Sitting of 16 September 1914

Preamble
The House, being met a Quarter before Three of the clock,
The CLERK AT THE TABLE (Sir Courtenay Ilbert) informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker from this day's sitting.
Whereupon Mr. WHITLEY, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table and, after prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY (RUPTURE OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS) (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 10, 1914).
Copy presented of Despatch from His Majesty's Ambassador at Vienna, respecting the Rupture of Diplomatic Relations with the Austro-Hungarian Government (in continuation of Miscellaneous, No. 8, 1914) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented of Reports from Universities and University Colleges in Great Britain which are in receipt of Grant from the Board of Education, 1912–13. Vols. I. and II. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACTS, 1888 AND 1894.
Copy presented of Thirteenth Report by the Board of Trade of Proceedings under Section 31 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, including Proceedings upon complaints made under Section 1 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 474.]

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations, dated 11th September, 1914, made by the Welsh Insurance Commissioners as
924
to Naval and Army Reserves and the Territorial Force [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 475.]
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 12th September, 1914, made by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners with respect to men belonging to the Naval Reserves, the Army Reserve, and the Territorial Force [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 476.]

CREMATION (ENGLAND AND WALES).
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 16th September, 1914, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under Section 7 of the Cremation Act, 1902, amending the Regulations of the 31st March, 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Police Constables (Naval and Military Service) Bill,
National Insurance (Navy and Army) Bill,
Prize Courts (Egypt, Zanzibar, and Cyprus) Bill,
Bills of Exchange Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to suspend proceedings upon certain controversial legislation during the continuance of War." [Controversial Legislation (Suspension during War) Bill [Lords.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  RUSSIAN AND GERMAN FOREIGN OFFICES (DOCUMENTS).
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will issue as a Parliamentary

  925
  Paper a translation of the official documents of the Russian and German Foreign Offices which correspond to our own White Paper on the European crisis?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): I do not think the duty of the Government goes beyond making a full statement of the whole case as known to them, and making this as widely available as possible. If there is a demand for a translation of the official documents published by other Governments, I think it might be met through the ordinary channels of supply.

  GENERAL POST OFFICE, EDINBURGH (MILITARY SERVICE).
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Postmaster-General how many men have been called up from the General Post Office, Edinburgh, for the War; how many men have been taken on to fill their places; whether these are married men with families; how many hours do they work; and what pay are they receiving?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hobhouse): Approximately 400 men have been called up from the Edinburgh postal and telegraph services for the War, and approximately 250 substitutes have been taken on to fill their places. About 140 of the latter are married men. They work eight hours a day, and are in receipt of wages ranging from 22s. to 25s. a week.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the number of these married men who have been taken on, at any rate those with large families, are receiving less than what one might consider a reasonable living wage of from 22s. to 24s. a week?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I said 22s. to 25s. I imagine that that is the regular ordinary wage in Edinburgh for casual labour of this sort.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire and see if it is really the case that the payment made is the same?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Oh, certainly.

  AUXILIARY POSTMEN (AGE LIMIT).
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Postmaster-General whether, having regard to the number of young men who have gone to the War, he will now raise the age limit for special auxiliary postmen to take their place to fifty years?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Except at Christmas, when an age limit of forty-five is imposed, there is no age limit in the case of temporary postmen. I am quite ready to engage men who are suitable up to the age of fifty.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear the matter in mind at Christmas, when so many young men will be away?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Certainly.

  ALIEN ENEMIES (POST OFFICE).
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Postmaster-General whether he has made any inquiry as to whether there are any alien enemies employed in the Post Office, and more especially in the telegraph departments; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any, and what, steps in regard to them?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: With the exception of a very few officers, who joined the Post Office service from the old telegraph companies many years ago, and about whose nationality I have no information, established officers of the Post Office are British subjects. I am making a general inquiry regarding alien sub-postmasters, and any other cases of unestablished officers which are reported to me by the police are specially investigated.

  MILITARY DEPOTS (DELIVERY OF LETTERS).
  Sir GEORGE TOULMINasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that there are complaints as to the nondelivery of letters at military depots where large numbers of fresh recruits are being collected; whether he will make inquiries and, in cases where the military staff are seriously overpressed, will make special emergency arrangements and afford skilled assistance from the Post Office staffs?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am not aware of any complaints of the kind mentioned, but I shall be glad to make inquiry and consider whether any special arrangements are advisable, if the hon. Member will furnish me with more definite particulars of the cases which he has in mind.

  SAILORS AND SMALL-POX.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether instructions have been given or will be given that, in the event of any sailor contracting small-pox during the War, a record of his vaccinal condition shall be kept, as is done in public hospitals?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): A record of every man's "vaccinal condition" is already kept, the entries being made on the man's medical history sheet which accompanies him on discharge to hospital.

  GERMAN AND AUSTRIAN VESSELS DETAINED IN BRITISH PORTS.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state whether steps are being taken to publish from time to time complete lists of the German and Austro-Hungarian vessels which have been captured, distinguishing between those which have been dealt with by the Prize Courts and those which have not, and indicating the ports in which the latter are?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Complete lists of the German and Austro-Hungarian vessels which have been detained in British ports, or captured at sea by His Majesty's armed forces, are published from time to time in the "London Gazette." The last list appeared in the Supplement to the "London Gazette," published on the 12th September. That list shows the ports at which the vessels have been detained.
  Vessels detained in ports in the United Kingdom will be dealt with by the Prize Court in London, which duly advertises the dates when the various cases commence. The others will be dealt with in Prize Courts in the Dominions, Colonies,
  928
  and India, a list of which is published in the "London Gazette" of 15th September, showing the dates on which the actions in certain of the cases commence.
  Mr. STANIER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many ships have been detained?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: If the hon. Member looks at the "Gazette" of the 12th, the process of discovery will be that of an addition sum.

  GOVERNMENT TUGS (CREWS).
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware of the hours worked by the crews of Government tugs, and that these hours in some cases exceed 100 a week; and whether, in view of the risk these men run in going out into the Channel, even at night, in pursuance of the extra duties cast upon them by the War, he can see his way to make better arrangements as to leave and afford them some extra remuneration?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: It is the case that at the time of mobilisation, and no doubt on occasion since, the men employed on the yard craft generally have been called upon to work long hours, and I take this opportunity of acknowledging the loyal and zealous way with which they—like all classes of dockyard employés—have responded to the demand made upon them. The Regulations contemplate the grant of extra pay where unusually long hours are worked, and I have no doubt that these Regulations have been and will be kept carefully in mind by those locally responsible for their administration.

  GREENOCK TORPEDO FACTORY.
  Mr. BARNESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that at the Greenock Torpedo Factory electrical repair work is almost entirely done by naval pensioners at wages considerably below the standard rate for electrical workers, which is 10½d. an hour; and whether, in the event of any vacancies occurring, electrical workers will be employed at the proper rate?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I will inquire at once into the matter.

  SHIPWRIGHT INJURED (PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARD).
  Mr. FALLEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if the case of Alfred J. K. Jones, ex-hired shipwright, Portsmouth Dockyard, who was seriously injured in 1905 and 1909 and finally had a paralytic stroke in 1913, can be brought before an independent medical authority as provided by the compensation scheme now in force in His Majesty's dockyards?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The matter has already been considered by the Government medical referee, the independent medical authority referred to in the Government scheme of compensation, who advised that the man's condition could not have been due to the injuries sustained by him in 1905 and 1909.
  Mr. FALLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that civil doctors decided exactly the opposite?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: If the hon. Member will look at the scheme he will see it provides for the receipt of independent testimony, and I think he will find that the scheme has been fully carried out. If he thinks otherwise, I shall be very glad to send him a copy of the scheme.

  ALIEN ENEMIES IN UNITED KINGDOM.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will direct the printing and publication of the names and addresses of all registered alien enemies in order that Englishmen may know with whom they are transacting business?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The suggestion of the hon. Member would involve much labour and expense; and, apart from this, the disadvantages of such publication would outweigh anything that would be gained by it. The purpose which the hon. Member has in view can he readily achieved by inquiry of the registration officer of the particular district.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many alien enemies, apart from
  930
  those actually captured in war, are now under arrest; and, of that number, how many have been arrested since the 8th instant?
  Mr. McKENNA: I cannot give the figures for the whole country without an inquiry, which would occupy some time; but, as regards the Metropolitan Police district, the total number in detention is 2,780, of whom 1,001 have been arrested since the 8th of September.

  INSURANCE ARREARS.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, whether the Insurance Commissioners had considered the question of the excessive amount of unemployment that may be expected owing to the War; and whether any allowances can be made to members of the approved societies in the matter of the arrears owing to such unemployment?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): Arrears due to unemployment during the War will have no effect on the benefits of employed members of societies until November, 1915. As my hon. Friend is aware, Parliament has made provision this year by a Grant-in-Aid for the assistance of contributors in paying the arrears accrued up to July last. My hon. Friend's suggestion of an increase in that Grant in respect of arrears that accrue during the year ending in July, 1915, obviously could not be considered until sufficient information of the volume of unemployment during the period in question has become available.

  NATURALISATION LAW (GERMAN SUBJECTS).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the reservations, subject to which a German subject renounces his nationality on becoming a naturalised British subject, relate to his duty in time of war to the country of his original allegiance?
  Mr. McKENNA: Section 25 of the German Nationality Law of 1913 provides that

  931
  a German loses his nationality on acquiring a foreign one, unless he is domiciled or permanently resident in Germany. In neither of such cases would he be granted naturalisation in the United Kingdom. There is further provision in the German law that he may retain his German nationality if he has obtained written permission to do so from his home State before acquiring a foreign nationality. No such case has come to my knowledge.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether or not it is the case that a German subject can renounce his allegiance to Germany subject to reservation regarding his duty to Germany in case of her being in a state of war?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman means by renouncing allegiance—whether he means the personal action of the Germans who applies for citizenship here or the relationship that hereafter exists between the German citizen and Germany. So far as the relationship between the German citizen and Germany goes, I have explained fully what is the law. As regards the personal action of the German who applies for citizenship here, no declaration of intention is taken from him at the time as he is bound to conform to the law, and I very much doubt whether any declaration of intention in the case of a person who intended to be a disloyal citizen would be of very much value.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask whether, as a fact, the English law recognises any reservation in the renunciation by a German of his nationality on becoming naturalised?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir, it recognises no reservation in the personal application of the individual, but it has no means of recognising or refusing to recognise the foreign law. For instance, a Russian who applies for naturalisation cannot, by Russian law, divest himself of his Russian nationality. Any German who applies for naturalisation does in almost every case divest himself of German nationality, but not in the case I have named in my answer to the question.
  Sir J. D. REES: But in time of war?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir, there is no special exemption under German law for duties in time of war. I have stated fully to the hon. Gentleman what the German law is on the subject.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, as there is some difficulty about this matter, is not the law clear that the question of the divesting of nationality or otherwise depends upon the Government and the country of which the naturalised alien is originally a subject?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, that is what I was endeavouring to make clear to the House both yesterday and to-day.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): We must not debate the matter.

  SEPARATION ALLOWANCES.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the way that the police are acting in connection with the Socialist meetings that are being held outside Forest Gate Station, East; if he is aware that the speakers on Sunday, 31st August, at 9 p.m. were hustled by the police and that the police-sergeant, who was on a bicycle, advised the people to put the speakers in the horse trough close by because they were protesting against the way the recruits were being fed and housed, and the small pay that was being allowed for separation allowance; if he is aware that one of the speakers is now lying in Moor-fields Hospital with severe injuries to his eyes; and if he will take steps to remind the police of their proper duties at public meetings?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am having inquiry made in the matter, but owing to the shortness of the notice given I am not at present in a position to say anything with regard to it.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Members on both sides of the House have been doing what those people have been doing, and whether he will not endeavour to prevent

  933
  the police breaking up such meetings, because all of us are absolutely dissatisfied with the pay allowed to the wives and children?
  Mr. McKENNA: I can only assure the hon. Gentleman that as soon as I make inquiries and inform myself on the matters I shall be quite willing to give a full answer.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that recruits joining the Army must produce marriage and birth certificates in order to secure the payment of their separation allowances, and that in many case" the payment of the official fees for such certificates causes hardship; and whether he can arrange that these certificates will be provided free?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): No, Sir. The instructions are that payment of separation allowance is to be made without verification of the particulars furnished by the man. Arrangements exist for the subsequent verification of the particulars without cost.
  Sir IVOR HERBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the scale of separation allowance to the families and dependants of soldiers has been reconsidered; and whether he can state the results of such reconsideration?
  Mr. BAKER: The Prime Minister has promised to make a statement on this subject before the end of the Session.
  Sir IVOR HERBERT: Am I to understand that we shall have that statement before the Adjournment?
  Mr. BAKER: The Prime Minister said so.

  CABLE MESSAGES (CHARGES).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that cable companies are charging the same rates per word en clair as they formerly charged for code words, and at the same time have withdrawn their deferred rates for messages en clair and their week-end rates, and that the cable expenses of British firms and companies
  934
  are in consequence in many cases doubled and trebled, to the serious hampering of trade at a time when it needs assistance, and has exceptional opportunities of expansion; and whether His Majesty's Government will endeavour to obtain the restoration of withdrawn facilities and the establishment of such rates for plain-word messages which shall not increase the cost for cabling to British trade?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to take this question. I fear I cannot at present add anything to the replies I have already given to the hon. Member for South-West Manchester and others on the subject.
  Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in the interest of the public, he will exercise some pressure?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have already explained to the House that the responsibility does not rest with me, but with the companies who make the charge upon their own responsibility. I have no authority unless there was special legislation.

