amendments.
      Sir HARRY VERNEY: I did not say so.
      Mr. WATT: I understood him to say that he had no objection whatever to this being applied to Scotland if we could draw up Amendments which would make the measure suitable for Scotland. If he has made that promise, we, on our part, can set ourselves to elaborate Amendments which will have the desired effect.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow.

      LAND DRAINAGE BILL.

        LAND DRAINAGE (EXPENSES).
        Considered in Committee.
        Resolved, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any expenses in relation to a Provisional Order which may be incurred in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to make better provision for the execution and maintenance of Land Drainage works."
        Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

      HOUSE OF COMMONS (COMMISSIONS IN HIS MAJESTY'S FORCES) BILL.
      Order for Second Reading read.
      The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
      This Bill is introduced in order to secure that Members of this House who have accepted Commissions in His Majesty's Forces shall not on that account be compelled to seek re-election, but that they should be entitled to remain Members of tins House. Very few words are needed to explain how that situation has arisen. There is a Statute of 1707 which is generally referred to in this connection as the Statute of Anne. This is the Statute in consequence of which Members of this House have to seek re-election in certain cases where they accept offices of profit under the Crown. It is under that Statute, for example, that a private Member, if he is appointed a Secretary of State, or to certain other Ministerial offices, has to seek re-election at the hands of his constituents. But the Statute of Anne made this distinction. It said that with regard to what are called old offices, that is to say, offices which were known to the law at the time the Statute was passed, the Member of Parliament accepting such an old office should have his seat at once vacated, but he might be re-elected, while on the other hand it provided that, as far as new offices were concerned, that is to say offices which Parliament created after the Statute was passed, the acceptance of such new office should not merely vacate the seat, but should render the holder of it incapable of being re-elected. When from time to time we create a new office, which none the less ought to be held by a Member of this
      530
      House, for instance, such an office as the President of the Local Government Board or the President of the Board of Agriculture, both of which have been created since the Statute of Anne, we at the same time in terms provide that though it is a new office, the Member who is appointed to it may none the less be reelected to this House. But subject to such special provision the acceptance of a new office disqualifies the holder from remaining a Member of this House. So far as regards the ordinary commission in the Regular Army, that undoubtedly is an old office, and consequently if a Member of Parliament has been elected as a civilian here and then in the course of his time as a Member of Parliament accepts a commission in His Majesty's Regular Army that undoubtedly does, under the Statute of Anne, cause him to vacate his seat and expose him to the need of re-election if he intends to continue a Member of this House. That is not so in the case of Members of this House who become officers in the Territorial Army, because by express terms it is provided in the Territorial Forces Act of 1907 that that shall not be so, but as regards the acceptance of a commission in the Regular Army it is so and it is so to this day. By this Bill, the acceptance of a commission as an officer in His Majesty's Forces shall not "vacate and shall be deemed not to have vacated the seat of any Member returned to serve in Parliament." As this Bill is presented to the House and circulated, it might appear to be a Bill of general application, and not merely one of those emergency measures passed in connection with the present War, and might appear to involve a permanent change in the law. I think it is highly undesirable at this time needlessly to provoke criticism of general policy, when all we are engaged in doing is to make the provision necessary for the emergency in which we stand. Therefore, I propose, when the Bill reaches Committee, to insert the words "during the continuance of the present Parliament." The effect of that will be that this relief from the necessity of re-election will only apply during the lifetime of this present Parliament, which, as we know, is necessarily now approaching its last year, and any general change in the law will therefore have to-be dealt with at another time.
      I would point out that many people think that the present law does not allow an officer on the active list of His Majesty's Army to sit in the House of

      531
      Commons at all. Many people imagine that an officer in His Majesty's Army is like a judge in the High Court, or a clergyman in the Church of England, who cannot be elected and sit as a Member of the House of Commons. That is not so. It has never been any part of the law of this House, it has never been part of the Constitution of this country, that an officer who is on the active list of His Majesty's Army cannot be a Member of the House. What happens is this: If anybody who has hitherto been an officer on the active list gets elected to be a Member of this House it is not owing to the law of this House, it is owing to a regulation of the Army, that he ceases to be on the active list, and he is put on half-pay or is otherwise dealt with. Consequently this measure does not in the least alter the right of Members of this House to be officers in His Majesty's Army, and it will, so far as this present Parliament is concerned, preserve Members of this House, who in a patriotic spirit have accepted commissions in the Army in view of our present emergency, from being exposed to the necessity of re-election. The Bill, as I think, is so framed as to make it quite clear that none of those not very admirable persons who make it their business to sue for vast penalties in, as they suggest, the public interest, shall be able to exercise their ingenuity at this time to the great expense of Members of this House who are doing their utmost to serve their country.
      Mr. BOOTH: I thank the Attorney-General for his very clear exposition of this Bill. I wish I were quite as certain as he seems to be that it will have the desired effect. I do not think there can be anything which would cause any hon. Member to be in disagreement with the object of the Bill, which is that those of our colleagues who have sought and obtained commissions in the Army to serve our country should not be liable to any penalty nor forfeit their right to sit with us. But I am not quite clear that the Bill, as drawn, accomplishes that. The seriousness of the position seems to me to be that any Member of Parliament who has accepted a commission at once vacated his seat, and from that time until now, and from that time until the Royal Assent is given to this measure, he is not a Member of Parliament at all. On September last—the Attorney-General did not refer to this point, which I think it is a serious one—the quarterly
      532
      payments for the salaries of Members of Parliament were sent, and undoubtedly in dozens of instances must have been sent out to Members at a time when they were not Members of the House any longer. I presume the payments have been made by the Treasury. I do not for a moment want to challenge those payments, or to deprive any Member of his salary as a Member of Parliament. What I am asking is that these payments should be beyond challenge. The only retrospective words I find in the Bill are that the acceptance of a commission as an officer in His Majesty's Army shall not vacate, and shall be deemed not to have vacated, the seat of any Member that serves in Parliament. We are legislating that he be deemed not to have vacated his seat, but I do not think that that alters the historical fact that he did vacate his seat, and that he is not a Member of the House.
      What I ask is that the Bill should, if possible, be made a little clearer and stronger than it is now. In this House we desire to afford the relief in a way that it will be beyond question in the Law Courts. I think it would be regrettable, as this is our intention, that there should be anything which would give rise to future question, and therefore I submit that there should be some words preserving those Members from any of those actions to which reference has been made, unless we get a distinct assurance that such words are unnecessary. But it does seem to me that the receipt of these payments of salary in September rather alters the position, and is something in the nature of a Vote. There have been no Divisions in this House since the War broke out, and I hope that we may be able to defend our country without having to vote "Aye" or "No." I trust that we shall be able to see eye to eye, and stand together, on account of the effect it will have upon our soldiers who are fighting our battles. I think the House would be quite willing to insert words which would meet the point. I am not a lawyer, and I cannot suggest words, having no confidence in any phrase I might use, but I think it is within the power of the Attorney-General to insert words which would put the matter beyond doubt, and prevent our colleagues from being persecuted by vicious actions. I thank the Attorney-General for his intimation that he will insert the words, "during the present Parliament." At Question time I indicated to the House that there would be consider-

      533
      able opposition to this Bill in its present form; that opposition was not meant against the object of the Bill; and we now have the suggested Amendment by the learned Attorney-General limiting the measure to this present Parliament. My own suggestion was to put an Amendment down that the Bill was to be during the War, or whilst His Majesty's Government was in a state of war with foreign Powers. On reflection, I think the suggestion made by the Attorney-General is the better one. I think it is best that we should legislate with regard to our own Parliament, leaving to the next Parliament to consider whether or not it will continue the Act.
      Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Thursday).
      The remaining Orders wore read and postponed.
      Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPKAKEB, pursuant to the Order of the House of 12th November, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."—Debate arising.
      Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes before Nine o'clock.

WAR IN EUROPE.
  VEGETABLE PRODUCE (RAILWAY TRANSPORT).
  VEGETABLE PRODUCE (RAILWAY TRANSPORT).
  EXPEDITIONARY FORCE (PARCELS).
  EXPEDITIONARY FORCE (PARCELS).
  IDENTIFICATION DISCS.
  IDENTIFICATION DISCS.
  RETIRED ASSISTANT PAYMASTERS.
  RETIRED ASSISTANT PAYMASTERS.
  VACCINATION (DOMINION TROOPS).
  VACCINATION (DOMINION TROOPS).
  BURIAL TRANSPORT.
  BURIAL TRANSPORT.
  BONUS ON REJOINING.
  BONUS ON REJOINING.
  PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES.
  PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES.
  INDIAN SCALES OF PAY.
  INDIAN SCALES OF PAY.
  OFFICERS' COMMISSIONS.
  OFFICERS' COMMISSIONS.
  AMBULANCE CARS.
  AMBULANCE CARS.
  ALIEN PEERS.
  ALIEN PEERS.
  WAGES OF REFUGEES.
  WAGES OF REFUGEES.
  BRITISH PENSIONS TO GERMAN SUBJECTS.
  BRITISH PENSIONS TO GERMAN SUBJECTS.
  SIR WILLIAM PLENDER.
  SIR WILLIAM PLENDER.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund.
  Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund.
  Royal Navy (Ship Painters).
  Royal Navy (Ship Painters).
  Auxiliary Sorters.
  Auxiliary Sorters.
The KING'S Answer to the Address of Wednesday last reported by the Lord Chamberlain (L. Sandhurst).
PACK-BERESFORD'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Message from the Commons for Copy of the Minutes of Evidence taken before this House; together with the proceedings and the documents deposited in the case: Ordered to be communicated with a request that they may be returned.

