Sitting of 30 June 1915

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Prescot Gas Bill [Lords],
Spennymoor and Tudhoe Gas Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill (Suspended Bill) (by Order),
Glasgow Corporation (Celluloid) Bill (Suspended Bill) (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next.
Massy's Divorce Bill [Lords].
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in the case of Massy's Divorce Bill [Lords], Standing Order 204 be suspended, and the time for the Second Reading of the Bill be extended to Wednesday, 7th July."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Mr. KING: I think we ought to have some explanation as to why this Standing Order is to be suspended. In my opinion nothing in connection with an Irish Divorce Bill ought to be set aside without some explanation to the House.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. MacLean): In this case the agent for the Bill, owing to an error, in not allowing for the fact that Sunday did not count in the clear days, omitted to give the necessary length of notice. There was no desire, on the part of the Chairman, or those responsible for the conduct of private business, to take advantage of a purely technical error of that kind, and this Motion was, therefore, put on the Paper.
Question put, and agreed to.
Ordered, That, in the case of Massy's Divorce Bill [Lords], Standing Order 204 be suspended, and the time for the Second Reading of the Bill be extended to Wednesday, 7th July.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Port-Glasgow Gas and Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Bill [Lords] (by Order,
Consideration deferred till Wednesday next.
Kilmarnock Gas Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read a second time; to be considered To-morrow.
MESSAGE FHOM THE LORDS,—That they have agreed to,—
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 7) Bill,
Conway Fisheries Provisional Order Bill,
Sea Fisheries (Cardigan Bay) Provisional Order Bill,
Sea Fisheries (Poole) Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment.
Chelmsford Corporation Gas Bill,
Tramways Provisional Orders Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
Lurgan Urban District Council Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—
Altrincham Gas Bill [Lords],
Warwick Gas Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
Indictments Bill [Lords],—That they communicate that they have come to the following Resolution, namely: That it is expedient that the Indictments Bill [Lords] be referred to the Joint Committee appointed to consider all Consolidation Bills of the present Session.
Tramways Provisional Orders Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.

NOTICE OF MOTION.
The following Notice of Motion appeared on the Paper in the name of Mr. John O'Connor:—Revenue and Expenditure (England, Scotland, and Ireland),—Return showing for the year ending the 31st day

1785
of March, 1915 (1) the amount contributed by England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, of the Revenue collected by the Imperial officers; (2) the Expenditure on English, Scottish, and Irish services met out of such Revenue; and (3) the balance of Revenue contributed by England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, which are available for Imperial expenditure (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 387, of Session 1914).
Mr. SPEAKERproceeded to call upon hon. Members to ask questions on the Paper.
Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: May I, Sir, draw your attention to the fact that I have a Notice of Motion on the Paper?
Mr. SPEAKER: I have received no authority from the Treasury to proceed with it.
Mr. J. O'CONNOR: I put it down, Sir, on the application of the Treasury.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copies presented of Orders made by the Councils of the under-mentioned local authorities, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—
Borough of Lee (Lancs);
Urban District of Wolstanton United
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Closing Order made by the Urban District Council of Omagh [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
Copy presented of a Licence granted to a Convict discharging her from Ayles-bury Convict Prison on condition that she enters a home [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
WOODS, FORESTS, AND LAND REVENUES.
Copy presented of Ninety-third Report of the Commissioners, dated 29th June, 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 285.]
POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS.
Accounts presented of all Deposits received and paid during the year ended 31st December, 1914, together with a Statement showing the aggregate amount of the Liabilities of the Government to Depositors in the Post Office Savings Banks on the 31st December, 1914, and the nature and amount of the securities held by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt to meet those Liabilities at that date [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 286.]
PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Treasury Minute,, dated 23rd June, 1915, sanctioning the letting to Mr. William Ross of a plot of ground at Dalkey, adjoining Dalkey Avenue, Kingstown Harbour [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copies presented of Reports Nos. 844 (Turk's and Caicos Islands, Annual Report for 1914), 845 (Weihaiwei, Annual Report for 1914), and 846 (Seychelles, Annual Report for 1914) [by Command];. to lie upon the Table.
AGRICULTURE (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Agricultural Statistics, 1914, Vol. III, Part I., Acreage and Live Stock Returns of Scotland, with a Summary for the United Kingdom [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
GREENWICH OBSERVATORY.
Copy presented of Report of the Astronomer Royal to the Board of Visitors of the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.
John Lymbrick Esmonde, esquire, for the County of Tipperary (North Tipperary Division).
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    BRITISH OFFICER PRISONERS IN GERMANY.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received an official notification through the American Embassy that the thirty-nine British officers, prisoners of war, who were subjected to special treatment, including solitary confinement, in Germany, have been returned to their former places of internment; if he will say in what place each of these thirty-nine officers is now interned; and whether he is satisfied that they are all now receiving the same treatment in all respects as other officer prisoners of war?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part of the question I have asked my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War to inform the hon. Member at which camp each of the thirty-nine officers was interned previously to his arrest, since that information is available at the War Office, and not at the Foreign Office. We have no reason to believe that the officers are not receiving the same treatment in all respects as other officer prisoners of war.