  SEIZURE OF GERMAN SHIPS AND CARGOES.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state what practice will be followed as regards the proceeds of German ships and cargoes seized by us at and since the declaration of War; and whether he can now make any statement as to the possible application of these proceeds, wholly or in part, to reimburse the owners of British ships and cargoes which have been seized by the Germans?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Under the Order in Council published on the declaration of War between this country and Germany, and The Hague Convention of 1907, those German vessels which were in port on War being declared are not liable to confiscation, but only to detention during the period of the War. As regards German ships which have been captured by His Majesty's ships, the proceeds of those which are condemned by the Prize Courts will, as announced in the Press on the 29th August—after certain deductions—

  935
  form a fund out of which a distribution in the shape of prize bounties will be made to the Fleet on a basis to be subsequently determined and announced by Proclamation.
  Colonel YATE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, is any list being published of British ships captured by the Germans?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: We have published the list of German ships captured by His Majesty's ships up to the 12th of September. I have no knowledge of any other matter.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the German Government are adopting a similar rule as regards British cargoes and ships captured in German ports?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid I cannot say that.
  Colonel YATE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any information as to how many British ships have been arrested?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No; but I will make inquiries on the point.

  GERMAN SUGAR CROP (EXPORT IN NEUTRAL VESSELS).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the possibility of the Germans attempting to realise the value of their sugar crop by exporting their surplus, estimated as worth about £40,000,000, through Holland; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I am not aware of any steps which could be taken to prevent the export of sugar from Germany to neutral countries on neutral vessels.

  TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT.
  Sir JOHN HARMOOD-BANNERasked the President of the Board of Trade if it is the intention in all cases of appoint-
  936
  ments of controllers, under Clause 3 of the Trading with the Enemy Bill, to appoint one person only, irrespective of either the desire or advice of any of the parties interested, and also irrespective of whether the property to be dealt with is in Scotland, Ireland, or the North, South, or West of England?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No Sir. There is no intention whatever to limit appointments of controllers under Clause 3 of the Trading with the Enemy Bill in the way suggested.

  CONTRACTS WITH ALIEN ENEMIES.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Attorney-General whether, in view of the fact that the most recent legal decision on the point was given upwards of half a century ago, the Government can give the mercantile community any leading, or the opinion of its Law Officers, on the question whether contracts with alien enemies are cancelled, or only suspended, by the outbreak of War?
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: On a point of Order. May I draw your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the fact that this question violates three or four rules of order? First, it invites an expression of opinion which is disorderly, and then it invites an expression of opinion as to an abstract legal question, which is disorderly, and then it invites the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General to say what he can do in certain circumstances when he might be counsel for the Government; and there is an attempt to influence the Judicial Courts by the opinion of the Executive.
  Sir J. D. REES: On the point of Order. May I submit to you that I sought the opinion of the Attorney-General, and not the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: With regard to the question put by the hon. and learned Gentleman, it is accurate. In ordinary circumstances, it is not in order to ask the Law Officers for their opinion.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): I think I can give an answer which will not be disorderly. Any difficulty which arises in answering the ques-

  937
  tion to which the hon. Member refers is not due to any doubt as to the principle to be applied, but to the complexities of each individual case. Consequently, a general statement, even if it were universally accepted as authoritative, would not provide a solution, and individuals will find that the only practicable course is to seek competent private advice on the circumstances of their own case.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked whether the Government are now in a position to say what proposals, if any, they have to make for assisting the textile industry of Lancashire to overcome the difficulties arising out of the War crisis, which have resulted in an increase of unemployment, as stated by the trade union deputation on the 27th of August last?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. I am discussing the subject this afternoon with the representatives of the Lancashire textile unions, and I cannot make any statement to-day.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked the Prime Minister whether the suggestions made by the deputation representing the Trades Union Congress, the General Federation of Trade Unions, and the Labour party, on the 27th August, have been considered; and whether the Government can now say what proposals, if any, are to be adopted for assisting trade unions to deal with unemployment owing to the War crisis?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I hope to make a statement on this subject very shortly. The proposals are under discussion between the Board of Trade and the Treasury.
  Mr. HENDERSON: May I ask whether, in view of the very great importance of this matter to trade unions, the Government will endeavour to expedite their decision on this point?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I hope to be able to make a statement this week, and certainly at the earliest possible moment.

  LOANS TO OFFICERS (EXORBITANT INTEREST).
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Prime Minister if the Government can see their way, either by legislation or proclamation, to relieve officers on active service abroad during the period of such service from any legal liability they may have incurred to pay exorbitant interests on loans they may have contracted before they left this country with moneylenders or others, in view of the fact that they are unable to attend to such matters until the War is over, and in view of the fact that under the Moneylender's Act, 1900, interest up to 120 per cent. has been allowed by the Courts as not being harsh and unconscionable?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): I sympathise with the object the hon. Member has in view, but, having made inquiries, I am advised it could not be obtained without legislation. At the same time I must guard myself against accepting the suggestion contained in the last part of the question as being a correct statement of the decided cases.

  SMALL-POX.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether instructions have been given or will be given that, in the event of any soldier contracting small-pox during the War, a record of his vaccinal condition shall be kept, as is done in public hospitals?
  Mr. TENNANT: The existing Regulations include instructions for the vaccinal condition of every case of small-pox in the Army being duly recorded and reported to the War Office, so that the issue of special instructions is unnecessary.

  PRINCE OF WALES' FUND.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the wives and families of Reservists and Territorials called to the front are treated in any way differently, as regards War Office provision or supplementary allowance derived from the

  939
  Prince of Wales' Fund, from the wives and families of men of equal military grades who enlisted in the Army before the declaration of war or since that declaration; and, if so, will he state in what respects?
  Mr. BAKER: There is no difference as regards Army allowances, and though I cannot answer for the Prince of Wales' Fund, so far as I am aware there is no difference in that case also.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: Is the hon. Member aware that that is a matter left to the visitors whether they pay or not?
  Mr. BAKER: That is a question which I am afraid I cannot answer.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANhad given notice of the following question: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the supplementary allowances from the Prince of Wales' Fund are being disbursed in the case of enlisted men by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, whereas precisely similar payments in the case of Reservists and Territorials are being disbursed by the local relief committee; whether the Government is aware that, at Newcastle-on-Tyne in particular, such supplementary allowances to the wives of enlisted men are made in cash without conditions as to the articles to be purchased, whereas precisely similar payments to the wives of Reservists and Territorials derived from precisely the same funds are made only in tickets, not generally available for purchases even of food, to say nothing of the payment of rent, but only for the purchase of a limited list of commodities, excluding many articles of prime necessity; whether the Government is aware that fresh milk is absolutely excluded from such list, even in cases of mothers of young children; whether such restriction on expenditure has been approved by the Government or by the executive committee of the Prince of Wales' Fund; if so, whether it is really intended to exclude fresh milk, to name only one omission, from the dietary of infants of Reservists and Territorials; whether there is any reason for subjecting the wives of Reservists and Territorials to any restrictions from which the
  940
  wives of enlisted men are free; and, if not, whether the Government will take steps to ensure that the wives and families of all men at the front of equal military grade shall, so far as general regulations are concerned, everywhere be dealt with alike, by the same agencies, and with equal restrictions, if any?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This question seems to contravene Mr. Speaker's ruling with regard to the Prince of Wales' Fund. There is a paragraph at the end which it may be in order to answer, but I do not know whether the representative of the Government is prepared to answer it.
  Mr. BAKER: The hon. Member's question refers to private and not to public funds. I would suggest that he might bring the matter to the notice of the committee of the Prince of Wales' Fund.

  EX-OFFICERS (RETURN TO ARMY).
  Sir COURTENAY WARNERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will see that ex-officers who have had military training shall be encouraged to return to the Army by being given commissions; if he has had any complaints of incivility on the part of the officials who receive gentlemen and ex-officers on behalf of the Military Secretary; and, if so, what steps he has taken to prevent the recurrence of such incidents?
  Mr. TENNANT: Ex-officers who have had military training are encouraged to return to the Army. No complaints other than one from my hon. and gallant Friend have, I am informed, been received.
  Mr. HAMILTONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether retired Regular officers, having been called up for duty from the Reserve of Officers and employed as recruiting officers, only receive £20 as outfit allowance, while officers called up in the same way for other duties receive £100; and whether, seeing that Army Regulations, paragraph 675, lays it down that £100 is a flat rate for all officers so called up, and that White Paper No. 4270, issued in the Western Command, clearly states that it is a flat rate applicable to employment with the Regular

  941
  Forces, including recruiting officers, he will say under what authority this White Paper has been overruled?
  Mr. BAKER: The Allowance Regulations, paragraph 675, give not a flat rate of £ 100, but a sum not exceeding that amount. The Command Order laid down a flat rate of £100. It was subsequently brought to notice that this far exceeded the necessities of the retired officers employed on recruiting duties, and an amending Order was issued. If there is any case in which an officer, before the issue of the amending Order, has incurred liabilities of a larger amount than £20, I will consider it.
  Mr. HAMILTON: In view of the fact that some of these officers have incurred extra expense, or think they have, will he instruct the commanding officer of the district to circulate his reply to all of them?
  Mr. BAKER: I will see that the hon. Member's suggestion is brought to the notice of those officers.

  1ST WESSEX BRIGADE (STORES).
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that on the mobilisation of the 1st Hampshire Battery of the 1st Wessex Brigade it was found that there was a shortage of stores and the men were levied 4½d. per week to make up the shortage; whether it is permissible to levy the men for a shortage for which they are not responsible; whether he is also aware that the men have been levied 7d. per week to pay for additions to their rations, which additions have been made and levy raised without the men being consulted; whether it is permissible for the colonel or other officer to do this; and whether it is the intention of the War Office to take steps to have these levies refunded?
  Mr. BAKER: A report on this matter has been called for.

  RECRUITS (NUMBER OBTAINED).
  Mr. STEWARTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state
  942
  the number of recruits obtained in each recruiting area in the United Kingdom since the outbreak of the War?
  Mr. TENNANT: If the hon. Member would call upon the Director of Recruiting, he could see the figures and could also inform himself as to the volume of work involved in tabulating them on the basis suggested.
  Mr. STEWART: I thought the right hon. Gentleman said yesterday that he had got them already tabulated?
  Mr. TENNANT: There has been an enormous addition to the numbers, and if the hon. Gentleman will take the suggestion I have made he will then be able to see what a large amount of labour would be involved.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in consequence of raising the standard he has prevented a large number of recruits coming forward for enlistment? I would like to know whether the Government is prepared to fall back upon the old standard, and whether they will take the names and addresses of all the men who offer themselves, so that in the event of the Government wanting them they can be called upon?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That question does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

  MEDICAL MEN (VOLUNTEERS FOR SERVICE).
  Mr. STEWARTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what are the prospects as to getting appointments for medical men who have volunteered for service and have been accepted and medically examined by the War Office in August, as there are cases where doctors have, on being accepted, resigned all professional work, and find themselves at the moment without either position or income pending the final acceptance of their services by the War Office?
  Mr. TENNANT: About 70 per cent. of some 900 who applied have been employed. I cannot say if or when the remainder will be called upon, but it was made clear

  943
  to all these gentlemen that their acceptance for service, should they be required, did not place them under any obligation to relinquish their ordinary appointments until actually called upon to serve.

  DRUGS AND SURGICAL APPLIANCES.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if the principal medical officers of military hospitals could be empowered to purchase drugs and surgical appliances locally when urgently needed, in consequence of the large concentration of troops in certain districts, without having to requisition for them?
  Mr. BAKER: By existing Regulations this is already authorised in urgent circumstances which do not admit of the usual procedure of requisition.

  RESERVISTS (PAYMENTS TO WIVES).
  Mr. JOWETTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that the wives of Reservists who have been called to the Colours have in many cases received no payments from the War Office for four, five, and in some instances six weeks after their husbands have left home in response to the call, during which time they have had little or no income; and whether, if he is unable to arrange for the War Office to pay the money due to soldiers' wives promptly and at weekly intervals, he will circularise the local relief committees requesting them to advance the money temporarily in such cases for the War Office?
  Mr. BAKER: The arrangements which the hon. Member suggests were made at the beginning of the War. If the hon. Member has personal knowledge of any cases and will communicate particulars to me, I will have inquiry made.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Will these payments be made directly or through any other source?
  Mr. BAKER: I have already stated that early in October we shall institute a system of direct payment.
  Mr. BARNES: Will the payments be made through the Post Office?
  Mr. BAKER: Yes

  GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR IN LONDON.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is a fact that English wives of German citizens of London are not allowed to see their husbands who are technically prisoners of war interned in Olympia, nor are the prisoners allowed to write to their wives, nor are the wives informed of their husbands' whereabouts or of their intended destination; and whether this rupture of family relations is necessary in the interests of the State?
  Mr. TENNANT: Up to the last few days prisoners of war have been allowed to receive visitors at certain fixed hours, and they have been allowed to communicate with their wives. These privileges have, however, been temporarily suspended until such time as the German Government sees fit to grant similar privileges to British prisoners in Germany. I hope the suspension will be of short duration.