THE SPY PERIL.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY rose to call attention to the various acts of high treason alleged to have been committed in this country, and to ask whether His Majesty's Government have investigated the facts alleged, and, if they have been accurately alleged, why no indictment for high treason has been preferred.
The noble and learned Earl said: My Lords, I hope that neither the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack nor the noble Marquess who leads the House will misunderstand the object of my Question. The very last thing that I should desire to do would be in any way to embarrass His Majesty's Government. I say most sincerely that I wish to help them in every way in my power, and I regard that as the duty of all in the present emergency. My Question, therefore, has no reference to any criticism of His Majesty's Government. It is put with a wish to get rid of what I think is a great delusion, which is, I believe, leading to very great mischief. We have been so long away from the region of the administration of the law of high treason that nobody seems to think of it. Unfortunately I was not in the House at the time it was made, but I read with something like amazement the speech of the noble Lord Crawford, last Wednesday, and the instances to which he referred, including a case where certainly there was evidence of high treason, if it was not actually proved, which was punished by a £5 fine. The result of such a punish-
66
ment is to make people misunderstand the exact position of the law.
We all know that the "chivalrous" and "courageous" mode of making war—that of spending enormous sums of money to induce people to betray their country—is going on. A man may think very lightly of the possibility of being fined £5, or, indeed, of being sent to prison for six months; but if everybody was made to, understand that the sending of letters, signalling, or any act by which the enemy could be assisted in what they were doing or in defending themselves was presumably an act of high treason for which the offenders might be hanged, people would: probably think a little more of the risk: they were incurring. I know nothing: about the facts to which my noble friend Lord Crawford referred, but he professed to know them of his own knowledge. The question which I venture to ask is this. If these facts are known and if they are capable of being proved, what is the reason why the course of procedure has not been taken which I suggest should be taken, and which is the natural and proper and ordinary course in cases of the kind when one country is at war with another?
I am afraid that a great deal of mischief may be done by the manner in which the Criminal Law is approached. We have got so much out of the habit of placing responsibility in the hands of the local magistrates and chief constables that everybody seems to think that the Home Office is the only authority who can authorise or begin a prosecution. I need not tell your Lordships that every grand jury in the country may find a bill for high treason to-morrow if they have evidence upon it; indeed, it has been held that they are entitled to do so upon hearsay. But be that as it may, what seems to me to be the very serious error which is pervading the whole country is that minor offences invented in time of peace in order to avoid the necessity of prosecuting in every case for high treason are taking the place of prosecutions for high treason when we are at war, and when very serious injury indeed may be done by signalling and epistolary correspondence. What my noble friend said the other day was that a regular code had been discovered by which information; of every sort and kind might be conveyed to the enemy. A conspiracy of that

67
kind for the purpose of communicating with the enemy is in itself high treason, and has been so held. If the offence is treated as lightly as it has been, the fear is that people will not consider the risk they are running when they enter into a conspiracy of that sort. Should the facts that have been stated be capable of being proved, then the persons concerned ought to be prosecuted for high treason, so that those who are guilty of these offences should learn the serious risk they run in conspiring with the enemy with whom His Majesty is at war.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, so far from complaining of the speech which the noble and learned Earl has just made I think it is very useful that attention should be called to these matters, as it enables us to have the opportunity of sifting them and knowing where truth is and where fiction is, for I need not say that at a time of public excitement like the present fiction and truth are very liberally intermixed. I have no doubt of the bona fides of the impressions which people form about these cases. Last week the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, who is not here today, referred to certain cases in Scotland. I have had an opportunity since then of conferring with both the military and the civil authorities in Scotland about those cases. I find that the authorities were cognisant of all of these rumours and investigated them, and wherever they found a case where there was the least hope of success they took action. The cases in which they did not take action were based on hearsay—cases in which A had repeated information to B and B had passed it on to C, with the result that one could not get back to the original facts or obtain any evidence to establish the charge. I quite agree that in a case where anything approaching to high treason has been committed a £5 fine is ludicrous, and that the serious proceedings of which the noble and learned Earl spoke ought to be taken.
I am able to state to your Lordships that vigorous action is being taken not only by the military but by the civil authorities. There are three modes of dealing with treasonable acts. First the ordinary, Common Law prosecution for high treason, which is done here almost invariably at
68
the instance of the Attorney-General, and in Scotland invariably at the instance of the Lord Advocate. Secondly, when an alien enemy commits an offence of this kind he can be tried before a Court-Martial for a war crime; a man was so tried the other day, and convicted. The third course is a prosecution before a Court-Martial under the Defence of the Realm Act which was passed the other day and under which certain statutory regulations were made to cover offences of almost every kind, extending to what, if tried civilly, would be high treason, the only difference being that although a Court-Martial can give penal servitude for life—at any rate for twenty years; I think for life—it cannot decree the capital sentence. Consequently in all cases in which the offence is one which seems likely to lead to a capital sentence, proceedings have been taken outside the Defence of the Realm Act. The other day, as I have said, an alien enemy was tried before a Court-Martial for a war crime and convicted; at this moment there is a prosecution for high treason pending, and there are others under investigation.
I can assure my noble and learned friend that it is not through want of attention on the part of the authorities that any of these cases escape. So far from its being in contemplation that these matters should be tried before magistrates or by inferior criminal tribunals, the desire is that they should be tried with the supreme majesty of the law. Investigations take place into every case to see whether it is one in which there is a reasonable hope of conviction. There is, of course, a class of offence—a serious class of offence—in which it is not necessary or desirable to proceed for high treason; but in some of these cases very heavy sentences have been given for crimes such as trading with the enemy, which either by Statute or Common Law are taken cognisance of by the Jurisprudence of this realm. Since I had notice of this Question I have had an opportunity of conferring with the Attorney-General, and I can only repeat to your Lordships what I have already said —that all cases that promise to be of the least importance conic before him for investigation, and he unhesitatingly directs prosecution when they present a chance of success. A large number of other cases have been inquired into by the military

69
authorities, and I do not think your Lordships need be under any apprehension that any offence of a serious nature will escape punishment. There are other offences of a quite minor character which ought to be dealt with at a time like this, and which are being dealt with, by the inferior tribunals.
At this moment, however, I am talking of cases which amount to high treason. Fortunately there are not a large number of cases of that kind. But whether there are or are not, the authorities are taking the view which the noble and learned Earl has expressed— namely, that these are matters which, at a juncture like this, are of serious moment and should be so dealt with. They are being dealt with, as I have said, wherever there is a fair chance of success—the difficulty of evidence is one which must not be overlooked—and I can assure the House that the authorities are alive to their duties in connection with these cases.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I have listened with interest to the remarks of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, but I regret to say that they have given me no confidence whatever. I live on the North-East coast of England, where the position is most precarious. We have reason to believe, as mines have been washed ashore on that coast, that assistance has been given to the enemy by people living on our own shores or by neutral ships. The Home Secretary made a speech the other day in which, as far as I could gather, he placed the responsibility on every single Department except his own. "Please, Sir, it was the other boy, not me." That was his cry—a contemptible cry. He stated that he thought chief constables ought to be in a position to arrest and bring before the authorities those who were suspected of assisting the enemy. I ask, What are the powers of a chief constable? According to the Home Secretary the whole responsibility has been placed on the chief constable. Is he to arrest people at once; is he to have them tried at once; and what is to be done with them? The German Consul at Sunderland has been arrested on account of seditious papers and plans found in his possession, and he has been in Durham Gaol since August. What is
70
going to be done to him? Is he going to be let out on a £5 penalty?
I have not hesitated to write to my noble friend the Lord Lieutenant of my county, Lord Durham—grieved as he is at the moment by a bereavement to which I need not further allude—suggesting that he and the chairman of the county council should call a meeting of the magistrates of the county, at which the chief constable should be requested to attend. I ask, Shall we be justified in giving instructions to the chief constable? If that meeting is called I shall suggest that the chief constable be instructed to order the arrest of any man whom he considers to be a spy and have him tried before a proper tribunal, and that if the man is found guilty of spying and assisting the enemy, we, the magistrates, should take the law into our own hands and have him shot on the spot. That is the only way in which you will stop this; and although we may afterwards be arrested for murder, I doubt whether any jury would not say that in the action we had taken we were doing what the Government ought to have done in defence Of the country.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I regret to say that the country in which I live is riddled with seditious literature. An enormous quantity of anti-recruiting pamphlets is being issued in Ireland. A great many Irishmen have joined the Colours, but these pamphlets are distributed in out-of-the-way parts of Ireland and are doing considerable harm. There is no printer's name upon them and it is quite impossible to find out by whom they are printed. Then, again, several newspapers in Dublin consistently preach sedition. In old days a newspaper of that sort was easily stopped. A four-wheeled cab drove to the office in the early morning and the occupants broke open the premises, smashed up the type, and took the copies of the newspaper away. I wish the authorities would now follow that example of the Fenian days. This literature is distributed broadcast throughout the country, and that fact is not only exceedingly trying to the Loyalist population but also to the Nationalist Party, who, I am glad to say, have done their best of late to encourage recruiting in Ireland. I venture to urge that steps should be taken to put a stop to these proceedings.
THE EARL OF DESART: My Lords, in reference to what has just been said by my noble friend Lord Mayo, I should like to state that I was informed in September last that in a part of Ireland which I know well a large motor-car had travelled through three counties distributing at every cottage leaflets of the character mentioned. The responsible police officer in the neighbourhood said that he knew the owner of the car and where it was hired, and that he had reported the matter to Dublin Castle. Nothing, however, came of it, and it seemed to me at the time a matter of some surprise that no notice should have been taken of so serious an offence.
In my part of the country we are all a little disappointed at the results of the recruiting campaign that was undertaken by Mr. Redmond and others of his supporters. We know how loyally and earnestly Mr. Redmond has pursued that campaign. But it is interfered with by the fact that there is published week by week in Irish newspapers literature which, whether it constitutes high treason or not, is seditious in character and certainly disloyal to the interests of the Empire at this juncture. It is quite true that the pamphlets that are distributed do not make the recipients of them Sinn Feiners, but we know that there have been in the last fifty years a number of leagues in Ireland which have influenced the population very largely and have almost exercised judicial functions. Though they may not endorse the views set forth in these pamphlets, the recipients of them think that it is better not to offend these people, and to that extent the distribution of this literature does have an influence upon recruiting.
We who live in the South of Ireland have supported Mr. Redmond as loyally as we could in his campaign. We feel that the insufficiency of the response to his appeal is a reproach to us, and we earnestly desire, whatever other causes there may be for it, that this cause to which attention has been called, which is capable of being removed, as I submit, should be removed by the Government. I think I speak for everybody in Ireland who wants to see the Empire supported at this juncture when I say that we have viewed with apprehension and surprise the inaction of the authorities in connection
72
with this particular kind of literature. In Cork, I think it was, a man was tried by Court-Martial for having one of these papers in his possession, but he was acquitted on the ground that there was nothing to show that he had incited or done anything with it; he simply possessed a copy. It was rightly held that it was rather absurd to prosecute a man for having a paper in his possession when the person who published it was left unscathed. I hope that action will be taken in cases where the evidence is sufficient to put a stop to this form of propaganda.
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I can corroborate so far as Dublin is concerned what has been said by my noble friends from Ireland. Dublin at this moment is being swamped by literature which I should think came within the category of high treason. A good portion of this literature is issued from America, and is distributed in the poorer parts of the City of Dublin. I know this to be the case, because these leaflets have been distributed over my property in one of the poorest parts of Dublin. It has been done openly, so much so that people are stopped on the road and requested not to do anything which would assist the British Government in any way, whether by recruiting or anything else. Even the children have taken it up. Like children, they play at war; but they all want to be Germans.
The truth is that there is a large amount of German money in Ireland. How it comes there is not known. I am not speaking from a Party point of view. The Lord Mayor of Dublin said openly in the Corporation that he knew there was "a good deal of German money going." We know this is so, because there are a great many people who have not much money of their own and yet are spending a lot. How did those mines get laid off the coast of Ireland? I should like to ask. I do not want any secrets told, but I think the man in the street could say pretty nearly how. I do not suppose that it was done by German men-of-war; that would not be suggested for one moment. The fact of the matter, I suppose, is that it was done by German agents or by disguised German officers in Irish fishing boats. I want to know, Have we a Government in Ireland or have we not? For the last few years