  WIRELESS INSTALLATIONS (HORIZONTAL WIRES).
  Mr. THOMAS-STANFORD (on behalf of Mr. Bartley Denniss): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that with sufficiently long horizontal wires placed quite near to the ground wireless communication is quite practicable and a mast can be dispensed with, he will consider the advisability of causing instructions to be given to the comparatively unskilled persons whose duty it is to discover and deal with wireless installations to search for and report upon horizontal wireless installations in this country?
  Mr. McKENNA: The matter is in the hands of skilled persons, who are well aware of the system referred to by the hon. Member.

  DUM-DUM BULLETS.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, having

  945
  regard to the fact that Great Britain all through the Boer War, although then, for technical reasons, not a signatory to the Declaration of The Hague Conference of 1809 in favour of abstention from the use of dum-dum or expanding bullets, vigorously enforced such abstention by British troops, and in 1907 assented to The Hague Declaration, the Government will consider the advisability of issuing an authoritative statement to the neutral Powers embodying the repudiation by the Under-Secretary of State for War yesterday of the calumny emanating from Germany and extensively circulated that dum-dum bullets are in use, or have been used, by British troops in the present War?
  Mr. ACLAND: This has already been done. On the 5th of September His Majesty's representatives in neutral countries were directed to publish statements to the effect referred to on the authority of His Majesty's Government.
  Sir W. BYLES: I ask leave of the House to make a very brief personal explanation. Yesterday I put a question to the representative of the War Office about the use of dum-dum bullets by our troops. I find that question, or at any rate my motive in putting it, has been misunderstood in more quarters than one. I only desire to say that in the form in which I handed my question in at the Table it was made perfectly clear that my object was only to destroy the calumnious statements on this matter which have been circulated in the United States.

  DUM-DUM BULLETS.

    Trade Commissioner for Australia.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Mr. G. T. Milne, who is styled His Majesty's Trade Commissioner in Australia, with an office in Flinders Street, Melbourne, Victoria, holds that appointment under the Colonial Office; whether he has been making applications to the Inter-State Commission for increased tariffs on certain imported goods; and, if so, whether he will lay Papers?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. Mr. Milne, His Majesty's Trade Commissioner for Australia, holds that
    946
    post under the Board of Trade. No applications have been made to the Inter-State Commission by Mr. Milne, whose action has been confined, in accordance with his instructions, to assisting, by information and advice, British importers desirous of applying to the Commission for modifications of the present Australian tariff.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: May I ask if in that answer "modification" means "reduction"?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, so I understand. It is not likely to benefit importers unless it is so.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Commissioner has been asking for an increase of duties on foreign imports for the benefit of British manufacturers, including a duty upon an article of food?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Mr. Milne is under the Board of Trade. The Commission was, I believe, appointed by the Commonwealth Government. Any question with regard to that had better be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary.

    Housing Acts.
    Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the fact that, while Section 1 of the Housing (No. 2) Act, 1914, empowers both the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Local Government Board to build houses themselves in default of action by the local authority or a public utility society, the Local Government Board circular of 21st August only speaks of such power as being possessed by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries; and if he will take the necessary steps to amend this circular in accordance with the wording of the Act?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): For the reasons which I stated to the House on 10th August, on the Second Reading of the Housing (No. 2) Bill, I do not contemplate that the Local Government Board should themselves build houses.

    Dispute in Wiltshire (Labourers and Employers).
    Mr. RICHARD LAMBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the dispute now pending between agricultural labourers and their employers in Wiltshire; and whether he will use the influence of the Board to bring this dispute to an end?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Chief Industrial Commissioner's Department has recently inquired into this dispute with a view to obtaining a settlement, but the information at the disposal of the Department does not indicate that further negotiations would at present have any useful result.
    Mr. R. LAMBERT: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the men offered to go back on their own terms, and that in spite of this the local landlord, who is a Member of this House, insisted in pressing forward ejectment orders against them?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid the facts as stated by my hon. Friend have been confirmed by the Industrial Commissioners.

    B. and C. Aeronaut Company (Fair-Wages Clause).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the excessive amount of overtime being worked by the B. and C. Aeronaut Company, Filton, who are Government contractors, whilst, at the same time, there are many competent and willing men out of employment; if he is aware that the firm are not paying the standard rate of wages of the district, which is 36s. per week for fifty hours for wood workers and 34s. for trimmers, neither are they paying the overtime rates, which are time and a quarter for the first two hours, and time and a half for the second two hours, and double time after, for Saturday time and a half and double time, and double time for Sundays; whether he will consider if this firm are violating the Fair-Wage Clause; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. BAKER: The attention of this company has been called to the necessity
    948
    of limiting overtime. They state that they have taken on as many men as possible and will continue to do so. A complaint was recently received as to certain rates of wages and is now being investigated.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  INDIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.

    EXPENSES CHARGED UPON REVENUES OF INDIA.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I beg to move, "That His Majesty having directed a military force, consisting of British and Indian troops, charged upon the revenues of India, to be despatched to Europe for service in the War in which this country is engaged, this House consents that the ordinary pay and other ordinary charges of any troops so despatched, as well as the ordinary charges of any vessels belonging to the Government of India that may be employed in this expedition which would have been charged upon the resources of India if such troops or vessels had remained in that country or seas adjacent, shall continue to be so chargeable, provided that, if it shall be necessary to replace the troops or vessels so withdrawn by other vessels or forces, then the expense of raising, maintaining, and providing such vessels and forces shall be repaid out of any moneys which may be provided by Parliament for the purposes of the said expedition."
    The Motion which stands in my name, and which I propose now to move, is one which I am quite certain will be received with complete assent and gratitude in every quarter of the House. I do not think that in all the moving exhibitions of national and Imperial patriotism which the War has evoked there is any which has more touched, and rightly touched, the feelings of this House and the country than the message sent by the Viceroy of India announcing the magnificent response which the princes and people of that country have made to our need. In consequence of the provisions of Section 55 of the Government of India Act, 1858, it is not constitutionally right or proper to charge upon the revenues of India, except in the case of actual invasion or of sudden and unforeseen emergency, the cost of troops that may be sent outside that country. The assent of both Houses of Parliament is needed before any such charge can be imposed upon the revenues
    956
    of India. The assistance of the Indian Army under Imperial exigencies has been more than once—indeed, several times since the passing of that Act—offered by India and accepted by ourselves. I will not go into the precedents; it is not necessary to do so.
    In most of those cases the whole cost of the charge has been met, as I am sure we would willingly meet it in this case, out of the revenues of the United Kingdom. But when this matter came up, as it did two or three weeks ago, before the Legislative Council of the Viceroy in India, one of the unofficial native members moved a resolution to the effect that India would desire, in the present emergency, that she should be allowed not only to send her troops, but to contribute the cost of their maintenance and pay, and the Viceroy, on behalf of the Government of India—and I am sure with the assent and sympathy not only of this House and the people of this country, but of the whole people of the British Empire—accepted that offer. The result is that, through this patriotic initiative, not in any sense dictated or inspired by the Government, but proceeding from an unofficial member of the Council of India, these splendid British and Indian troops which are now already upon their way, and which we believe will afford to us and to the Empire at large most effective assistance in the righteous struggle in which we are engaged, will be sent, as far as their ordinary charges are concerned, at the expense of the Government and people of India. The Motion I have to make is of a purely formal character. It is necessary in order to comply with the requirements of the Act of Parliament. I am sure we should not be giving expression to what everyone of us feels if we did not couple with its acceptance an acknowledgment, sincere and heartfelt, of the spontaneous and splendid assistance which our great Dependency of India is giving us.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am glad to have the privilege of seconding the Resolution which has been moved. Since the War broke out nothing, as the Prime Minister has said—not even, I think, the heroic conduct of our own soldiers on the field of battle—has moved the people of this country more deeply than the spontaneous and enthusiastic outburst of loyalty to their

    957
    Emperor and patriotism of the Empire of which we had an account in the message of the Viceroy given the other day. The circumstances under which this Resolution is necessary are another proof of the reality and of the value of that assistance. Previously when Indian troops, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, have been used out of India the Government of India has looked with a jealous eye in order to see that no part, of the financial burden would fall on the people of India. Now the Indian Government, representing and inspired by the Indian people, are not only sending their sons to risk their lives at the side of our own soldiers, by whom they will be proudly welcomed as comrades, but are insisting on bearing a share of the burden of the expense which is involved.
    I ventured to say the other day at the Guildhall that the moral forces which our enemies not only despise but affront would prove in the long run stronger than the material forces on which alone they rely. It is on moral forces that we rely to-day. The generous aid which is coming to us from the self-governing Dominions in every part of the Empire is coming of their own free will. It could not be demanded by us, and it could not be enforced by us. This assistance from India also is coming not from force, but from good will, and I believe that it is coming because, on the whole, everyone who leaves this country to take part in the government of India, from the Viceroy to the humblest official, is inspired by the tradition that it is his duty not to exploit India for the benefit of this country, but to rule it for the good of the people of India. We have made mistakes, but on the whole we have succeeded, and it is because, in the main, the people of India recognise that that is the spirit in which the Government is carried on, that we have received so generously their assistance in our hour of need.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I think that this occasion, when both parties in this House are giving expression to the debt of gratitude we feel to the people of India for their recent demonstration of loyalty and devotion to the Empire, is one which ought not to be allowed to pass without a protest from some Members of
    958
    this House against the most unfortunate and most ungracious attack to which prominence was given in the columns of the "Times" on Monday, over the signature of Sir Frank Swettenham, on the people of India. He has thought that this demonstration of loyalty and devotion to the Empire on the part of the people of India was a fitting occasion to be used as a means for attacking a very large section of the Indian people, those especially who are represented in the Indian National Congress. He has stated that this demonstration of loyalty and devotion to the Empire, instead of being a proof of the solidarity of the people and of their devotion to the Empire as a whole, is only a proof
    "that the voice we are accustomed to hear is that of a comparatively small section of professional talkers, whose occupation has disappeared in the face of the mighty issues which are moving the real heart of the people."
    I should have thought it was possible to learn a different lesson from the events happening in India. The lesson I should have thought it was possible to take would have been that those who, like Sir Frank Swettenham and his friends, have attempted to guide opinion in this country in the past, who have denounced these patriotic Indian politicians as mere professional talkers and dangerous agitators, have been mistaken in the past, and that in these demonstrations in India we have demonstrations of the real feelings of the people and of the Indian National Congress. I think we should better realise how deeply the wound of such language would be felt in India if we attempted to put the words which he has used into the mouth of some Liberal or some Unionist, and applied them to the Nationalists or the Unionists of Ireland. The demonstrations which we have received from both sections in Ireland could be referred to in these words:—
    "The voice we are accustomed to hear is that of a comparatively small section of professional talkers, whose occupation has disappeared in the face of mighty issues which are moving the real heart of the people."
    If any of us, either Liberals or Unionists, were to use these words and to apply them to those to whom we have been previously opposed in Ireland—in either section—they would rightly be regarded as false and ungracious, and they would be no more false and no more ungracious

    959
    than they are when applied to those who have voiced the political views of India in the past.
    Sir JOHN JARDINE: I am not going to assail the dignity of this Resolution by touching on any controversial subjects at all. I hope that the words of the Prime Minister will be telegraphed immediately to our fellow subjects in the Indian Empire. I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman who leads the Opposition said just now, that this wonderful, this astounding exhibition of loyalty, not merely from the rulers, but from all sections of the people of India, is largely due to the conviction that whatever our mistakes may have been in the past, our intentions have been honourable, good, and kindly. In fact, they realise now that the Government of the people has been good and, as has always been the policy of the Indian Government, largely in accordance with the traditions and customs of the country, which have been studied by those who have served the Government out there with a great deal of care. These offers have come, not merely from heads of the different States in India, but from innumerable local bodies, town councils, heads of communities, assemblies of students, men of education, some of whom have been under the discipline of the Courts for sedition in former days; indeed, all have joined in the general volume of loyalty, and I may say, without desiring to provoke the slightest feeling of opposition, that the fact that the proposal to charge the expenses of the Expeditionary Force to the people of India came from an unofficial member of the Viceroy's Council, a native gentleman, may partly be due to the reform of the Government of India that was undertaken a few years ago, giving greater powers to the natives, both in the Executive Cabinets of the Viceroys and the Governors, and also in the numerous Legislative Councils which have been established. When we passed that Act there was an indication that it met with general concurrence, and I remember remarking at the time that it was passed, as it ought to be, with the concurrence of the great parties of this country. And now that the chiefs, great and small—including some 178 chiefs and princes in the
    960
    Presidency of Bombay—as well as the great chiefs in all parts of the Empire, have so warmly offered their armies, their resources, their swords, and even their sons to help in this great conflict in which we are engaged, let me say I think that is largely due to the change of policy which has resulted from the lessons of the mutiny.
    We have ceased to be always on the hunt to increase our territory; we have shown the princes, great and small, that their princely estates are to be preserved, and they now know, from experience, that they are protected by the great paramount Power against all enemies who may dare invade India. An instance may be cited as having arisen at a time when the ruler of Mysore had no heir. I remember the great controversy which arose as to whether that kingdom should be annexed. It was decided by the Secretary of State in Council that it should not, and now we find the present Maharajah of Mysore coming forward with a gift of £550,000 and offering all his arms and all his resources. The same thing occurred when a Conservative Government was in power, when the question was whether the State of Baroda should be annexed on account of misgovernment of that State. Lord Salisbury decided that it should not. That action has given great satisfaction to these princes, who in many respects hold the same positions as those held by princes and grand-dukes of Germany in relation to the Kaiser. There have been times when British rule has disappeared from great areas of the country, yet law and order has been preserved, in their interests as well as our own, by the native princes. Some of them are coming forward; others are sending their sons. That is quite in accordance with their tradition of warriors, resembling very much the old chiefs on the borderland of Scotland, part of which I represent in this House. After such an incredible response of loyalty, the nation should take the utmost care, in every way and at every time, to show its full appreciation thereof, and, particularly, when the rainy months begin and the cold and the snows come on, should the War last that time, the country should subscribe liberally to funds to provide comforts for the Indian troops. I should say that the Hindus and the

    961
    Mahomedans of India are joining most heartily in this movement, and in that way are giving the lie direct to much that we have seen in recent German literature, where the notion has been put forth—an unholy notion for any Christian kingdom—that the Imperial Government of Germany should get into alliance with Turkey in order to use the Sultan, as the head of all Islam, to raise rebellion in those countries governed by European Powers where there are many Mahomedans. I submit that at the present time to set up a Moslem war against us is a decidedly unholy thing. One of the best things in all this spontaneous movement is that it has shown that Moslem loyalty is as sound as the loyalty of those other defenders whom we hope soon to have fighting side by side with English, Irish, and Scottish troops on the battlefield, and then returning to this city to be seen by us.
    Sir J. D. REES: My Leader has so completely expressed my feelings that I should not trouble the House except to put a question to the Financial Secretary to the War Office. I hope the great generosity of India, with which the House has been struck, will be imitated by those who have to deal with the financing of this question, and that British officers who proceed from India with their regiments to the front will not, as there seems to be some reason to fear they will be, put upon English pay.
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, they will not.
    Sir J. D. REES: I am very glad to have elicited that statement, because it would have been a very unfortunate circumstance, and would have led to some feeling. I am sure the Indian troops will cover themselves with glory in friendly rivalry with the British troops.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolved, "That, His Majesty having directed a military force consisting of British and Indian troops, charged upon the revenues of India, to be dispatched to Europe for service in the War in which this country is engaged, this House consents that the ordinary pay and other ordinary charges of any troops so dispatched, as well as the ordinary charges of any vessels belonging to the
    962
    Government of India that may be employed in this expedition which would have been charged upon the resources of India if such troops or vessels had remained in that country or seas adjacent. shall continue to be so chargeable, provided that, if it shall be necessary to replace the troops or vessels so withdrawn by other vessels or forces, then the expense of raising, maintaining, and providing such vessels and forces shall be repaid out of any moneys which may be provided by Parliament for the purposes of the said expedition."
    The remaining Government Orders of the Day were read and postponed.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The House awaits a message from the other House. Therefore, before proposing the Adjournment of the House, I intend to leave the Chair until six o'clock, or such other time as the message may be received. I will cause the bells in the House to be rung when the House resumes.
    Sitting suspended at thirteen minutes before four o'clock.
    Sitting resumed at twenty-five minutes before Seven o'clock.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—
  Army Pensions Bill,
  Irish Police Constables (Naval and Military Service) Bill,
  Superannuation Bill,
  Rates (Proceedings for Recovery) Bill, without Amendment.

  WAR IN EUROPE.

    TRADING WITH THE ENEMY BILL.
    Message from the Lords,
    That the Lords agree to the Trading with the Enemy Bill, with an Amendment, in which they desire the concurrence of the Commons.
    Question, "That the Lords Amendment be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Sir J. Simon.]

    TRADING WITH THE ENEMY BILL.

      CLAUSE 3.—(Power of Board of Trade to Apply for Receiver in Certain Cases.)
      Where it appears to the Board of Trade in reference to any firm or company—

      (a) that an offence under this Act has been or is likely to be committed in connection with the trade or business thereof; or

      (b) that the control or management thereof has been or is likely to be so affected by the state of war as to prejudice the effective continuance of its trade or business and that it is in the public interest that the trade or business should continue to be carried on;

      the Board of Trade may apply to the High Court for the appointment of a controller of the firm or company, and the High Court shall have power to appoint such a controller, for such time and subject to such conditions and with such powers as the Court thinks fit, and the powers so conferred shall be either those of a receiver and manager or those powers subject to such modifications, restrictions, or extensions as the Court thinks fit (including, if the Court considers it necessary or expedient for enabling the controller to borrow money, power, after a special application to the Court for that purpose, to create charges on the property of the firm or company in priority to existing charges).
      Lords Amendment: At end of Clause 3 add the words,
      "The Court shall have power to direct how and by whom the costs of any proceedings under this Section and the remuneration charges and expenses of the controller shall be borne, and shall have power, if it thinks fit, to charge such costs, charges and expenses on the property of the firm or company in such order of priority in relation to any existing charges thereto as it thinks fit."
      Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.—[Sir J. Simon.]

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND ACT AND WELSH CHURCH ACT.

    SUSPENSORY BILL.
    Message from The Lords,
    That they have agreed to,—
    Suspensory Bill, with Amendments.
    Suspensory Bill,
    Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 407.]
    Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 17th July, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three minutes before Seven o'clock, till to-morrow (Thursday), at a Quarter before Three o'clock.

  ROYAL NAVY (FREE POSTAGE).
  ROYAL NAVY (FREE POSTAGE).
  SEPARATION ALLOWANCES.
  SEPARATION ALLOWANCES.
  CLOTHING AND CAMP FURNITURE.
  CLOTHING AND CAMP FURNITURE.
BRITISH LEGATION AT MUNICH.
  TREATMENT AT OUTBREAK OF WAR.
  TREATMENT AT OUTBREAK OF WAR.
  Panel Chemists.
  Panel Chemists.
  Drainage Boards (Ireland).
  Drainage Boards (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Central Railway Company of Canada.
  Central Railway Company of Canada.

THE INDIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.
*THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I rise to make the Motion that stands in my name in respect to the charge upon the revenues of India for the military force, consisting of British and Indian troops, sent from India to the seat of war. This Resolution has to be made in both Houses—it is being simultaneously made in another place—in consequence of a provision in the Act of 1858. Section 55 of that Act provides as follows—
"Except for preventing or repelling actual invasion of Her Majesty's Indian possessions, or under other sudden and urgent necessity, the revenues of India shall not, without the consent of both Houses of Parliament, be applicable to defray the expenses of any military operation carried on beyond the external frontiers of such possessions by Her Majesty's Forces charged upon such revenues."
That provision was, no doubt, inserted in the Act largely in the interests of India. It is conceivable also that in the minds of those who framed it there may have been a feeling that unless some such provision were inserted in an Act of Parliament a British Government could imitate the famous action of King Charles I in bringing Irish troops over to this country, and could defy the important provision of the Bill of Rights which makes it necessary to vote every year, as this House very well knows, the provision for a Standing Army, and that it might be possible to maintain a Standing Army in Europe, or even in this country, without the consent of Parliament. But I have no doubt that the main object of those who framed this section was with regard to the revenues of India, to secure that they should not be expended by the Indian Government of the day for this purpose or a kindred purpose without the solemn consent of Parliament.
I need not add anything to-day to what I said a short time ago as to the pride which we all feel in the despatch of such an important Indian force to fight side by side with British soldiers and with the soldiers from the self-governing Dominions in this mighty conflict. It was quite evident then from the attitude of the House that the pride which I expressed in this event is shared by the House as a whole, and it was clear from what appeared in
696
the Press the next day that the same feelings are entertained throughout the whole country. It is a most remarkable and most memorable fact, and the reception of the news that Indian troops were to come here is for one thing, as I venture to hope, a magnificent tribute to the justice of our rule in India, and is also an evidence of how high the heart of India beats in sympathy with us in this great struggle in which we are engaged.
India has desired to play her part not merely in sending troops, but she has also taken the view that at any rate she ought not to profit in the sense of making any sort of saving because of the absence of those troops from India and the consequent absence of necessity of paying for them. As I pointed out before, the precedents on this subject are very various. Sometimes India has been asked to pay a large amount not merely of the ordinary charges but of the extraordinary charges in respect of troops sent to other parts of the world. In some other cases the whole charge has been undertaken by this country. The particular course which is proposed in this Resolution is the same that was adopted in the year 1896 in respect of the Indian contingent which went in that year to Suakim—that is to say, that all the ordinary charges are paid by India and the extraordinary charges are chargeable to this country. The arrangement may be regarded, I think, both in India and here as a thoroughly fair one considering the magnitude of the struggle in which we are engaged.
It was held by what was known as the Welby Commission, which sat about fourteen years ago, that a war in Europe could not of itself be taken as involving the direct interests of India, but for a war such as this there is no precedent, and no argument of a merely technical kind can therefore be based upon a sentence in a Report of a Royal Commission the members of which contemplated in all probability some totally different and minor employment of troops from India. Therefore as we stand at the moment, and speaking without prejudice to what may happen in the future, to the duration of the war, or a number of other factors about which it is impossible to express any opinion at present, I think that this arrangement is a reasonable one both from the Indian and the British point of view. I trust, therefore, that your Lordships will be able to assent to this Resolution without demur.
Moved to resolve, That His Majesty having directed a military force consisting of British and Indian troops, charged upon the revenues of India, to be despatched to Europe for service in the war in which this country is engaged, this House, in compliance with Section 55 of the Government of India Act, 1858, consents that the ordinary pay and other ordinary charges of any troops so despatched, as well as the ordinary charges of any vessels belonging to the Government of India that may be employed in this expedition which would have been charged upon the resources of India if such troops or vessels had remained in that country or seas adjacent, shall continue to he so chargeable, provided that if it shall be necessary to replace the troops or vessels so withdrawn by other vessels or forces, then the expense of raising, maintaining, and providing such vessels and forces shall be repaid out of any moneys which may be provided by Parliament for the purposes of the said expedition.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
*EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, as one who was connected for some years with the Government of India, perhaps I may be allowed to say a word upon the statement which has just been made by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House. I am the more anxious to do so because on the two previous occasions on which the despatch of this Indian contingent to take part in the war has been mentioned I was, unfortunately, prevented by duties elsewhere from saying anything in your Lordships' House. I should like, therefore, to take this opportunity of joining the noble Marquess in a tribute of admiration for the, splendid spirit of loyalty that has been shown by our Indian Dominions and their inhabitants of all classes and creeds in this crisis, and, further, of adding my tribute of congratulation to the Viceroy in particular and to the Government of India for the substantial and magnificent offer of assistance that they have been able to make to His Majesty's Government. That the noble Marquess was quite justified in what he said just now about the feelings which have been evoked by the offer in this country is plain from my own experience, because during the past ten days in which I have been engaged elsewhere I can truthfully say that no subject I have heard mentioned has evoked more enthusiasm among the thousands of people I have seen assembled than the
698
splendid offer by the Indian Government of an Indian contingent.
The noble Marquess takes us a step further to-day and makes a Motion to the House to the effect that the ordinary charges of these troops should continue to be borne by the Indian Government, or, to use his own words, that the Indian Government should derive no profit from their patriotism in this respect. In ordinary circumstances I might have felt some doubt about such a proposal. As the noble Marquess truly said, there have been fluctuations in our policy with regard to this matter in the past—fluctuations, I am bound to say, in some cases not altogether creditable to ourselves or to our standard of chivalry and honour. But the conditions have very much changed in recent years, and, broadly speaking, the principle that is now observed is that when Indian troops are employed outside that country in foreign service the expenditure should not fall upon India. That certainly was the case with regard to the Expedition which I had the honour of despatching from India myself in the year 1900—the Expedition which went to assist in the relief of our Legations at Pekin, when in reply to the request for ass stance from his Majesty's Government my Government laid down, I think properly and successfully, the condition that the expenditure should not fall on the revenues of India. But the noble Marquess has stated to-day with truth that the present is an exceptional case. This is a ease in which the troops of India are spontaneously taking part in a war which may be held to involve the interests of India itself as being included in those of the whole Empire. I conclude that the proposal which the noble Marquess has submitted to the House is one which has been made to him by the Government of India.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Hear, hear.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: The noble Marquess did not expressly say so, but it was obvious from the nature of his remarks. That being so it seems to me that the Motion is one which your Lordships can well accept, and that this desire on the part of the Government of India, backed up, I believe, by the whole of its people, to bear the charges to which I refer adds to the splendid token of loyalty which they have offered us in the despatch of these troops. I have therefore great pleasure in supporting the noble Marquess's Motion.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Perhaps I may say, in explanation of the last remark that fell from the noble Earl, that on one of the occasions on which he was unfortunately not able to be present I called attention to a debate in the Viceroy's Legislative Council and read some extracts from it in which this particular proposal that India should hear the ordinary charges was received with unanimous enthusiasm by the members of that Council.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I do not rise to acid anything to what has been so admirably said by my noble friend behind me, but to call attention to a letter which appears in The Times to-day with regard to the payment of the Indian officers who accompany the Expedition. I have not been able to refer to what took place in the Boer War, and I think it is quite possible that the system which His Majesty's Government have apparently adopted on this occasion is the one which was adopted in the Boer War. On the other hand, whatever was done then affected a comparatively small number of officers and especially did not affect officers of the Indian Army who were brought to South Africa. On this occasion a large body of actual Indian troops are serving, and I think that probably the noble Marquess will feel that it is a considerable hardship that any officer who is established in India on a certain rate of pay, especially a married officer on whom heavy expenses are involved in giving up his work in India and equipping himself for foreign service, should be at any financial loss, whether the charge falls on the revenues of India or of this country, by going to serve His Majesty on the Continent of Europe. I hope the noble Marquess will take the subject into favourable consideration, and, whatever has been the practice in the past, I am quite certain that in this House he would have our sympathy in any concession he could find it possible to make.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, my attention had been called to the letter to which the noble Viscount has alluded which appeared in The Times this morning. The question is not quite a simple one, as a little consideration will show your Lordships. It is simple enough in the case of officers in the Indian Army, and I suppose it would generally be agreed that there the circumstances would make
700
it reasonable that they should receive the same rate of pay when serving abroad from. India as when they are serving at home. Probably, though I think there is nothing in the letter to show it, the letter in The Times was written in the interest not of an officer in the Indian service but in one of the British regiments which happened to be in India at the time, receiving there the increased rate of Indian pay, and which has now been brought home to Europe. In these cases the question is not quite so simple. It might be felt by officers in some other British battalions serving almost alongside this one that it is hardly reasonable that officers in the same service should receive a far higher rate of pay, perhaps for a considerable period, than they themselves are receiving. There is also a further difficulty which the noble Viscount will appreciate—namely, that a large number of officers, both in the Indian service and in British regiments serving in India who were home on leave at the time have been detained and have not returned to India but have gone to join the Forces. The question of their rate of pay would also create some difficulty; and, in addition to that, a certain number of officers have been actually borrowed from India itself, not to serve with Indian units but for other purposes either at home or on the continent of Europe. Therefose, as I say, the question is not quite so simple or straightforward a one as might appear. On the whole, however, I am disposed to regard this claim with a great deal of sympathy. In a number of cases, as the noble Viscount pointed out, though, of course, not in all—not, for instance, in the case of a number of subalterns but in the case of a great many senior officers—establishments for their wives and families have to be kept running in India for an indefinite period without much possibility of economy, and the sacrifice of the extra Indian pay might be a serious matter indeed to such officers as those. I confess, therefore, I am disposed, although at this moment I am not able to make any definite promise on the subject, to regard the claim with a great deal of sympathy, and I can assure the House that it is, as a matter of fact, now being carefully considered at my Office as to how the claim can best be met.
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente.