73
I have come to the conclusion that there is nobody at all responsible in Ireland. I have hesitated to approach the Chief Secretary, because I know that I should get the answer which always has been given—namely, that nothing can be done. As a matter of fact, we do not know who governs us in Ireland. When we had the lamentable collision in the streets of Dublin it made one unhappy to feel that everybody threw the blame upon everybody else, and whether the people who eventually got punished were the real offenders nobody knows. But the point is that we are at war now. We are fighting for our very existence, and we must not be mealy-mouthed. We have to tackle this question of spies. It must be tackled somehow or other, and it should be done by noble and learned Lords.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, as Lord Desart said, not one of us wishes in the smallest degree to attack the Government; on the contrary, we want to render their action more prompt and more effective for the purposes that we have in view. But in my opinion noble Lords like the three noble Lords from Ireland who have addressed us are rendering a public service, not merely to this House but to the Government and to the country, by bringing before us their individual experience in these debates. I venture to say that this discussion will be by no means the last, any more than it is the first, that will take place in this House on the question of spies.
Noble Lords must be already thoroughly familiar with the fact that there is great and widespread uneasiness throughout the country on this matter—an uneasiness which the speeches that have so far been made from the Ministerial Benches either in this House or in the other have done nothing whatever to allay. One noble Lord comes here and speaks as to the scattering of mines on our coasts; another speaks of the circulation of seditious literature; another speaks—and we know how true it is—as to the large extent to which German money is employed in our midst. These are only slight evidences among many of a scheme of spy-mongering in this country conceived with consummate ability and secrecy, carried out with a lavish expenditure of money, and at this moment in operation on a scale which would startle every one of us if we knew its internal ramifications.
74
The noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, was dissatisfied with the speech of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. I must confess that I thought it a better speech than the one he made the other evening, though perhaps that is not giving him the praise to which he thinks he is entitled. I own, after hearing the damaging case that was made the other evening by Lord Crawford, that I was both astonished and pained to hear the noble and learned Viscount get up and argue that the test to be applied in these cases was the comfort and convenience of the enemy aliens in our midst rather than the safety of this realm. I heard that doctrine forcibly repudiated by a noble Lord sitting opposite, and I was delighted that, after that unexpected castigation, the argument was not again used by the noble and learned Viscount to-night.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I never said that. What I said was that to arrest aliens wholesale, irrespective of their guilt or innocence, irrespective of whether or not they had wives and families dependent upon them, in such a way that you might be subjecting absolutely innocent people to the greatest hardship, was a policy as inhuman as it was inefficacious.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I do not think that was the language used by the noble and learned Viscount on the former occasion, otherwise the speech of Lord St. Davids would not have been delivered. From what he then said, the noble and learned Viscount appeared to be more concerned with considering the degree of discomfort of aliens which might be caused in these operations, and which in my view is no matter for alarm or regret, and to bestow insufficient attention on the much greater necessity of the State. My noble friend behind me called attention to the speech of the Home Secretary in the House of Commons. The general apprehension that prevails, so far from being stilled, was rather enhanced by that speech. There appeared to be an effort made by the Home Secretary to throw off the responsibility from his own shoulders on to the shoulders of the War Office. The War Office surely has enough to do at this juncture of our affairs with organising and equipping the Army, with sending it out to the field, with supplying it with

75
drafts and guns and ammunition, not to be charged with the additional labour of rounding up spies on our East coast and elsewhere. And in this respect I was pleased to hear the remarks of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack just now, because they did seem to me to mark an advance from the position taken up by the Home Secretary. He talked about "vigorous co-operation between the civil and the military authorities." I heard that statement with pleasure. I only wish that the noble and learned Viscount had carried the matter a little further, and that we had heard something about a suggestion which, if I remember rightly, was made in the House of Commons and received a good deal of support the other day—namely, that a special Board should be constituted of all the various Departments and authorities concerned, to deal with this spy question; in other words, that there should be created a Spy Bureau in this country for the purposes of the war. Unless you have some new machinery to relieve the War Office of a burden which it is not able to bear, you will have these discussions from time to time, you will have these cases of discontent and alarm arising, and we shall not satisfactorily deal with the problem with which we are now confronted. Personally, therefore, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for having gone further than he did the other evening, but I should have been much more grateful had he gone still further than he has now done.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I venture to think that in some of its parts this debate serves as an illustration of the inconvenience which from time to time attaches to our procedure. A considerable and important part of this discussion has been taken up by reference to the particular case of sedition in Ireland and kindred subjects connected with that country. I quite understand that the House might well wish to discuss that subject, but my noble friend who represents the Irish Office is not in his place. He had no notice that any such discussion was likely to be brought forward, and we are therefore not prepared, on behalf of the Irish Office, to state the particular case in the form in which they might—
THE EARL OF DESART: I was at great pains to say that I was making no attack. The whole of my speech constituted an expression of opinion that these matters required consideration. I do not think I suggested that I expected a categorical answer to-day.
THE MARQUESS OP CREWE: I never supposed that the noble Earl was making an attack; in fact, all noble Lords who have spoken have expressly disavowed their intention of doing anything of the kind, and we fully accept their statement. But since this question of Ireland has been raised and has been the subject of three important speeches, it would have been an advantage for us to be able to reply with the knowledge which can only be obtained from the particular Department. I shall not, therefore, attempt to pursue the particular question as it concerns Ireland, because I am not prepared to do so. But on the one particular point which the noble Earl, Lord Meath, raised, he stated that it was a presumption, which he appeared to share, that the sowing of mines not far from the Irish coast was in some way the result of Irish sedition, the result of some combined action between the enemy and Irish spies, with the implication, as I gathered, that the mines themselves came from the Irish coast in boats of some kind belonging to Ireland. That is a suggestion which I am sure will interest the Admiralty, but it is one which I confess we have not heard made before. So far as that particular sowing of mines was concerned, our belief has been that they were sown—altogether improperly, as we think, by the obligation of the laws of war—under a neutral flag, but the particular association of them with Irish sedition is, I confess, entirely new to me.
So far as regards the general question of espionage and the punishment to be inflicted upon it, I am quite aware that no little excitement has been caused throughout the country at what has been conceived, as I think not quite fairly, as the failure of the Government to deal with sufficient energy or in a sufficiently drastic manner with cases of espionage. I may say at once—and I believe that in saying so I speak for all my colleagues—that we are not troubled by any kind of sentimentality or with a desire even to exercise mercy in cases in which action of this kind is proved either against alien