ARMY PENSIONS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LUCAS): My Lords, Army pensions at the present moment are paid at intervals of three months, and are paid in advance. The object of this Bill is to enable these pensions to be paid at more frequent intervals, and also to make provision, in the case where a pensioner dies, that his representatives shall not be the losers by this arrangement—that is to saw, there will be paid to them the equivalent amount of money to that which would have been paid if the pensioner had received the whole of his three months' pension in advance. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª.
Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3ª, and passed.

IRISH POLICE CONSTABLES (NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICE) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD WIMBORNE: My Lords, this Bill has for its object the placing of constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police who are Reservists or join the Navy or Army in the same position as English police constables in like circumstances were placed by the Bill which your Lordships recently passed for England. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Wimborne.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª.
Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3ª, and passed.

TRADING WITH THE ENEMY BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
TILE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, under the law of this country trading with an enemy is illegal, but the remedies which the State possesses in the matter of prosecution are not equally clear. This Bill aims at establishing a proper procedure with regard to this matter. It imposes penalties in the shape of imprisonment and fine, and puts the procedure of the Courts on a definite basis. The Bill also enables the Board of Trade, where an offence under the Bill has been or is to be committed, but where it is in the public interest that the trade or business should continue to be carried on, to apply to the High Court for the appointment of a controller of the firm or company in question. After the Bill has been read a second time, should your Lordships agree to that course, I propose to move a drafting Amendment to provide that the Court shall have power to direct how and by whom the costs of any procedure under this clause should be borne.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª.
Moved (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Power of Board of Trade to apply for receiver in certain cases.
3. Where it appears to the Board of Trade in reference to any firm or company—

(a) that an offence under this Act has been or is likely to be committed in connection with the trade or business thereof; or

(b) that the control or management thereof has been or is likely to be so affected by the state of war as to prejudice the effective continuance of its trade or business and that it is in the public interest that the trade or business should continue to be carried on;

703
the Board of Trade may apply to the High Court for the appointment of a controller of the firm or company, and the High Court shall have power to appoint such a controller, for such time and subject to such conditions and with such powers as the court thinks fit, and the powers so conferred shall be either those of a receiver and manager or those powers subject to such modifications, restrictions or extensions as the court thinks fit (including, if the court considers it necessary or expedient for enabling the controller to borrow money, power, after a special application to the court for that purpose, to create charges on the property of the firm or company in priority to existing charges.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I move to add at the end of Clause 3 the Amendment which I foreshadowed.
Amendment moved—
At end of Clause 3 add:
"The court shall have power to direct how and by whom the costs of any proceedings under this section, and the remuneration, charges, and expenses of the controller, shall be borne, and shall have power, if it thinks fit, to charge such costs, charges, and expenses on the property of the firm or company in such order of priority, in relation to any existing charges thereon, as it thinks fit."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Amendment reported.
Then Bill read 3ª, and passed, and returned to the Commons, and to be printed as amended. (No. 294.)

SUPERANNUATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, although this Bill is not one which can technically be called wholly an emergency measure, nevertheless it is one to which I hope your Lordships will give your agreement in the course of this evening. It deals with a number of anomalies and small matters connected with the superannuation of Civil Servants, and the passing of the Bill during the present session will allow the relatives of any Civil Servants who fall in the war to have certain advantages. The various matters with which the Bill deals are not of any great im-
704
portance, and unless some noble Lord opposite is anxious for further information on the subject I shall not venture to trouble your Lordships with any remarks explanatory of the small matters with which the various clauses of the Bill are concerned. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª.
Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3ª, and passed.

RATES (PROCEEDINGS FOR RECOVERY) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, this is a Bill which is more especially connected with the war. The object of it is to allow more time to be given with regard to the collection of rates in cases where the war affects the unfortunate people who are in arrears. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª.
Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3ª, and passed.

SUSPENSORY BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
*THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, it is not necessary for me to enter into any fresh argument on the subject of this Bill, because the difference between this measure and the parallel measure which your Lordships passed yesterday and sent down to another place has become quite clear from the various discussions which we have held on the subject. They are both of them Bills which declare a moratorium for the purpose of the Government of Ireland Bill and the Welsh Church Bill, but they proceed, as we know, on somewhat different

705
lines, and their intention is not identical. I think I may take it that the House is fully apprised of the contents of Clause 1 of our Bill and the measure of the delay which we propose under it. I notice that the noble Viscount opposite, Lord St. Aldwyn, does not agree with us in applying identical procedure to the Government of Ireland Bill and the Welsh Church Bill.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I ask you to do it.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Not precisely, I think, although the point is really a verbal one. We should say that identity of treatment in the terms of this clause cannot be identity of treatment in substance owing to the completely different circumstances in which the Irish and Welsh Bills are desired to be passed. However, I will not attempt to anticipate any discussion in Committee upon the Amendment which the noble Viscount has put on the Paper. I will therefore merely ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I do not rise for the purpose of drawing any comparison between this Bill and the Bill which at the instance of my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition was passed through your Lordships' House yesterday. I greatly prefer that Bill to the one now before your Lordships' House, but I am afraid we must anticipate, after what fell yesterday from the noble Marquess opposite, that Lord Lansdowne's Bill is not likely to receive assent in another place and that therefore the Bill now before us is the Bill with which we are practically concerned as carrying into effect what the noble Marquess has just called a moratorium with respect to these two measures. Therefore I think it advisable to call attention on the Second Reading to the provisions of this Bill although last night a good deal was said upon them, because, having carefully read the observations made by the Prime Minister in another place yesterday, I really believe that at any rate the Prime Minister and very possibly his colleagues also, judging from a statement made by the noble Earl the Lord President two days ago, have not
706
by any means appreciated the effect of the proposal that they are making in this suspensory measure with regard to the Welsh Church Bill.
Both the Government of Ireland Bill and the Welsh Church Bill contain within themselves provisions with respect to the dates at which they are respectively to come into operation. The Government of Ireland Bill is to come into operation, except as expressly provided in the Bill, on the first Tuesday in the eighth month after it is passed, or such other day, not more than seven months later, as is fixed by Order in Council, but the Irish Parliament shall be summoned to meet not later than four months after the said Tuesday. That is, of course, the time allotted in the Bill for making the necessary preparations for carrying it ultimately into effect. His Majesty's Government, with regard to the Government of Ireland Bill, propose to put in front of the times so named a delay of at least twelve months or a delay corresponding with the time of the war before the Government of Ireland Bill shall come into operation at all. That is a clear and definite statement and a real moratorium with regard to the date of its coming into effect. I do not know why the precise time named has been chosen, but at any rate I suppose one reason for the delay is that during the war it would be very difficult if not impossible to proceed with an Amending Bill. At any rate that is the decision of the Government, and it is proposed to be carried out in this Bill.
The Church in Wales suffers far more under the Welsh Church Bill by the fact of the war having broken out than any interests in Ireland can suffer by that fact. The Prime Minister said, in so many words, that neither Party should be in a worse position in these matters on account of the war. The Church in Wales, assuming the Welsh Church Bill to become law, will be in a very much worse position on account of the war than if no war had broken out. That is perfectly clear. And what is the provision as to delay with regard to the Welsh Church Bill? In that Bill it is proposed that the Act shall come into operation six months or not more than twelve months, to be fixed by Order in Council, after the date of its passing. But there are certain important exceptions

707
to that proposal which I will proceed to mention to your Lordships, which I think had really not occurred to the Prime Minister—and possibly may not have occurred to other members of His Majesty's Government—when he made his statement in another place last night. In this Suspensory Bill His Majesty's Government propose that while the entire operation of the Government of Ireland Bill shall be postponed for twelve months or for the period of the war, all that shall be done with regard to the Welsh Church Bill is this—that the date of Disestablishment under the Bill shall be postponed during the same period. But that ignores the important matter of what, under the Welsh Church Bill, has to be done immediately on the passing of the Bill and between that date and the date of Disestablishment.
Let me quote what the Prime Minister said last night as to the intentions of His Majesty's Government in this matter. He said—
"We feel in regard to the Welsh Bill also that the outbreak of the war has created a state of things which would make it unjust and inequitable to proceed with the immediate operation of the measure. I refer particularly to the fact that the disendowment or partial disendowment of the Welsh Church would necessarily impose upon its supporters and friends during the early years of the existence of the disestablished body pecuniary sacrifices for the purpose of getting together and making good a voluntary Commutation Fund. The burden under which we all of us lie, in consequence of the war, to restrict our expenditure and devote as much as we can to public purposes, together with a certainty that new taxation must be imposed which will still further curtail the resources of the ordinary citizen, make it appear to us just and equitable that the operation of the disendowment provisions of that Bill should be postponed. But when you come to examine the matter you cannot disentangle the provisions in regard to Disendowment from those in regard to Disestablishment. We therefore propose, subject to comparatively formal matters, which prejudice nobody—"
I will call the attention of your Lordships to what these comparatively formal matters are—
"that with that exception, in the case of the Welsh Bill as in the case of the Irish Bill, no steps should he taken to put it into actual operation until twelve months from the date of passing, or if the war then continue, during the same terms as are prescribed in the Irish Bill."
What are these formal matters which would come into effect on the passing of the Welsh Church Bill which, in the Prime Minister's view, would prejudice nobody? He really can never have considered the
708
matter. In the first place, there is the appointment of the Welsh Commissioners. What have the Commissioners got to do? They have to communicate with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty so as to define what property is Welsh ecclesiastical property and what is not—the first process of Disendowment. They have to decide what are and what are not private benefactions which will remain to the Church. They have to decide what are the unclosed burial grounds which are to be taken away from the Church and given to the local authorities—a direct proposal of Disendowment which probably has created more bitter feeling among Churchmen in Wales than almost any proposal in the Bill. And it has to be settled what are border parishes and what are not between the date of the passing of the Bill and the date of Disestablishment. Not one of those matters will be postponed for a day by the proposal which His Majesty's Government make in this Suspensory Bill and which they tell us is a fair and equitable moratorium for the Welsh Church Bill. Moreover, directly after the passing of the Welsh Church Bill into an Act it is laid down in the Bill that there shall be no new interests created which shall be entitled to compensation. There, again, is a matter of vital importance win h respect to the disendowment of the Church. The position of lay patrons, as to what claim they may have to compensation, has to be considered within six months of the passing of the Bill.
There are other matters of even greater importance. As the most rev. Primate showed to your Lordships last night, a Church Representative Body has to be formed in order to take over what is left to the Church. How is it possible during the war, when everybody's thoughts are engaged elsewhere, when many of the most active and able men connected with the Church in Wales are fighting for their country or engaged in some other work for the successful conduct of the war, that the many and difficult matters connected with the formation of a Church Representative Body can be carried into effect? But that is not all. Nothing to my mind could be stronger than what the Prime Minister himself said, which I have read to your Lordships, on the impossibility of raising funds. He mentioned the necessity of raising funds for the purposes of commutation. Of course, it would be impossible for

709
the Church to enter on the question of commutation at all unless it were in a position to see what its financial future would be. And I remember that Mr. McKenna himself, in defending his commutation proposals against the charge of meanness, to which I think they are very fairly subject, suggested to the House of Commons that funds should be provided to help them out by voluntary subscriptions. The Prime Minister has shown conclusively that that cannot be done during the war. Therefore the cruelty that this Bill as it now stands shows towards the Welsh Church by proposing that all these things shall be carried out from between the date of the passing of the Bill and the date of Disestablishment without any kind of moratorium at all is, I must say, something which I do not believe even His Majesty's Government could have entirely contemplated.
The suggestion which I have ventured to place on the Paper is that the Government of Ireland Bill and the Welsh Church Bill, as regards the date of their operation, shall be dealt with identically in this Bill. Why should they not be? What can be the reason why His Majesty's Government insist on imposing these grave disabilities upon the Welsh Church as compared with those who are interested in the Government of Ireland Bill? It is an unreasonable piece of unfairness, and I do not believe it entered into the mind of the noble Marquess who leads the House or into the mind of the noble Earl the President of the Council before they consulted the draftsman of the Bill about it. I do not believe the Prime Minister ever intended it, and therefore I have ventured to bring this matter forward on the Second Reading of the Bill in the hope that some member of the Government, before we get into Committee, may explain to your Lordships the reasons for the extremely unfair and inequitable way in which they, although admitting the position in which the Church in Wales will he placed, deal with it under this Bill.
Even the strongest opponents of the Church in Wales have admitted that they hope the future of the Welsh Church will be progressive and strong. Some of the witnesses before the Committee over which I presided, Liberals anxious for the disestablishment of the Church in Wales, desiring to separate it entirely from the
710
Church in England, hoping for a purely Welsh Church on the lines which the noble Earl the President of the Council suggested to us last night, yet felt strongly the evil and mistake of depriving the Church, to whose future they look as a Welsh Church, of its endowments. But in addition to that deprivation, this proposal as it now stands will prevent the Church from getting a fair start. I therefore trust that His Majesty's Government will either give us some reason for treating the Church in Wales in this way, or else accede to the Amendment which I have placed on the Paper.
*EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I rise for a purpose somewhat different from that of my noble friend who has just addressed the House. He has called the attention of your Lordships and of the Government to the gross specific injustice which he contends with great force, and as it seems to me with perfect accuracy, will be inflicted upon the Church of England in Wales if the procedure suggested by this Bill is carried into effect. I waited to see whether any noble Lord would rise from the Front Bench opposite to answer the particular points raised by my noble friend, but as no one did so I rise for the rather different purpose of stating, at the request of my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, what is the general attitude of those who sit on these Benches with regard to this Bill and what is the course which we propose to take with reference to it.
I own that it is extremely distasteful to me to take any part in a political discussion of this nature at the present moment. I happen to have spent the last ten days in an atmosphere where no taint of Party spirit affected the air. Only two or three days ago, after listening to the speech of the noble Marquess opposite in defending the policy of His Majesty's Government, I was called away from this House to go down to the country to take part in a meeting with my noble friend the Lord Chief Justice. There we stood for the first time—I do not know whether it will be the last—together upon a platform upon which members of all Parties were represented, defending the Government, asking all the people whom we were addressing to support the Government, without any trace or recollection of Party divisions

711
or animosities in our minds. The same has been my experience elsewhere during the past fortnight. Now I come back here, and, although I hope that I shall not say anything that will betray my resentment, I do feel that we have all of us been suddenly switched aside from the larger and nobler work upon which we had been engaged, and that by the action of His Majesty's Government we are once again compelled to take up Party issues with the deep feeling in our minds which their conduct has aroused.
I do not pretend for a moment that any credit attaches to me or to any one else for the line we have been taking, and shall continue, in spite of the conduct of the Government, to take. But this I will say, that no Government within my recollection have ever had, in prosecuting a great undertaking, anything like the support from the Opposition that His Majesty's Government have received, and it does seem to me a poor return for our patriotism and our loyalty to he called upon to accept what we regard as the humiliation and unfair treatment which is now being imposed upon us. It is not my desire this evening to recapitulate at any length the arguments which were stated with so much fullness and clearness by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition in this House a few days ago, and which were repeated, in reply to the Prime Minister, by Mr. Bonar Law in another place last night. But I do not think, in regard to a Bill of this unusual character and immense importance, it would be right if our side of the House were to leave their case entirely unstated. I think I might draw attention to the unusual character of the circumstances in which this Bill is introduced. Here is a Bill which we are invited to read a second time, and, I dare say, to pass through all its stages to-day, which was not circulated with our Papers this morning, which none of us have seen except in so far as we have read the proceedings in another place yesterday, and which, nevertheless, we are invited to discuss and to place upon the Statute Book now within two or three days of the Prorogation of Parliament. We have been during the last week or more dealing in a very unusual and peremptory way with legislation, and His Majesty's Government appear to think that we ought to swallow almost anything that they place before us.
712
But I do not desire to take the point of the unusual, and, as I think, harsh procedure to which we are invited to submit. I rather desire to take the point of our objections to the proposals in the Bill itself. Now why do we on this side of the House feel so strongly about the proposals of His Majesty's Government? It is with the utmost reluctance that any one who has been engaged any length of time in public life ever brings a charge of breach of faith against his opponents. We assume in this country that the same standard of honour and we hope it is a very high standard of honour—prevails in both political Parties. But undoubtedly we do think that in this case there has been a breach of faith with us. I need not read passages from the speeches that have been made. The noble Marquess fulfilled that task the other evening. But, broadly speaking, the pledges which we had in mind and which we think have been broken are these. In the first place, we recall that the Prime Minister gave a distinct and unmistakable undertaking that the Government of Ireland Bill should not be submitted for the signature of the Sovereign without an Amending Bill. I recall the famous phrase of Lord Randolph Churchill many years ago that there was to be "simultaneity"; and I am not certain that some noble Lord, speaking for the Government, did not indicate to us that, just as at an earlier date we were told that the Parliament Act and its complementary Bill for the reform of your Lordships' House were "twin measures," so we might expect that these two Bills would proceed together. That is the first point. The next point was the pledge so often quoted—and, I may add, so often repeated by the Prime Minister—that neither Party should be prejudiced or be worse off as a result of the war. And the third pledge was that nothing should be done to revive controversy or to disturb unity while the war was going on.
We undoubtedly did regard—it was a matter that was often discussed between us on this side of the House—we undoubtedly did regard those three pledges as a solemn obligation entered into by the Prime Minister. They were, to use a familiar metaphor, our "scrap of paper" on which we relied, and which we thought would be equally operative in domestic as in international politics. We all of us

713
believed that the whole of this controversy about the Irish Bill and about the Welsh Bill was postponed till the end of the war, and that only when the war was over should we all of us—I hope in a better frame of mind—have resumed the discussion at the point at which it was left. I think I am right in saying that that was the universal impression of noble Lords on this side of the House. Now what has passed? The first pledge, as we regarded it—that the Government of Ireland Bill would not be submitted to the King for signature without an Amending Bill—has been broken. The second pledge—that neither Party should be prejudiced or left the worse off as compared to the other—has been broken to our disadvantage. And the third pledge—that nothing should be said or done during the war to revive controversy—has surely not been kept when we review the rather painful discussion which took place in the House of Commons yesterday and the proceedings in which we are now engaged this afternoon.
May I take for a moment a point on which the noble Marquess opposite laid some stress the other afternoon—namely, the question whether the pledge about no prejudice to either Party has been maintained. The noble Marquess argued the other day, and it has been argued in the same sense in another place, that these two Rills would have automatically passed on to the Statute Book with the end of the session, and that therefore the Government have gained no greater advantage than would have accrued to them in the ordinary course of affairs. Does that truly represent the facts? I venture to say it does not. What was the position when we in this House were last discussing the Irish question? Surely I am not exaggerating at all when I say that the position of the Government at that time was one of very precarious stability, and that in the opinion of a good many competent people they were really on the brink of political disaster. It surely was quite clear that the Government could not at that time have got the Home Rule Bill or the Welsh Disestablishment Bill without amendment. They must have had to come to terms with their political opponents. I think the case is even stronger with regard to Ulster. I would ask a question of noble Lords. Is Ulster in a better or worse position than she occupied seven or eight weeks ago? It is notorious to every one
714
that by her efforts, her self-sacrifice, her endurance, the control exercised by her leaders, she had built up a position during the past two or three years in which she was in a place, I will not say to dictate terms to the Government, but at any rate to secure just and ample consideration for her own claims. That, I think, we shall all agree upon. Now Ulster has had to disband her forces, or rather she has offered her forces to the service of her country. Her forces, anyhow, are not available for the present for the purpose for which they were originally raised; and whatever be the length of the war, whether it be two years or three years, during that time Ulster will have to continue her efforts, her endurance, her self-sacrifice in order, if possible, to find herself in the same position again at the termination of the war as she occupied a few weeks ago. Surely it is indisputable that when the war is over you on the Bench opposite, with your two measures already inscribed on the Statute Book, will start with an enormous advantage over Ulster and over your political opponents which you did not previously enjoy.
May I allude for a moment to the reply which has been made by the spokesmen of His Majesty's Government to these contentions on our part? I think the reply is somewhat lacking in generosity, and I think also it is weak. In the first place, you tell us that the Home Rule. Bill will not at any time he imposed by force upon any part of Ireland. I do not think that we are very much consoled by that assurance, because as a matter of fact we knew it all along. It is no new promise to us. No one of us has ever believed for a moment, and no one of you has ever believed, that you could enforce Home Rule upon Ulster; and to receive this assurance now, somewhat qualified as it was by the noble Marquess when lie was challenged by my noble friend beside me, I do not think carries us any further than we were before. Then the noble Marquess tried another method of consolation. He said, "You can take up this measure again at a later date; some time or other during the next twelve months you will again have an opportunity of discussing an Amending Bill." At that moment in the speech of the noble Marquess I fully expected that he was going to inform your Lordships in general terms what the nature of such an Amending Bill would be. There we should

715
have been upon solid ground, because we should have known what was the consideration which was being offered to us for the treatment that we are receiving now. But not a bit. When the noble Marquess came to the subject of the Amending Bill he did not even know himself what it was going to be, much less did he give us any information on the point. He was not sure whether the Amending Bill would be an Exclusion Bill at all. He rather had an idea that it might be a Bill for offering us again some of those well-known mythical safeguards of which we have heard so much in the past and which have never been acceptable to those to whom they were offered.
Look at our position with regard to the Amending Bill. We know nothing about it. It is going to be introduced at some time in the future. We shall enter into the discussion of such an Amending Bill with a halter round our necks. We are not free men with regard to it, and if the Bill turns out to be in our opinion bad, unacceptable to those who sit on this side of the House, what is then to happen? Is the Home Rule Bill then to be enforced without the Amending Bill which was described as an inseparable concomitant of it? Is it to be forced upon Ireland or upon any part of Ireland, and, if so, upon what part of Ireland? That is a very pertinent question, to which no reply was given by the noble Marquess the other day. He made one other point, upon which, I think, even greater stress was laid in the other House of Parliament. It was this. We were urged to adopt a wider point of view. The question was put to us, "Is it wise for you to disappoint the Nationalists in Ireland whose expectations have been roused to fever point? Is it wise to disappoint and chill Irish support and loyalty in your Dominions across the sea and in the United States of America?" We value that loyalty very highly. I hope it will be at the disposal of His Majesty's Government during the present war. But I roust say that I think we should value it more highly if it had been spontaneously offered and without any price being attached to it. And if you are considering the feelings of Ireland and the undesirability of disappointing any section of the Irish population either in this country or abroad, why not consider the feelings of Ulster? Why should Ulster be disappointed? In a word, why should the loyalty of Ulster be
716
sacrificed to the loyalty of the Irish in the United States of America?
I venture to say that it would be impossible for any spokesman of His Majesty's Government to contend that in this matter we who sit on this side have not made every advance that we reasonably could to meet you and to secure a pacific solution of this question. The history of the past two years has really been a history of reiterated proposals made by members of the Party for which I am for the moment speaking, each endeavouring to come to some agreement with you. And even during the past few weeks we heard yesterday in the House of Commons from the Leader of our Party there that he, in conjunction with those who act with him, had been prepared, and had stated to the Government their willingness, to accept a definite suggestion for the exclusion of a certain part of the North of Ireland which had been submitted, not, it is true, in the form of a definite offer but still as a suggestion, by His Majesty's Government. Then, again, we have had the two proposals of my noble friend who leads the Opposition, the first of which was to give you, if you desired, the full advantages of the Parliament Act in the new session of Parliament; and the second was, again if you wished it, to extend the terms of this Parliament from five years to six. All of these proposals you have refused. I must say I do not think that indicates a very conciliatory temper on your part. And you have gone on persisting in a course of action which you really must not be surprised if we on our side, judging from the evidence that we see, believe to have been dictated in the main, if not entirely, by Party interest and Party interest alone.
I do not feel at all clear that in acting thus His Majesty's Government have been wise either in their own interests or in those of the nation. I say in their own interests because at a time when you want the tide of popular support to be running strongly in your favour, not merely for the moment but continuously for a term that may extend to years, it seems to me very unwise indeed to leave your political opponents, who are half of the nation if not more, with a sense of injury rankling in their minds, and with a sense of resentment which, even if they tried to obliterate it from their minds, nothing will altogether expunge. Then as regards the nation,