77
enemies or against others in this country who may be guilty of such practices; because it is always important to bear in mind, in considering this question of espionage, that you cannot rely upon action of that sort being simply confined to alien enemies belonging to the nations with whom we are at war. It is, unfortunately, not safe to attempt so to limit the possibilities of the case, and therefore we have to include the possibility of other persons being involved. But when we speak of the punishment of these war crimes, sometimes amounting even to the crime which is the special subject of the noble and learned Earl's Question—the actual crime of high treason—we always have to remember that, even though you put the country under what is called martial law, you still demand, if not the full amount of evidence which satisfies a British jury in ordinary cases, something in the nature of positive evidence before you can convict people, even more before you can think of putting them to death. The noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, spoke of the North-East coast with which he is so well acquainted, and foretold the possibility that the resentment against the absence of convictions might become so serious in that part of England that the ordinary processes of law might be exchanged for a system of something approaching lynch law, carried on even by the magistrates themselves.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDON DERRY: I merely said that if the Lord Lieutenant and the chairman of the county council called the meeting to which I referred, I should advocate that course.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I quite understand, and in a matter of this sort one is particularly anxious in no way to misrepresent what the noble Marquess said. Where a system of the wild justice of revenge has been instituted in other countries—for instance, in the Southern States of America., where, as we know, for many vents lynch law was of frequent occurrence—it has almost always been because juries or courts have refused to convict in the face of reasonable evidence, or where for one reason or another criminals have not been put on their trial; such wild action has been brought about; by what the people of a neighbourhood have believed to be a distinct failure of justice.
78
I pass for a moment to the cases which were named the other day by the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, who is not now in his place. He mentioned cases in which, according to his statement, a serious public offence had been committed and was punished by a penalty which, as he described the case, appeared to be almost derisory. But, of course, before forming an opinion on the action which the magistrates took in that case one would have to be acquainted with all the circumstances and know what the charge really was, what the evidence was that was brought in support of it, and also what the plea advanced by the defendant was; and I have no doubt that those cases have received, since the noble Earl spoke, the careful attention of the authorities. I repeat once more, these are, and are bound to be, matters of evidence; and I cannot help thinking that at the back of the minds of some of those who criticise the Government so freely there exists the thought that, after all, in these cases, where there is great public danger, evidence does not so very much matter, and that even if you are unfortunately wrong and hang or shoot two or three people against whom nothing is really proved—well, you are sorry; it is their bad luck; but in a great public crisis you cannot afford to be quite so particular as all that. That is not an attitude which it is possible for the Government or for the legal advisers of the Government, as I venture to think, to take up.
In the first place, the existence of so great a public danger from information given to the enemy from this country—so great a public danger as to justify a regular departure from what we conceive to be the ordinary course of justice—is not sufficiently proved. People may have their own opinion as to the amount and the value of the information which is conveyed to the enemy from this country. Some people believe that an enormous quantity of information of cardinal importance is somehow or other conveyed to Germany from this country. At the other end of the scale, you will find people who believe that scarcely anything of serious importance from the point of view of our success in the war or of the loss of life of men in our Services can by any means be so conveyed. It is not easy to strike the correct balance between those extreme views, and the positive suggestion

79
that has been made—it was mentioned by the noble Earl who is leading the Opposition—that a special Committee representing various Departments should be formed for the particular purpose of dealing with this spy question, is one of which I do not deny the attraction in some respects, but there are, if the noble Earl will consider, certain difficulties connected with it. At present these matters are in the hands of the naval and military authorities respectively. If you are to have a system which is approaching martial law, it is not 'easy to place it in any hands except those of the fighting Departments, and I should expect that an attempt to divide up responsibility by creating such a Committee might be somewhat resented by them.
But surely there is a further practical difficulty. Among all these aliens, of whom, by general admission, a large number are quite harmless, you would have to inquire into the circumstances of each particular case before you could decide whether such a person ought to be interned, or possibly deported, or conceivably put on his trial with the possibility of his incurring in the last resort the death penalty. My Lords, can you devise a Committee representing the different Departments which, in the space of three months, six months, or a year, could make an investigation into the case of each one of those aliens? I am arguing on the supposition that you should do what is proposed as the remedy—that every person of German or Austrian birth should be treated as a prisoner and as a more or less guilty person until the contrary is proved. Those investigations would occupy a vast amount of time, and in a great number of cases they certainly would not be worth the trouble which it would take to undertake them.
I can say, on behalf of the Government, that we do not resent, but on the contrary we welcome, any criticism that can be made of what has been done, and we also welcome any suggestions that can be made for improvement; in the method of dealing with this alien question. This question takes a somewhat different, form here from that which it takes in any of the countries on the Continent of Europe. Our insular position introduces somewhat new factors into the situation which you would not find, for instance, in France, in Germany, or in any of the belligerent countries on the Continent. So far as we can, we shall endeavour to improve
80
the methods by which we are working. We do not desire to encourage what I may call a spy panic in the country, to which some organs of the Press, as I venture to think, give a quite unrestrained vent; but we do not in the least deny the gravity or the difficulty of the problem, and I myself am glad that this discussion has taken place.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I do not understand that either the noble Marquess or the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has answered my specific question. Has a system of correspondence, a very ingenious and extensive system, been discovered? Has that matter been investigated by any of the authorities, and, if so, have the allegations turned out to be accurate?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Every case in which there have been traces of anything of the kind has been investigated, with the result that the civil and military authorities have got to the bottom of everything that they can.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I would point out that there are no accessaries in treason. That which makes a person an accessary in ordinary crime makes him a principal in treason.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is a case in which a true bill has been found.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The noble and learned Viscount has not answered the question which I put. The Home Secretary has thrown the responsibility of the Home Office on to the shoulders of the chief constables. I ask, What are the powers of chief constables, and what are they to do?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: A chief constable has the power which arises in a case of serious crime of arresting without warrant. But the proper person to refer these things to is the Public Prosecutor, who gives directions as to what is to be done. The chief constable has all the powers that are wielded by the constabulary in a county, and the magistrates have the power of issuing warrants. Really those things should be dealt with locally—they can be so dealt with much better; and if the noble Marquess would take vigorous action and send up the details to the Public Prosecutor these cases would be attended to.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: But that all takes times.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Marquess has his police officers on the spot, and there is the bench of magistrates.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: In the meantime we have these mines being washed ashore.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Marquess think that the Public Prosecutor or the Lord Chancellor will catch the mines more quickly than will the military and civil authorities on the spot?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I think the reason why the Home Secretary referred to the chief constables was this. The Home Secretary is the superior of the Metropolitan Police, and therefore there is sometimes a disposition to regard him as being the head of the police all over England. That is not the case. As the noble Marquess knows very well, the police in counties are under the statutory joint committee, and their active officer is the chief constable. That, I think, was the reason why the Home Secretary, as the noble Marquess put it, placed the burden on the shoulders of tire chief constables. He merely wished to make it clear that he had nothing to do with the country police.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I am sorry to find myself not quite satisfied with the vigour of the Government on this particular matter. I hold very strongly the view that in most Departments of Government no war has ever been waged with greater vigour than the war which is being waged by the present Government; but as regards the danger of information going out of this country, I do not think the Government quite appreciate the public view. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House said just now that he did not think that sufficient public danger was vet proved for the Government to go out of their usual course as regards trials in these cases. I know nothing of this matter except what I see in the newspapers, but there was one item in the newspapers the other day which surely showed that information of enormous value had gone out of this country—I refer to the attempted raid on Yarmouth. We saw it stated that large enemy ships went at full
82
speed through the passages of a mine field. A passage through a mine field is a crooked passage, and no enemy ship could possibly have gone at a fast speed through that crooked passage without most valuable information having left this country. It is possible, if that kind of information does go out of the country, that one item of information might lead in some case to a great national disaster. Surely this is a matter which requires exceptional treatment. With the attitude of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House I do not at all agree. He laid down the fine old English maxim that you must not punish anybody who by any conceivable chance may be innocent—
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I must protest against what my noble friend says. What I said was that a great number of persons were apparently desirous, upon this particular subject and at this particular time, to convict people without any positive evidence. I do not know whether my noble friend is one of them.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: I am certainly not one of them, and I am very glad indeed if I misunderstood the noble Marquess. But the position, it seems to me, is this. You want to see that justice is done, that you do not hang an innocent man, and that the man is given the benefit of every possible doubt. In fact, I should say that in England it is almost impossible, under ordinary circumstances, for a man to be put to death who is innocent. But in the case of spies, what you have to do is to stop information going out of this country; and surely in an emergency like this you have to lean the other way. If there is any doubt as to whether a man is innocent or guilty, that man ought not to be let go You are not trying to punish a man or wishing to be vindictive because he is a foreigner; what you are trying to do is to keep your information in your own country. That is the point of view upon which we should act. I am bound to say that that point of view was not laid down with any distinctness by the noble Marquess. Although on most things the 'Government are strong enough, on this question of aliens they are not hard enough.
I do not want in the least to make any alien suffer unnecessarily. If you put aliens into concentration camps, I hold that they should be fed as well as our

83
soldiers. I would not have any unnecessary hardship inflicted upon them. But the country must not run any unnecessary risk even if these aliens do suffer hardships. All countries in time of war have to be hard. Take any successful Government, say the Government of Cromwell; that was a hard Government. Take the Government which acted under the greatest possible difficulties which any Government in the world hard to face, the Government under the Revolution in France; that Government won by reason of being a hard Government; it won by stamping out everything that was opposed to it. The Government of this country to-day has this advantage, that no class is opposed to it; we are all doing everything we can to assist it. I do think, my Lords, that His Majesty's Ministers should harden their hearts, and that on this particular matter they should adopt a much more drastic point of view.

WARM COATS FOR THE TROOPS.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether any, and if so what, steps are being taken to provide the British troops on the Continent with warm coats for the winter in excess of the warm clothing that is ordinarily supplied.
The noble Duke said: My Lords, I placed this Question on the Paper at the request of my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, who has taken a great personal interest in matter and would have addressed the Question to the Government himself had he been able to be present. Since I placed the Question on the Paper my attention has been drawn to the fact that a considerable number of articles of various descriptions have been sent out and there is a belief that a large quantity of those articles has not yet been delivered to the troops. We are given to understand, and I believe it to be perfectly correct, that as far as food and general supplies to our troops in the field are, concerned the arrangements have been admirable, and every supply has been sent out that was necessary. I understand, however, that in connection with the additional supplies there is au impression that there has been some delay at various points en route; and if the Government could give us any information on that subject it would be welcomed.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LUCAS): My Lords, a number of what are described as fur-sleeved undercoats, which are worn underneath the service great coat, has been issued; also a large number of fur-lined great coats, and a large number of specially lined great coats of the British war type. These are being sent out at a very rapid rate. As to what occurs when they arrive there, I do not think any one is exactly in a position to say. It depends entirely upon the condition of things on the lines of communication — transport, and things of that kind. But everything that can possibly be done is being done on this side, and large supplies are going out. I may, perhaps, express on behalf of the Secretary of State for War his regret that he is not able to be here in person to answer the noble Duke's Question.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: A suggestion has been made ill many quarters —I do not know whether it has been acted upon by the Government—that goat skins and sheep skins should be used for this material.
LORD LUCAS: Yes; some of the great coats are made with sheep skins.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I should like to ask whether there is any special department under the Quartermaster-General which attends to the distribution in France. From information which reaches us it would seem that a large number of garments have been sent out, but the distribution has not been hitherto equal to the efforts that have been made to supply them. I do not know whether the noble Lord could impress on the War Office the necessity of special authorities being entrusted with the task of distribution.
LORD LUCAS: I take it that that matter is dealt with by the Quartermaster-General on the Headquarters Staff acting in conjunction with the Inspector-General on the lines of communication, and their method of dealing with it is, I suppose, to a certain extent regulated by the military exigencies.

BRITISH EAST AFRICA AND THE PERSEAN GULF
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Lords, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can, consistently with the public interest, give any information regarding the military operations that are proceeding in British East Africa and neighbouring parts, and I may, perhaps, be allowed to say a few words as to my reason for putting this Question. One of the features of the war in which we are engaged is that it is almost a world-wide war. Wherever the German flag is planted in different parts of the world we and our Allies have been engaged in endeavouring to pull it down. That is a necessary and a proper feature of the campaign, and the operation has been conducted with success, we are glad to say, in many parts of the world. The German flag has been hauled down, as we know, in Samoa, in Kiaochau, in German New Guinea, in some of the Islands of the Pacific, and we have every reason to believe and hope that it will not be flying very much longer in German South-West Africa.
But as regards British East Africa, where there are very extensive German possessions, extending for many hundreds of miles and covering many millions of acres co-terminous with our own, although military operations have been proceeding, scarcely a word—I think I may say not one word—of information has been vouchsafed to the British public. It was only by accident that I myself was aware that a considerable number of Indian troops were operating in that part of the world; and the nature of the fighting, which must have been severe, was really brought home to the British public for the first time only a few days ago by the publication in the newspapers of an extensive list of casualties. I am aware of a case where a parent heard for the first time of the part of the world in which his son was being engaged by reading the news of the death of the officer on this distant field of battle. The full extent of those casualties I do not for the moment bear in mind, but I think I aril not wrong in saving that the number of killed and wounded has been considerable.
In this position of affairs I was somewhat startled to read only yesterday in The Times newspaper the letter of an officer serving at the front in British East
86
Africa, which, as it may have escaped the attention of some of your Lordships, you will perhaps permit me to read. This letter was written on October 11—that is to say, five weeks ago; and the writer expressed himself as follows—
"I have been away at the front for six weeks, fighting—
In other words, the war was already in existence six weeks before that date—
"I volunteered in the East Africa Rifles as a trooper. They then said that they wanted to form a Somali troop to go to the Front at once, so — applied for me. So I went with him down to the Tsavo as a corporal acting as an officer. We had one quite big fight, when we were attached to one company of the Kings African Rifles. The Germans, about 150 of them, very nearly surrounded us at dawn. —, who was in command of the king's African Rifles, got killed in the first ten minutes, but we drove the Germans back and made them absolutely run. We got fifteen made them absolutely run. We got fifteen of them and wounded eight, and Germans got six of our soldiers, seven of out mules, and wounded four. We then had to hold the place for two days until we were relieved by No. 2 Company of the K.A.R. People don't seem to realise at home what a big thing this is our here. The Germans have got anything from 6,000 to 12,000 troops and lots of guns."
My Lords, we have had no opportunity of realising whether it is a big thing or a small thing over here, because we Know nothing at all about it. I, of course, have not the slightest desire to press the Secretary of State to give us any information which he considers it necessary in the interests of the Government or military operations to withhold; but I submit that if large forces are engaged in that part of the world, if the danger that is being met is a considerable one, as appears to be the case, and if the number of casualties is large, it would relieve a great deal of legitimate anxiety at home if we could hear something about the operations. The fighting, as I understand, is not merely in British East Africa or on the borders of British East Africa. I believe it extends to the British territory lying to the south of the Province which we call British East Africa—that is to say, the neighbourhood of Lake Tanganyika and on the frontiers of Nyassaland. Where exactly fighting is taking place I do not know, because nothing has appeared about it in the papers; but there, again, I fun under the impression that I have seen a list of casualties recorded in the Press.
Although the part of rite world to which I am next about to refer is not contiguous to British East Africa, and

87
therefore is not, perhaps, fairly covered by my Question on the Paper, yet I should be grateful if the Secretary of State could also tell us something about the fighting that is also proceeding in another and a very important area of conflict,—I mean the Persian Gulf. Here the only information that we have we owe to the Government themselves. About a week ago, I think it was, they published the important and, to me, joyful tidings that they had taken the Turkish fort and port of Fao at the mouth of the Slat-el-Arab, which is the estuary of the Tigris and the Euphrates. But yesterday I read in the Press that the Secretary of State for India, the noble Marquess, had himself authorised the communication of tine following announcement regarding military operations now in progress at the head of the Persian Gulf:—
"On the 11th inst., at 5.30 a.m., the Turks made a determined attack on our outposts, but were held in check by the 117th Mahrattas and finally routed by a counter-attack made by the 20th Infantry, supported by fire from a mountain battery. Our casualties were few; those of the enemy at least 80. On the 14th further troops arrived from India under the command of Lieutenant-General Sir A. Barrett—
The large scale of the operations is sufficiently indicated by the fact that you take one of the most capable Indian officers and place him in command of what is obviously a military expedition of some size. The official statement goes on to say—
"On the 15th the latter(Sir A. Barrett), hearing that a strong force of the enemy with mountain artillery were occupying a post about four miles distant, sent General Delamain with three battalions and two mountain batteries to eviet them. After a sharp action in which his Majesty's ships 'Espiegle' and 'Odin' co-operated, this was successfully accomplished. The enemy's entrenched camp was captured and his losses were very heavy. Several prisoners, including a Turkish major, were captured and two of the enemy's machine guns were destroyed. Our casualties were two officers wounded; rank and file, eight killed and 51 wounded".
It is obvious that military operations of a rather important and serious nature have been going on there. There is not the slightest indication where they are taking place, except that it is in the area of he Persian Gulf. I assume that it must be somewhere at the upper end of the Gulf Again I do not want to press the noble Marquess to give information upon this which should be withheld, but if with regard to the operations either in British East Africa or the Persian Gulf he can give us any information I am sure we shall be grateful to receive it.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, it is evident, from what the noble Earl has said, that he fully understands the nature of the limitations that have to be set upon the giving of information in respect of military operations in different parts of the world. It is, of course, clear, if one reflects, that those limitations do not apply with absolute equality in all areas; but, on the other hand, it is probably safer and wiser to lay down the general rule and to say that speaking broadly the sort of information which is given with regard to operations in Europe must remain as the only kind of information which can be given about operations in other parts of the world. Therefore the noble Earl and his friends will, I am sure, understand that the account which I am about to give of what generally has occurred in East Africa is as far as the Government are able to go at the moment.
As the noble Earl pointed out, German East Africa is a large and important Colony. It covers, I think, some 350,000 square miles. It has, of course, a large native population, and it has a white, German, population of between 5,000 and 6,000; and in that connection it is important to note, although I do not know what the proportion of the sexes may be, that in a planter's country of that kind the proportion of males, and probably of males of fighting age, must be infinitely larger than such a population would indicate in a European country. Those forces there, those white inhabitants of German East Africa, a large proportion of whom it must be remembered must have served in the German Army, have been reinforced from different sources; we are told, to some extent, by Reservists from other parts of the world who were brought there because, I suppose, there was doubt or difficulty about bringing them to Europe. There may have been some despatch of Regular troops even from the East, but of that I am not quite certain; but I believe that some naval forces were landed also from the Far East. The Germans in East Africa are well provided with guns in the ordinary sense and also with a number of machine guns; and therefore, as the House will see, they constitute what in America I believe is called a formidable proposition.
British East Africa is not quite so large. It covers, I think, about 250,000 square miles. The white population is somewhere