717
what will happen? The policy which you are now carrying into effect, because we are powerless to prevent it, ensures, when the war is over, the revival of this controversy, if possible, in a more aggravated and embittered form. Indeed, the effect of your action may be this, that at the termination of the war, when this country, as I believe, will be, if not prostrated, at any rate exhausted by the great efforts which it will have to undergo, and when, even more than now in the early stages, there will be need for the co-operation and public spirit of all your citizens acting together—at that time you will be in a position to enforce what noble Lords on this side of the House regard as this detestable measure upon Ireland.
I venture humbly to say that I think the Government, and Mr. Redmond in particular, have missed a great opportunity. Mr. Redmond has earned much applause for the speech which I myself heard in the House of Commons a few weeks ago. I am the last to wish to attribute to him any insincerity in those utterances, although I am bound to say they do not seem to have been followed by that enthusiastic forward movement on the part of his supporters which has been the case with Ulster. What position would Mr. Redmond have occupied if he had followed with a speech now in which he had accepted the position that all was to be for the time being put on one side until the war was over, and then, in a new spirit, an endeavour would be made to find a fresh solution? I believe it would have been an advantage of seventy-five per cent. to him in the battle in which he is engaged. But he did not take that action. His Majesty's Government did not take that action. They rely upon their numerical strength, which is incontestable; they rely upon our patriotism, which is also incontestable; and they are taking advantage of both to get what most of us regard as a Party advantage. I am doubtful myself whether these tactics in the long run will succeed, because I believe it absolutely impossible that either the Home Rule Bill in its present form or the Welsh Disestablishment Bill in its present form can ever be brought into operation. You can get them on the Statute Book, but that is a very different thing from putting them in operation, and I would not mind prophesying that the latter contingency will not come about.
718
I said at the commencement of my remarks that it was my duty to state what our general attitude and intention are with regard to this Bill. We do not propose further to discuss it. We do not propose to enter into any wrangle about its provisions. We shall not abate in any respect, I hope, our loyalty with regard to the war. We shall continue to support the Government, because only by supporting the Government can we possibly hope to win in the great struggle with which we are confronted. But do remember this, that our loyalty, on which you may rely, will be a loyalty not to the Government but to the nation. We would gladly have given you our loyalty, but you have declined to take it. Our whole action is now based, and will be based, upon the necessity of continuing to demonstrate our loyalty to the nation. But may I, in sitting down, add this, that we shall not very easily forget—it will, perhaps, be rather difficult for us to forgive—
A NOBLE LORD: Impossible.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My noble friend says "impossible" for us to forgive, and I accept his amendment. And at the close of the war, whether it be soon or whether it be late, we shall renew the struggle in the defence of the interests of our friends in Ulster and shall endeavour to secure for them the full justice and consideration which you are now denying to them.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, it was, perhaps, fortunate that I delayed addressing your Lordships upon the subject of this Bill until after the noble Earl had sat down, as it gives me an opportunity, which I welcome warmly, of expressing the appreciation of His Majesty's Government for the efforts which he has made, in common, I know, with a good many others who are opposed to His Majesty's Government, on behalf of the endeavour to increase the Army at the present moment, and also for the way in which he has supported His Majesty's Government in the conduct of the war. I can assure him we all share that dislike of the Party controversy into which this House has been plunged yesterday and to-day. It is a controversy in which our right hon. colleagues in another place and their

719
opponents have also taken their share. The fact that we have had these discussions during the last two days we are glad to think will not, from what noble Lords opposite have told us, prevent their continued support in matters relating to the war whenever His Majesty's Government call upon them for that support. But I hope at the same time, much as we appreciate the action of noble Lords, they will allow me to add that we should have been still more grateful bad they seen their way to extend it in other directions, in directions where they do not support His Majesty's Government so warmly as they do in connection with the war.
There were one or two smaller points raised by the noble Earl to which, perhaps, I should refer. With regard to the question of notice of this Bill, I confess it does not seem to me that His Majesty's Government need feel any alarm. After all, the notice which we gave in respect of our Bill was at any rate as long as, if not longer than, the notice which was given to your Lordships by the noble Marquess opposite, who passed his Bill through all its stages yesterday. Indeed, my noble friend behind me reminds me that even more notice was given of our Bill, because the terms of it were read out by my noble friend the Leader of the House some time ago. The noble Earl who has just sat down devoted the larger part of his speech to the question of the Home Rule Bill, whereas the noble Viscount who initiated this discussion spent most of his time discussing the Welsh Church Bill, and so far as it is possible for me to do so I am glad to repeat the assurances which were welcomed at one time by the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition—the assurances which were given by my noble friend behind me with regard to Ulster at the present time and also with regard to the position of Ulster in the future. Is it not perfectly evident that when the end of this war comes there will probably be a very different state of things in Europe? There will be a new era. It is not too much to imagine that, as things change in Europe, so also things will be very different in Ireland.
A NOBLE LORD: Why?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: It seems to me inconceivable, when men have been fighting
720
side by side together in the British Army, encountering bullets in company with one another, that when they go back to Ireland their feelings will be as biter as they have been in the years gone by.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: The noble Earl forgets that Englishmen and Irishmen have been fighting side by side for their country for a great number of years. Why should that affect their views now?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Because the question of Home Rule had not become so acute as at the present time. When men who go out from Ireland, when Ireland is in great excitement over the question of Home Rule, to meet a common foe, it is inconceivable to me that their feelings towards one another when they come back will not be far better and less acute than they were before they underwent that common experience. As it is inconceivable to me that men who have been fighting together should, on their return, fight against one another, I think things must be, when the war is over, very different indeed from what they are at the present time. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House has explained to your Lordships the position of His Majesty's Government with regard to Ulster. I would add to what he said with regard to the impossible idea that His Majesty's Government would coerce Ulster into accepting this form of Home Rule a further suggestion which seems to me to be a corollary of it—it would be impossible for Ulster to assume the extreme position with regard to Home Rule which she has assumed in the past. I do not believe that when the war is over feelings will be as bitter—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh! oh!
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Do noble Lords who disagree with me wish that things should be as bitter in the future? Personally I think the state of things will be less acute, and if things are to be better a somewhat different tone might very well be adopted when we discuss this question in you} Lordships' House. I turn to the question which was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, who dealt with the Welsh Church Bill. The point of difference, as it seems to me, between us is whether we should have the immediate effect of Disestablishment at the moment when the war comes to an

721
end. The noble Viscount is anxious that the period during which the preparations for Disestablishment should be made—that period is to be six months—should begin when the war ends; whereas, on the other hand, the suggestion which is made by His Majesty's Government is that all the preparations should go on at the present time, and that the date of Disestablishment should be twelve months hence or at the end of the war. Does the noble Viscount really hope that during the extended period, during the six months for which he is asking, the position of affairs in England would be so much improved as to make the whole of the difference to the collection of the funds necessary in order that the Church should be in the same position as she was before Disestablishment took place? Of course, that must be a matter of opinion, and the noble Viscount's opinion on matters of finance is naturally far more valuable than mine. But I would venture to suggest that it is a very optimistic view on the part of the noble Viscount if he thinks that the financial wastage and wreckage of the war will really be removed within a comparatively short time.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I never suggested that for a moment. Nobody could suppose it. What I say is this, that when the war is over, if you give an interval of only six months, you will give an interval during which the country will be at peace and people will be able to look round and make promises of support to the Church which they cannot make while the war is going on.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I appreciate the noble Viscount's point, but I venture to think that that period will hardly be enough to make so much difference as he has suggested. At any rate we may say this, that His Majesty's Government have shown that they realise that the war makes a difference in regard to the position of the Welsh Church, and that they are not deaf to the pleas which are made on behalf of the Church; and I think it lies with the right rev. Prelates and with noble Lords opposite when the time comes, if they think they have been treated unfairly, to see whether they are able to make a case of any kind which will impress His Majesty's Government. But if they take any steps in that direction, I would venture to hope that they would be prepared to take some
722
step also to meet His Majesty's Government. Is it to be, on the part of His Majesty's Government, all give and no take? It is surely hardly the most conciliatory way of approaching your opponents if you entirely refuse to recognise the position which the Welsh Church Bill has reached under the Parliament Act. The Bill has passed through the House of Commons three times, and is about to be placed upon the Statute Book. Are those things to count for nothing in the opinion of noble Lords who are opposed to this Bill?
Though a certain number of things will undoubtedly be arranged for and considered upon the passage of the Bill, nothing irrevocable is done under the Bill. Nothing really is done, no act takes place, which makes Disestablishment and Disendowment necessary as a consequence of those matters having been considered. The noble Viscount gave us a list of things which have to be done when the Bill is passed, but those things when decided upon do not ipso facto because they have been settled make it necessary for Disestablishment and Disendowment to take place. We are giving this very definite period until the end of the war before Disestablishment and Disendowment take place. We recognise the fact that there is no moratorium for the preparations which are necessary for Disestablishment and Disendowment, but we do give the period of twelve months or until the end of the war before Disestablishment and Disendowment can become legal facts.
*THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I venture to think that the speech of the noble Earl who has just sat down proves what the noble Viscount opposite said, that His Majesty's Government have a very imperfect appreciation of the practical effect of their proposals. I am glad to think so sincerely, for it would have been exceedingly painful if His Majesty's Government had made these proposals fully realising what they would be in practice. I do not gather from what the noble Earl said that he appreciated in the least degree what the most rev. Primate said with such great weight and moderation yesterday about the intolerable hardships which the proposals of His Majesty's Government would impose on the Church in Wales in regard to the task of reconstituting the whole of its legal organisation

723
at this time of war. The noble Earl made no reference whatever to the fact that these proposals compel us to form a Representative Church Body, a very great task indeed. It would be an arduous task in time of peace, but it is absolutely unthinkable in time of war.
The Government have given the country repeatedly during the past month the exceedingly sound advice to carry on the ordinary business of life as far as possible on normal lines. But where is the sense, without doing good to anybody, of imposing on the Church in Wales an abnormal state of things? Then the noble Earl the Lord President told us that the Government appreciate the great difficulties, especially in regard to endowments, which the war causes, and he stated what the Government proposed to do to give practical effect to their sympathy with us. As far as I can understand, all that the proposals come to is that instead of six months, the period in the Bill now, we are to have twelve months, and the noble Earl himself admitted that that amounted to very little. All the emergency Bills which we have been passing in the last few weeks are for the time of the war and six months afterwards, but the Church in Wales is not to have the moratorium which is allowed to everybody else. The noble Earl said definitely that the Government do not propose any moratorium in regard to the preparations for Disestablishment. He was thinking, I suppose, of preparations on the part of the Welsh Commissioners, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and Queen Anne's Bounty, but the preparations which Churchmen will have to make are more important and more difficult. There is to be no moratorium at all in that sense.
The noble Viscount, to whose long Parliamentary experience and sound judgment I specially defer, said that he did not think any appeal made now would make much difference to His Majesty's Government. Still I think, speaking it may be for the last time in your Lordships' House on this subject, it is my duty as a Welsh Bishop to make one further appeal to His Majesty's Government. I base my appeal on the very sound doctrine laid down yesterday by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. He laid down the doctrine that at a time of great national calamity what the Government had to consider was how best to help the country
724
to meet this great calamity, and I believe the wholesome nature of that doctrine entitles me to hold it applicable to the Welsh Bill as well as to the Irish Bill. In the speech of the noble Earl the Lord President yesterday I found no trace whatever—I think I did find some trace to-day—that he had appreciated the soundness of the Lord Chancellor's doctrine. There are three observations to be made. The first is that from the Lord Chancellor's standpoint this is not and ought not to be at all a question of Party gain; the second is that the application of that doctrine need not be the same to all Bills but must depend upon what the particular Bill is; and the third is that according to the noble and learned Viscount the simple question in regard to the attitude of the Government towards any particular Bill at this time of war is, Will the Bill help the country in this time of national calamity?
It is admitted on all hands that to those who oppose this Bill it is a religious question—this Bill raises a religious question from beginning to end—whereas to the promoters of the Bill, as the chairman of the Welsh Parliamentary Party once stated, it is a political question. Therefore when you are considering how to deal fairly by both sides I think you ought to consider that religious conviction deserves more consideration than merely political opinion. But if the Government cannot in regard to this Bill rise to the level of the doctrine laid down by the noble and learned Viscount yesterday, if they must mix Party considerations with patriotic duty, I ask most seriously whether the mixture contained in this Suspensory Bill is one which is tolerable to the honourable instincts of right hon. gentlemen and noble Lords. The Government, most wisely and rightly, through the Privy Council bade the people pray for our sailors and soldiers, and the response of all Christian people to that national call to prayer has been very marked and very hearty. Now we find in Holy Scripture and history that people in their prayers look forward to showing their thankfulness to Almighty God for His mercy in answering their prayers by a fuller acknowledgment of His supreme sovereignty and by offering of their substance to His honour and worship. I am constrained to see in the proposals which the Government have put before us with regard to this particular Bill that, instead of asking the people to look forward to a