89
about the same, rather less I imagine, and, of course, it does not contain the military element which the German Colony must contain. In both countries there is a native force. In German East Africa there is a force of native infantry and of native police numbering altogether several thousands. In British East Africa there is a considerable force of similar police, and also a body, though not so large, of the force which the noble Earl mentioned—a quite efficient force, well officered, and by no means badly manned, the King's African Rifles. It was clear, therefore, that as matters stood at the beginning of the war our position in East Africa could not be an altogether secure one. The initial position of the Germans was stronger than ours. We also had to remember that German East Africa borders both on Nyassaland, as the noble Earl has pointed out, and also on Uganda, in each of which there is a force—in Uganda some King's African Rifles, and in Nyassaland a small force and also a small proportion of white men who act as volunteers. But those colonies also constituted relatively a source rather of weakness than of strength as compared with German East Africa. It was therefore necessary to reinforce the colony from India, and at an early date a small force was sent that was afterwards considerably increased. Fighting, I think, actually began up on the Western side before any of the fresh Indian troops had arrived there, and it has been continuing at a great number of different points since, with various forces engaged and with somewhat varying results. And as we learned more of the German preparations it became necessary further to reinforce from India. Of the different actions that have taken place, no less than seven—small actions of different kinds—have taken place within the confines of British East Africa. There was one, to which I think the noble Earl alluded, in Nyassaland, and there have been others on the borders.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: That was on the Tsavo in British East Africa.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Yes; but I think the noble Earl also alluded to some fighting having taken place in Nyassaland about which he said casualty lists had appeared, which was, I think, the case.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Yes.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Those different operations have not taken place without considerable losses to ourselves. In one particular case, I am sorry to say, an attack was made in the South on a very strong position which was powerfully held by the enemy with a number of guns and machine guns. Very heavy casualties were suffered by our troops there without their achieving the object for which they were immediately striving. The total casualties in all the operations in East Africa during the two months amount to something over 900.
At an early stage I noticed that some of the German publicists, speaking of the fighting that was likely or sure to take place in or in the neighbourhood of their colonies, pointed out that the result of those actions, which they seemed to assume would in all eases be unfavourable to themselves, could not affect the ultimate result of the war. That, of course, is quite true; the fate of all the different German possessions in different parts of the world must depend upon the ultimate settlement at the close of the war. But it is necessary for us to preserve the position of Great Britain as the paramount country in Central and Southern Africa. Therefore the Union of South Africa has undertaken a task of its own; and in East Africa we are bound to maintain our position there and to repel with all the forces we can muster any attacks which are made by our German neighbours, and, where occasions are favourable and the forces available make it possible, to attack in our turn. That is all the information which I am able to give the noble Earl. He will understand that I do not mention the names of the particular places at which various actions have occurred or the particular troops which have been employed, although I here is no harm in mentioning some of the particular Indian regiments engaged, and I can do so if it is desired.
The noble Earl passed on to a different part of the world and asked me some questions about the Persian Gulf, as to which we have been rather more handsome, as he admitted, in the information we have given. So much so that, owing to the difficulty of communication with those parts of the world where the telegraph service is not very easily conducted, that which we have put in the newspapers

91
and which the noble Earl read out about he operations at the head of the Persian Gull— the noble Earl is right in thinking that the operations that have taken place are in the immediate neighbourhood of the Shat-el-Arab—practically covers all that we know ourselves; and I fear, therefore, that I have very little more information that I can give the noble Earl. But, may I say this much, that when Turkey went to war with us one of her first steps, carrying out, indeed, what had been her apparent policy some little time previously, was to assert herself at the head of the Persian Gulf in a part of the world where we, as is known, have a yen, special interest, and where also our Ally, the Sheikh of Mohammerah, who is, as we know, under Persian suzerainty but who is on special terms of intimacy with the British Government, was severely threatened by the Turks. They destroyed the telegraph station at Fao, and announced their intention of stopping the navigation of the Shat-el-Arab. It was clearly impossible for us, not merely in view of our positive and actual interests in that region but also in view of the necessity of keeping up our clue name in the minds of the Arab world, to tolerate such violent proceedings as those. Therefore we thought it right to send an expedition of considerable strength under a distinguished General—one of our best Indian officers, as the noble Earl has pointed out—in order to make it clear to the Turks that they cannot venture to assert themselves in that region in the manner in which they have been attempting to do. And I say with the utmost confidence that a step of that kind receives as much approval, if not more, in the Moslem world in India as it, does in any other part of the British Empire.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Might I ask the noble Marquess whether there will be published a list of the casualties in the operations in British East Africa. He mentioned 900.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I think that most of the British officers' casualties have already appeared in the newspapers.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I mean not only officers but white settlers who have enlisted as privates. I have a relation out there.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I have no doubt that their names will appear in due course. As a matter of fact, I think the nines of some of the volunteers have appeared already.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I should like to thank the noble Marquess for the information he has given me in reply to my Question, and to say that we on this side of the House earnestly wish success to His Majesty's arms in the two theatres of conflict to which reference has been made.

INDIA AND HER TROOPS.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, the further Question which stands in my name on the Paper is to ask the Secretary of State for India whether any attempt is made, by daily telegrams to the Viceroy or otherwise, to supply the public of India with information concerning the progress of the war, and particularly the doings of Indian troops; and if this has not been done, whether steps can he taken to that effect.
The reasons for putting this Question and commending it to your Lordships' attention are, I think, obvious. Since the war began we have in this country been strongly pressing upon the Government the publication of more information with regard to the achievements, though not, of course, the dispositions, of the troops; and there are many in this House and elsewhere who have thought that the reticence which has been observed by the Government in this respect has been both excessive and unwise. But any one who has served in India—and there are some noble Lords in this House who have—will agree that those remarks apply to India with an even more exaggerated force than they do to this country. Remember that in the first place India, by sending this huge force to Europe, has taken an entirely novel and striking departure. The despatch of this immense number of Indian troops produced a thrill throughout the world greater than anything of a similar nature that I can remember in 111V tine. You may be certain that a similar excitement was manifested in India; and the movements of this large force—larger, I think, than Many of your Lordships have an idea—drawn as it is from the country villages

93
of the whole of the Northern parts of India at any rate, excite an interest there quite as great as the interest which the movements of our own troops arouse in the various country districts in England.
These troops in coming to Europe have rendered and are rendering a very substantial service to the national cause, and I submit to your Lordships that they are entitled to the simple and obvious reward of having their achievements narrated to their fellow-countrymen whom they have left at home. I saw a letter from India only yesterday, written by a resident in one of the great towns, and he said that the newspapers there, in so far as they contain news from the field of war in Europe, were filled with stories of German atrocities and German brutalities. There was nothing whatever about the achievements of the Indian troops. Now any one acquainted with the East knows that the last thing you want to do is to terrorise the public by narrating the misdeeds of the enemy. What you want to do is to encourage them by the record of the brave deeds of their own people. I submit that the more you satisfy them in that respect the better it will be for their own spirit and endurance in the conflict.
There is another reason why we should be particularly careful about this. All of as who have been in India or who have served in that Dependency know that India, in common with most of the countries of the East, is susceptible to false rumour to a degree that is scarcely credible to a European who has never left this Continent. The' slightest stories are believed, the most ridiculous impressions created, and the most absurd panics arise almost out of nothing. The proceedings of the "Emden" in the Bay of Bengal were the source of not merely idle rumours but absolute panic in some of the cities in the neighbourhood of that coast. A bazaar story in the East is really a byword for the extreme of imagination and falsehood that the brain of man can conceive; and therefore, as I argue, you ought to be particularly solicitous about giving information to a country where those panics are likely to occur.
One other reason I would urge for giving information to India—and again it arises oat of the psychology of the people. The
94
Indian of all creeds, and I think of all classes, is extraordinarily mercurial in temperament; the barometer of his feelings goes up and down with startling rapidity; he is either at a pitch of elation over good news, or of depression over bad news. What you want to do throughout this war, particularly if it is going to be long as many of us think, is to maintain a steady level of Indian interest and Indian enthusiasm. The excitement of sending away troops will soon subside; stories of deaths and woundings will come home; there will not be the glare and glitter and sound of warfare, and the spirits of the people will fall to a low ebb. On the other hand, if you keep them supplied with news, particularly if you send encouraging news from the Front, you will do a great deal to keep up their spirits throughout the struggle. My suggestion is, if it has not already been done, that an official telegram of what is going on on the battlefields in Europe, particularly of the doings of the Indian troops, should be sent to the Viceroy as oft en as von can, and the Viceroy should be asked, with the large administrative machinery at his disposal, to communicate it to the provincial districts where the information might be put up at, say, the police stations or wherever it is thought best., in order that the country people in the districts and the towns may know day by day what their comrades are doing in the field.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, may I say a few words in support of what has been said by the noble Earl. There are two lines of Virgil which seem to me particularly applicable to the present situation—
Fama, malum quo non aliud velocius ullum,
Mobilitate viget, viresque acquirit eundo.
Those lines might, I think, be well studied by the members of the Press Bureau at the present time. It must not be forgotten that the "Emden" stories and such rumours pass through India like lightning. As the noble Earl has said, those of you who have not lived in India can form no idea, not only of their strangeness, but of their apparent incredibility. A story goes like a flash through the bazaars, and then spreads far and wide. We do not know who starts it, and we do not know how far it goes and what harm it may do. That process is going on even in normal times, and of course it is going on to a

95
very much greater extent at the present moment.
The noble Earl alluded to the story of the "Emden," but only a few weeks ago a much stranger story of the "Emden" passed through India. It was said, after the "Emden" had accomplished an abortive bombardment of Madras, that she was passing up the river Jumna and would shortly reach Allahahad. Another story was that the whole Royal Family had passed through Bombay to seek refuge in Delhi from the war because the Germans had already got into England. Such stories can only he met in one way, and that is by the furnishing, I hope at least every week, of an official bulletin to be published in every large town and every district and taluka town, and also translated in all the vernaculars and distributed throughout the bazaars. In that way we may stop a very great and real danger in India, because we cannot here realise what extraordinary things the Indian will believe, how quickly he yields to depression, and how very liable he is to panic.
It has been said in this House this evening that German gold had been spent in Ireland. I am quite certain that German gold for some years has been spent in India. And I think I can understand now some facts which puzzled me very greatly while I was in India. Among the stories that have been circulated there are some of a distinctly sinister aspect, and I trace those to the German agents who have been spending their money throughout India. Therefore I hope that the noble Marquess will tell us that some arrangement of the sort suggested has already been made, or, if not, that it will soon be made and continued with out intermission through out the war.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, before the noble Marquess answers, may I press one point beyond that of publishing real news in India. I refer to the absolute necessity of giving more mention to individual acts of gallantry and to the actions of particular regiments. It is almost impossible to understand why the system which has obtained in all previous wars has been omitted in the present war. It was the custom of the Duke of Wellington in the Peninsula to make these mentions; it was constantly done in the Crimean War; it was done by Lord Wolseley, and published constantly during the Egyptian War;
96
and it was the practice both of Lord Roberts and of Lord Kitchener during the South African War. Yet although we know that certain Indian regiments have distinguished themselves in two or three important actions recently, not one single word has, so far as we know, been allowed officially to transpire of the actions in which they have borne so distinguished a part. I myself happened, in talking to some of the wounded soldiers, to hear from them of the magnificent charge made by a particular Indian regiment who came up and rescued them at a critical moment and drove the Germans back a considerable distance.
I am quite certain that those who know India a great deal better than I do would bear me out in saving that nothing could so stimulate the spirit of the people as the knowledge of the distinction won by a particular Indian regiment and by the Indian Forces generally. Since we discussed the matter before, attention has been called to the fact that perhaps the most brilliant action by our troops in the war, the repulse of the Prussian Guard last week, has been allowed to go with the scanty chronicle that—
"A General ordered his Division to fix bayonets and succeeded in restoring the line."
We have a right to know who the General was. And why should the honour won by that Division be concealed? I do not know whether there were Indian regiments in it or not; but I think it is due to the Army, and it is due to the taxpayer, and, above all, it is due to those who have near relatives and friends at the Front and who are mourning the loss of others, that they should be at least allowed to know the acts of heroism and gallantry that have distinguished their friends and the regiments of which we are proud.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I can assure the noble Earl who asked this Question and the other two noble Lords who have spoken that, from the first when the Indian troops were ordered to Europe, it was in the minds of all those who have Indian experience that some special steps should be taken for the purpose of supplying authentic information in India itself. All that has been said by the various noble Lords who have spoken as to the Indian character and the flight of rumour in India is no doubt true. But one is tempted, after what we have recently known during the

97
last few months, to wonder whether this country may not claim an almost equal fame in the dissemination and the acceptance of bazaar rumour. But be that as it may, the importance of supplying authentic information to India cannot possibly be disputed. I may, in passing, say that I was told from India at quite an early stage the story of the doings of a German battleship even more remarkable than those mentioned by my noble friend on the Cross Benches [Lord Sydenham]. This story was that a German battleship of the largest size had proceeded up the Indus a great distance and had finally gone aground and been captured by an Indian Cavalry regiment—a particular touch which, I consider, added to the charm of the story. That was believed, I think, in many quarters.
As a matter of fact, all the British official announcements about the war from the very first, regarding both naval and military operations, have been sent by telegram to the Viceroy for insertion in the Indian Press —both the English-owned and Indian-owned Press. Since the beginning of this month a News Bulletin has been telegraphed every day, which is compiled under the supervision of a distinguished Indian ex-official from our own official statements, from the French Government's statements, from the Russian statements as they appear, and from any other sources which are considered to be trustworthy. The Viceroy has made special arrangements for the dissemination of news in various ways, including some of those which have been mentioned in the course of the debate. In addition to that, three officers have been deputed to serve with the staff of the Indian Expeditionary Force. Their sole duty is to supply accounts of the doings of the Indian troops. These accounts as they are received at somewhat uncertain intervals, are telegraphed to the Viceroy for him to disseminate in India in the same way.
The noble Viscount who spoke last touched on the more general subject of the supply of information concerning particular regiments and even particular individuals, and he stated that a departure had been made from all previous precedents in that respect in the course of the present war. That I have no reason to dispute. But it is important to note that the departure is being made by all countries engaged in this war. I was told the other day by a Frenchman that the French Government viewed with some amazement the freedom with
98
which we allowed news to be published in our Press as compared with the reticence which they exercised themselves. I did not hear it from a Government source, and therefore I have no reason to quote it as being authoritative. Neither the German nor the Russian authorities name in their public Press any one of the units engaged in ally part of the theatre of war, or the names of the commanding officers. It is undoubtedly considered that information of that kind is of value to the enemy in this particular war, and that therefore it ought to be concealed. In one of the previous conversations we have had this evening great stress has been laid upon the importance of keeping all information away from the enemy; and it is understood, I take it, that in this particular matter if correspondents, or official scribes, note the names of the particular units engaged in particular operations at all near the time at which the operations have taken place, thereby the enemy is able to piece together a puzzle and learn the composition of the whole force which it is the object on each side to conceal from the opponent.
All this seems a little obscure to a civilian, but it is a view which is held by the military authorities in all the countries, and they-are the responsible people to whom we have to bow. I do not think myself that it can possibly be the case that the mention of a particular Indian unit in India could be held to have any deleterious effect upon the course of the campaign; and I have understood—but I will make myself still more sure on the point—that in the communications that are sent to India no direct embargo is placed upon the naming of some particular regiment which has distinguished itself on a particular occasion. Names of places, no doubt, would still have often to be carefully omitted in order that news might not be telegraphed back 'from India which by any possibility could be of service to the enemy. I can assure the House that we are doing the best we can to keep India informed, being entirely convinced, as noble Lords opposite are, of the importance from all points of view—from the point of view of allaying the anxiety of those who have relations in the field and also from the public point of view—of keeping Indian opinion on the line on which it is now, I hope, steadily set; and therefore we shall continue to do our best to send, and see to the distribution of, all the information that can possibly be sent.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Marquess for his reply, but I hope he will not think me unduly persistent if I venture to suggest that the preparations which he describes are really not adequate to the case. How does he propose to meet the case we put before the House? in the first place, he tells us that in the India Office there is a competent staff which, from the composite information that comes in from Russia, from France, and from our own forces, makes an abstract of the general movements of the combatant forces on the field of war, and that is sent out to India. Believe me, that is not in the least what India wants. India does not want the kind of report of which we are ourselves complaining in this country. The only good news that we have here are in the despatches of Sir John French, which are usually and necessarily about a month behindhand. From the carefully guarded military reports from day to day of the position of affairs on the field of battle we can gather very little. A condensed or combined account from all these European sources will not interest India in the slightest degree. What they want is something personal to India.
I pass to the method which the noble Marquess suggests for meeting that need. He told us, I think, that two or three officers have been sent to the Front whose special duty it is to note the operations and the exploits of Indian regiments. The probability is that they will only report at somewhat rare intervals, and I imagine that their reports have to come here and be edited or at any rate supervised in the India Office or in the War Office, and that only after those operations have been performed is the information to be sent out to India. Now, cannot we accelerate that process a little? Is not what is wanted the very thing which the noble Marquess admitted in his concluding sentences to be legitimate and to be attended with no danger—namely, the mention without place and without date of particular regiments, their services, and their deeds? Why could not these three officers at the Front have the authority to telegraph any exploit of this description home, and why should it not be known in India within a week or even three days of the day on which the gallant deed was performed?
I have only one remark to make about the general position taken up by the
100
noble Marquess in the concluding parts of his speech. Is it really the case that, because it appears to be the custom or the tradition of the Russian, French, or German or other Continental Armies, we are therefore to be precluded from following the invariable practice of our Armies in bygone days and drawing attention to the achievements of our men? The rule which the noble Marquess has laid down is one that has been violated by the General commanding in the field himself. One of the first incidents of this campaign was some peculiarly gallant exploit performed, I think, by the Suffolks. Field-Marshal Sir John French made some sort of public announcement, or speech, congratulating them on their valour, which he said would be known within a few days throughout England. It was not known, because his despatch did not come for some weeks afterwards, and when it came their name was not mentioned. Take the case of the London Scottish. By an exception the extraordinary valour of the London Scottish was known at once; but on the tenet of the noble Marquess, that was giving information to the enemy because the enemy would have been able to locate the position of this particular regiment upon the battlefield. I do not want to press the matter unduly or to be unfair to the Government, but it seems to me that the principle which is laid down here, and which was also laid down by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons the other day, is not one to which they consistently adhere; and even if there is anything to be said for it in the case of troops from England, it certainly does not apply to the case of the troops from India. I hope the noble Marquess will not think we are unduly persistent if we ask for a more rapid and accelerated despatch of news to India.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I will certainly see what acceleration is possible in regard to this particular Indian news. In cases where news can be telegraphed out and it is important that it should be telegraphed, I certainly think that it ought to go as soon as possible. But in many cases, particularly if it is a long descriptive account, it can go by post, because news of that kind is acceptable and read with almost as great eagerness if it is received some weeks after the event. As regards the general question, what the noble Earl opposite calls "my rule" is not my rule

101
at all, or indeed the rule of the Government. As the Prime Minister pointed out in another place the other day, we with the smaller Army are fighting in France by the side of a much greater French Army, and it is considered right, and I think the country here would so consider it, that we should conform precisely to the rule which the French lay down in this particular respect; and that is what we are doing, with possibly occasional exceptions.