725
deeper acknowledgment of Almighty God as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, they are rushing to put on the Statute Book a measure which means to our minds that the State has nothing to do with religion, and, instead of looking forward to making a thank offering to God, they are deliberately proposing to despoil His Church. Those who differ from as well as those who agree with His Majesty's Government have been proud of the way in which they have risen to their duty of defending the right in this war with energy and wisdom. When, however, the day of reckoning conies the people of this country will never forgive them for the mistake they are making this week in deeply offending their religious instincts.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack puts the Question, I should like to say one word with reference to what fell from the noble Viscount opposite. What I have to say might be more appropriately deferred until he moves his Amendment, but as in my opening remarks I did not mention the Welsh Bill it is perhaps convenient that I should do so now. The noble Viscount made two pleas in favour of the particular sort of postponement which he favours and upon which he will move his Amendment, and with one of those pleas we on this side of the House find ourselves in greater sympathy than with the other. His first plea was that it was impossible at this time of stress to consider even those preliminary arrangements which, as my noble friend the Lord President pointed out, are all that it is contemplated should be undertaken in pursuance of our plan of postponement. The noble Viscount pointed out that, whereas nothing was going to be done under the Irish Bill, certain things are going to be done under the Welsh Bill, and that that constituted the different treatment meted out to the latter.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: It is not only that.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I quite understand. But so far as concerns the particular business which has to be undertaken forthwith by our plan, it was maintained by the noble Viscount and also by the right rev. Prelate who has just sat
726
down that it was not fair in time of war to ask that even such business as that should be undertaken. By that plea I confess that we are not at all impressed to the same extent that we are with the second plea which I shall mention in a moment. It is, I think, possible to overstate the difficulty which any man or any body of men may find at this moment in engaging in a business operation altogether unconnected with the war. It is no doubt true that the war is in everybody's mind, and that various business connected with the war in quite different degrees occupies the time of a great many citizens in this country; but I think it is an exaggeration to offer as a plea for postponing a matter of this kind that business directly arising out of the war so fills the thoughts and time of everybody who would be concerned in this matter that it is impossible for them to undertake to consider it. That thesis, as it seems to me, is capable of considerable overstatement, and I cannot help thinking that in the pleas that have been made for postponement on that ground some overstatement has, as a matter of fact, been made.
I pass from that to the second plea, with which I have already expressed sympathy—namely, that which asks that Disestablishment and Disendowment should not take place at once or even as early as is proposed in our measure because of the difficulty of collecting a sufficient sum by subscriptions, not only in Wales but also, no doubt, in England, to create a fund which would replace at any rate to a large extent the amount of which the Welsh Church is deprived in the form of tithes by the Welsh Bill. As I have stated, we are in not a little sympathy with that plea. It cannot be disputed that sums, possibly in some cases large, which would have been earmarked by donors for this purpose have directly, owing to the war been diverted to other uses, and this state of things is likely to continue for some time. We have tried so far as we can to meet that plea in our Bill. It is considered by the noble Viscount that the term of relief which we there offer is insufficient. My noble friend behind me pointed out that for this particular purpose the further relief offered by the noble Viscount's proposition does not to a great extent alter the position, although it does do so in some degree.

727
My own view is that it is exceedingly difficult at this time, when we know practically nothing of the probable duration of the war or of the taxation which much necessarily follow upon the war, or, indeed, of the degree to which the private resources of those who might be expected to subscribe for such an object as this will be depleted owing to the war—because it is evident, I think, that the effect produced by the war upon the private resources of individuals will vary very greatly, and whereas some people will be greatly impoverished by it other people, if they are not actually enriched by it, which, in fact, sounds a paradox, will not find their resources materially reduced—it is exceedingly difficult at this time to make a forecast of how and when the position in relation to these subscriptions can be held to be re-established.
I would point out that it is always open to Parliament to reconsider this matter further, and, with regard to this particular purpose of the collection of money, to give, if it seems good to Parliament, some further relief in point of time for this particular object. I am glad to point this out because, like many others, I fully recognise the force of this particular plea. The other one I consider to have been somewhat overstated. But so far as this particular matter is concerned we are in sympathy with the object which the noble Viscount has in view. We shall not see our way to agree to the Amendment which he proposes, for the reasons given by my noble friend behind me. But I do not want it to be supposed that we are insensible to the force of the particular point relating to the collection of subscriptions and donations which he has forcibly stated.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Marquess has to-night said some words of sympathy with the Church. Nothing was more remarkable in the speech yesterday of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill than that he never said one single word of sympathy with or pity for the position in which the Church is being placed. We would rather have the assistance of the Government now than the promise of it a year hence. The noble Marquess who leads the House admits that there is a hard
728
case now. He may not take the same view as we do a year hence. He says, and says quite truly, that no one can foresee exactly what the circumstances may be a year hence, to what extent the sources of contribution may have been dried up by the war. All the tone of the noble Marquess's speech was that there was a near balance of considerations as to whether further generosity should be shown to the Church now or not, and he preferred to wait. I put it to him, if there is a nice balance would it not be more in accordance with the spirit of the moment if the Government were to incline the beam towards generosity and accept the Amendment of my noble friend behind me? The noble Marquess says that there is not very much in it. We think there is a good deal in it. But if he thinks there is not very much in it, surely it is an opportunity when, without giving way on any question of principle, he may show some compassion and some generosity to the Church which is so dear to his political opponents.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Perhaps I might remind the noble Earl that the noble Viscount's Amendment is not really confined to this question of money. He desires also to postpone for a long period those more or less mechanical preparations with regard to which I said that we were not greatly affected by the arguments which he submitted.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The operations are no more mechanical in the case of the Church in Wales than they are in the case of the Irish Government. If His Majesty's Government can postpone the mechanical operations in the case of Ireland, why not in the case of the Welsh Church?
On Question, Bill read 2ª.
Moved (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Suspension of the operation of the Government of Ireland Act, 1914, and the Welsh Church Act, 1914.
1.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in the Government of Ireland Act, 1914, no steps shall be taken to put that Act into operation, and notwithstanding anything in the Welsh Church Act, 1914, the date of disestablishment under that Act shall be postponed, until the expiration of twelve months from the date of the passing of those Acts respectively, or, if at the expiration of those twelve months the present war has not ended, until such later date (not being later than the end of the present war) as may be fixed by His Majesty by Order in Council; and the provisions of those Acts shall have effect accordingly.
(2) In this Act, the Government of Ireland Act, 1914, means any Act which becomes law during the present session, and which may be cited by that short title; and the Welsh Church Act, 1914, means any Act which becomes law during the present session and which may be cited by that short title.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN moved an Amendment at the beginning of the clause to make it read, "Notwithstanding anything in the Government of Ireland Act, 1914, or in the Welsh Church Act, 1914, no steps shall be taken to put these Acts," etc. The noble Viscount said: I do not wish to detain your Lordships now because I have already stated the case in favour of this Amendment, but after what the noble Marquess the Leader of the House has said I trust that His Majesty's Government may allow it to be placed in the Bill. I understand that the noble Marquess feels that the Government could not accept the Amendment as it stands, but they see the force of it with regard to part of the matter to which it is intended to apply. Unless, however, some Amendment is inserted it will be impossible for the matter to be further considered. I think what the noble Marquess has said shows that he does feel, and I hope his colleagues may feel, that the matter requires further consideration. If he will allow my Amendment to be placed in the Bill it can be considered in another place how far it should go, and His Majesty's Government will have the power of endeavouring to deal generously with the matter on lines of which they themselves may approve. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 6, after ("1914,") insert ("or in the Welsh Church Act, 1914,") and leave out ("that Act") and insert ("these Acts").—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): This Amendment, for reasons which I need not repeat, as the matter has been already discussed, goes much further than, and does not fit in with, what has been said by my noble friend, and I entertain more than doubt as to whether it would prove acceptable in another place. But I wish again to say that we appreciate the broad consideration that this war may last a considerable time and that with the lapse of time circumstances which we cannot foresee to-day may make a great difference, and we reserve our judgment as to whether further consideration of the matters which have been raised in this debate, particularly the matter of the postponement of Dis-endowment, may not have to be re-entered upon.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, what I understand the Government to say is that they are going to do something which they admit to be intolerably harsh but that perhaps they may legislate to amend it in another session. I detest this discussion at a time like this. We have been trying, every one of us, to the best of our power to support His Majesty's Government in a matter which concerns the Empire at its heart and the well-being of the whole of the nation that we love; but we cannot, because that is the case, allow in silence something to be done which we believe to be largely due to a misunderstanding but which inflicts a grievous wrong. What has become of the promises which were made to us that the hardship which it was certain would ensue from the Welsh Church Bill if it passes now would be alleviated by a postponement? What is proposed is practically no postponement at all. The Disestablishment Bill says that there shall be an interval of six or, if it may be desirable, of twelve months before the date of Disestablishment. All that this Suspensory Bill says is that there shall be an interval of twelve months before the date of Disestablishment, and, if the Government likes, it may go on to the end of the war, but meantime the necessary arrangements have to go on. The hope held out that possibly in another session there may be some alleviation offered by way of allowing more time during which money could be collected or something of that sort, is, I suppose, an admission that at present the Bill as it stands presses with intolerable hardship on those who are producing every

731
penny that they can for the national good and would therefore be helpless to assist the Church afterwards, but it is a hope of the vaguest and most unsubstantial kind.
The noble and learned Viscount and the noble Earl in charge of the Bill have belittled the fact that things must happen when this Bill receives the Royal Assent which ought to begin next week. If the Bill becomes law to-morrow, the duty will devolve upon the Welsh Church, not a few months hence but forthwith, to undertake the most difficult task that could be given to a religious community anywhere—that of constituting a Representative Body; and that at a time when the very men on whom the burden and the responsibility would fall of taking that task in hand and carrying it through are serving their country elsewhere. I will give a practical example. I know a leading Church family in Wales, the head of which has three sons and two sons-in-law serving at this moment, and those are the men who in that diocese would have to be looked to as the people on whom the responsibility would rest to set up this new Church Body. Is that a tolerable position in which to place the Church in Wales at this moment? These are not formalities; they are not preliminary arrangements, for the duties of the Representative Body begin at once; these matters are of the strongest possible importance as regards the life of the Church in Wales after this blow has fallen upon it, and I feel that it is difficult to put into words what will be the sense of the injury that will be done by the absolutely needless pressing forward of a measure which, with the exception of the smallest possible clique, even its keenest supporters are willing should be postponed until after the war.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I hope my noble friend behind me will ask the House to divide upon his Amendment. There has really been no defence from the Benches opposite. What was the argument of the noble Marquess who leads the House? He did not dispute the existence of the hardship to which my noble friend called attention. He minimised it, and said it was not quite so great as we supposed and could be corrected hereafter by more legislation. We want to correct it so far as we can now. The noble and learned Viscount told us that he was more than doubtful whether the
732
House of Commons would accept the Amendment if we put it in. That is not our business. It is our business to consider what is right and just; and if the House of Commons refuses to listen to the Amendment, let the responsibility be upon that House and not upon this.
On question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: The other Amendments are consequential. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out from ("operation") to ("until") in line 9.
Clause 1, page 1, after line 14 insert ("Throughout the Welsh Church Act, 1914, the date of the Act coming into operation shall be substituted for the date of the passing of the Act").—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I understand that some of those who would otherwise look not unfavourably upon the second of these Amendments apprehend that some difficulty might arise from the creation of vested interests during the longer period of delay. I would like to say at once that if in the other House that is felt to be a difficulty in the matter I should be ready, and the noble Viscount opposite and others would probably not be unwilling, to accept words which would render anything of that kind impossible.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Amendments reported.
Bill read 3ª, and passed, and returned to the Commons, and to be printed as amended. (No. 295).

THE IRISH VOLUNTEERS.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government what were the circumstances and the conditions under which the promise of the Prime Minister was made in the House of Commons on August 10, that "Lord Kitchener is anxious to lend any help that his own exigencies permit to the organisation and equipment of the Irish Volunteers," and whether such conditions, if any, have been fulfilled.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I have consulted my right hon. friend, to whom the noble Earl refers, and it is evident that the noble Earl is under some misapprehension in the matter, because I am informed that no conditions such as he imagines were made. I can, however, say on behalf of my noble and gallant friend the Secretary of State for War that he would very gladly welcome as many recruits as possible from Ireland; that he hopes they will flow in, the more the better; and that he trusts that the arrangements which have been made and are being made to receive these recruits will allow of their being drilled and clothed and
734
turned into efficient soldiers at the earliest possible date.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I may say that the words which I quoted in my Question were taken from Hansard. They were the words which the Prime Minister used on August 10.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The noble Earl will see that in the words which he has quoted there are no conditions.
House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.