SOLDIERS' DEPENDANTS.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON rose to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to appoint a Committee to inquire into the allowances to dependants of soldiers; and whether, in view of the large number of members of this House experienced in this question, it would be possible to appoint a Joint Committee of both Houses so as to ensure as general support as possible to any scheme which may be recommended.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I do not propose to delay your Lordships for more than a moment, or to attempt any argument with regard to this much vexed question of allowances to the wives, widows, and dependants of soldiers. I do not know who will represent the War Office in this matter, but what I would venture to put to him very strongly is this, that there is no question that the whole consideration of this matter must be reopened. Everybody admits that the circulars that have been published up to the present have left the question in great confusion, and there is in a great many quarters a strong disposition to challenge the intermediate decision arrived at by the Government. What I would specially urge is that this House should be allowed to bear some share in the decision of the question and for this reason. The officers who are now responsible at the War Office are overburdened with work. It is quite enough for them to have to do with the carrying on of the war without being called upon to sit for hours on committees to consider what may be the exact effect of certain allowances on certain classes.
But this House happens to be singularly equipped with officers of superior rank who are in close touch with the soldiers and have been so all their lives. For instance, there is the noble and gallant Field-Marshal who moved the Address
102
the other night (Lord Methuen); and there would not be the slightest difficulty in naming officers from this House who would be able to give as good an opinion as to the effect of these allowances as any officer now serving in the War Office. Then, again, it happens that in the House of Commons there is not a single individual who has ever served in the War Office in any capacity except those on the Government Bench; whereas in this House we have numerous ex-officials of the War Office who have for years studied these questions and have themselves been responsible in many cases—such as the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack and my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition—whose opinions would be of value. In addition, as a very strong moral tone has been given to the discussion by the introduction for the first time of Government allowances in cases where there is no legitimate connection, I think that it would be of great value if one member of the Episcopal Bench were allowed to serve, more especially as on all sides a ad in all parties there is a disposition to deal generously with all these relationships of soldiers. At the same time it is admitted that some regard must be had to the enormous non-combatant charge which must be involved, and to the effect that over-generosity in certain directions may have on the future well-being of the Army.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, before the noble Lord who is going to do so replies I should like to say a few words. I have had to do with this question from the time that the war began to the present hour, in addition to having heard a great deal about it at the time of the Boer War ten or twelve years ago. Personally I have taken pains to give a great many hours and days of work to it, and I have been referred backwards and forwards from Committee to Committee, from one Government Department to another, and to the various high officials who have for the time being taken this matter in hand. The result left upon my mind, after a great deal of personal intercourse with men who have treated me in a most kindly and courteous manner, has been a feeling of pity and commiseration for overworked men who have had, erroneously as I venture to think, put upon them in connection with this matter a burden which they are incompetent to

103
carry owing to their overwork and their total lack of knowledge of the working out in detail of these things, which belong not really to war questions or directly and primarily to military questions at all, but to social and domestic work, because they relate to the home of the soldier—work such as the Local Government Board and other bodies are a great deal more competent to deal with.
Almost invariably when the question has been raised the answer has been given that another circular is coming out. Yes, they do come out. There have been about eight on this subject already, and I have three in my hand now. But those circulars are absolutely inconsistent with one another. They get out of their difficulties in part by each one having what I may call a promissory character and by studious avoidance of a date. There is no date given, but I have discovered, by a kind of cipher reading from the marks of the printers, the chronological order of the documents. This is the kind of thing which conies out—
"It must be clearly understood that the orders and regulations made and to be made will alone be the documents that will be decisive in this matter as to any points which may arise in particular cases, this memorandum being no more than a presentation to Parliament of the main lines of the scheme."
I think the next regulation says that before the particular allowance is made it will be necessary for the soldier to do so and so. It is added, "Fuller particulars are published separately." But there is no indication where we are to get them, and I cannot get them myself. Yesterday or to-day another circular appeared which is absolutely inconsistent with the circulars which have gone before dealing with this subject. It does not surprise me, because to my knowledge these circulars emanate from men who have obviously and necessarily very much larger questions to consider and who find it impossible to give the time to this one that they ought.
I will give your Lordships a concrete example of the kind of thing that happens. It has been arranged in the circulars from the beginning—and most properly, let me say—that the wife of a man who is serving at the Front or at home shall have, not a claim to consideration, but an absolute right as a portion of the obligation which the country undertakes—a right to receive the proper and suitable aid which she requires. I endorse that with all my heart. But the circulars have gone on to say that
104
a similar allowance shall be made to unmarried mothers of a soldier's children. I am not quarrelling with the principle of an allowance being made to those who have been really dependent on the soldier even though there is no marriage tie between the man and the woman. That is a large and very complicated and delicate question. I am prepared to enter with the most entire agreement into the discussion of arrangements under which the woman thus circumstanced should have proper help. But see what happens. In the rule about the wife it is laid down that if she is to claim as a wife the marriage must have taken place before the war. A certain number of women who make the claim have been married since the war to the men with whom they had been living before. We ask, Does the allowance thereby cease? I have heard two official answers. One is, Yes. I have seen another answer stating that the War Office will take care that this apparent injustice, or irregularity, shall not follow. That is merely one example of the kind of confusion which is prevailing in regard to the whole matter and emphasises the need of its being properly gone into.
I understand that a Committee is going to be appointed by the Government to deal with this matter. It will consist, I am afraid, of very busy men who are theorists rather than men of practical experience in handling questions of relief given to poor homes. As to the manner in which relief is to be given, one of the three circulars says that dependants who are unmarried are only to receive the allowances on the recommendation of what is known as the Old-Age Pensions Committee of the neighbourhood or district. A less suitable body in some parts of England to do this particular work could hardly be imagined. That Committee exists to look into statistical points as to whether documents are right or wrong, whether an age has been fraudulently given, and so on. In most cases it is administered by min and usually by a clerk—a very competent man, no doubt, but obviously not a suitable authority to go into the question of the relationship to the soldier of the young woman who is pleading for aid as a dependant. To work it through those Committees as they exist is impracticable. It may appear all right on paper, but when put into practice it will break down. On comparatively few of those Committees are women sitting, and I claim that in this particular matter you must have women

105
to do that which the circulars say should be done if you are to have it done properly. I give those merely as examples of the confusion which is now prevailing. And I venture to say that the thought of another Committee going to consider it, composed of prominent members of the House of Commons, does not afford me very much comfort, unless that Committee is going to take counsel with, and to be guided by, some of those who are holding less official posts but who are more conversant with the workings of a matter which is primarily social and not military, and I venture to hope that this strengthening may be of a thorough and far-reaching kind.
LORD LUCAS: My Lords, I think my best answer to the speech of the most rev. Primate—I do not want to go in detail into the various points which he raised—is to say that a Committee is going to be set up to deal with a certain number of the present anomalies and to work out this scheme in full. It is suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, that that Committee might well include members of this House. It is fully recognised by the Government that there are noble Lords who have interested themselves in these matters and who have a very wide experience of them. But the question is so largely one of finance that it has to be regarded as falling within the province of the House of Commons rather than of this House, and for that reason the Committee which the Prime Minister is to-day moving to set up will be a Committee of the House of Commons. The most rev. Primate was doubtful as to whether the Committee was going to be of a practical character. The Committee, I understand, is going to be one thoroughly representative of the House of Commons, and we may be perfectly confident that the Prime Minister, who has interested himself in this question, knows fully its intricacies and difficulties and will appoint a suitable Committee.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I am sorry to hear the decision of the Government. In the circumstances it seems that the only opportunity this House will have of making itself heard on this subject will he by a Motion of this House; and therefore I think it best to give notice that I will on some early day call attention to the whole question, and especially to the extremely unsatisfactory nature of the Resolution Put forward by the Treasury and by the War Office a few days ago.
LORD LUCAS: May I, with all deference to the noble Viscount, suggest that perhaps the more practical way of doing it would be to state a case to the Committee.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, my noble friend raised the question of the composition of the Committee, and that was the point, rather than the creation of the Committee, which was the subject of the speech of the most rev. Primate. This House contains a large number of men with practical experience in this matter, and also a large number of military officers and military experts who would be only too glad to place their services at the disposal of the Government; and for those reasons the Committee should be a Committee of both Houses of Parliament. The noble Lord, in reply to that, says, This is a matter of finance, and therefore the House of Commons conceive it to be within their privilege. It is rather a pitiful thing to have this old question of privilege trotted out on an occasion of this sort. This is a matter involving the social welfare of the people, and there are as many members of this House as competent to advise on the welfare of the people as there are of the House of Commons. His Majesty's Government are making a great mistake. We can give them great assistance, and, unless the decision is irrevocable, I would ask that the Leader of the House should represent the matter to the Prime Minister and say that there is a strong view upon it in this House. We shall be very sorry indeed if we are put off on the narrow technical plea that has been advanced by the noble Lord.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I will, of course, convey to the Prime Minister the representation which the noble Earl desires to make on behalf of himself and his noble friends. But I think it is not quite just to sit this down as a question of privilege as between the two Houses, although it wears that outward form as regards the composition of the Committee. The real fact surely is rather this, that the House of Commons has to be the guardian of the public purse. It is very easy in a matter of this kind—no amount of experience either of the Army or of affairs generally will save people from this—and very tempting to be generous at the expense of the taxpayer and thereby settle a question offhand for the time being amid any amount of applause from the Press and from the public generally. But

107
the function of the House of Commons—although probably it is not a function which it always exercises with great success —is to look after the taxpayer in a matter of this kind; and it was on that special ground, rather than on the general ground of privilege as between the two Houses, that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister reached the decision that a single Committee rather than a Joint Committee would be most appropriately set up on this occasion. But, as I have said, I will of course represent to my right hon. friend the expression of opinion which the noble Earl has made.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Select Committee appointed: The Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President, the Lord Privy Seal and the Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee:

D. Devonshire.

D. Rutland.

D. Northumberland.

M. Lansdowne.

M. Bath.

M. Cholmondeley.

M. Lincolnshire.

E. Chesterfield. (L. Steward.)

E. Essex.

E. Stanhope.

E. Waldegrave.

E. Onslow.

E. Camperdown.

E. Halsbury.

E. Plymouth.

V. Gordon. (E. Aberdeen.)

V. Churchill.

L. Barnard.

L. Balfour.

108

L. Ribblesdale.

L. Colchester.

L. Roseberay. (E. Rosebery.)

L. Poltimore.

L. Kintore (E. Kintore.)

L. Monk Bretton.

L. Welby.

L. Burghclere.

L. Atkinson.

L. Sanderson.

L. Colebrooke.

L. Desart. (E. Desart.)

L. Emmott.

The Committee to meet on Tuesday next, at a quarter before Four o'clock.

PACK-BERESFORD'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Message from the Commons for Copy of the Minutes of Evidence taken before this House; together with the proceedings and the documents deposited in the case: Ordered to be communicated with a request that they may be returned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I understand that there is no business on the Paper until Tuesday next. Therefore, if it is agreeable to noble Lords opposite, I will move the adjournment of the House until that day.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, motion agreed to.
House adjourned at five minutes before Seven o'clock, till Tomorrow, Two o'clock.