    PIRBRIGHT CAMP (FOOD).
    Mr. MACMASTERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether there has been waste of food at the Pirbright military camp?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): Pirbright Camp has been visited recently both by an Inspector of Quartermaster-General's Services and by an Instructor of Army Catering. The reports received disclose nothing to which exception can be taken. Further inquiries into the matter are, however, being instituted.
    Mr. MACMASTER: May I inquire whether the distribution of rations of food is made with reference to the official
    1788
    numbers of the company, or regiment, or with reference to the actual numbers that are there for the time being?
    Mr. TENNANT: These distributions are made on what may be called the ration strength of the unit, that is, of course, the number that is there.
    Mr. MACMASTER: Actually there?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, that should be there.
    Mr. MACMASTER: Should be?

    TERRITORIAL INFANTRY BATTALIONS.
    Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether Territorial Infantry battalions which have suffered heavy losses at the front are to be filled up in future by drafts from their own second units, or whether a new scheme of amalgamating two depleted regiments into one is under consideration?
    Mr. TENNANT: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the written answer I gave to a similar question to the hon. Member for East Herts, on the 28th instant. The system of amalgamation was a temporary administrative expedient pending the arrival of reinforcements. It is not anticipated that there will be any renewal of the system.
    Mr. SANDERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some Territorial reserve battalions men volunteered for foreign service on the understanding that they would be sent out altogether, as a unit, and that, in spite of such understanding they have been sent out as drafts to other battalions. Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to prevent that?
    Mr. TENNANT: The question addressed to me by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite referred to units at the front, and is different to the question put to me by he hon. and learned Gentleman. In regard to the utilisation of reserves for reinforcement at the front, I am bound to state that I think the really fine characteristic of our men is that they are willing to take up service in whatever capacity is most desired, and most wanted. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will use his great influence to try to keep that spirit going amongst recruits.

    TRANSFERS OF CAVALRY TO INFANTRY.
    Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that 800 men of the Fourth Reserve Regiment of Cavalry were recently ordered to transfer to Infantry and were told that they could choose which Infantry regiment they preferred, subject to there being vacancies in the regiment selected; that the men were accordingly paraded and gave in the names of the regiments they wished to be transferred to; that subsequently orders were received to the effect that the men were not to be allowed to have any choice in the matter; and they were accordingly transferred, against their will, to regiments they did not wish to go to; and whether he will take steps to obviate in future the discontent aroused by this treatment by permitting the men of Cavalry reserve regiments to volunteer to proceed as Infantry to the front in a unit of their own under their own officers or else be transferred to the Infantry regiments they select to go to?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have no detailed information as to what happened in the case referred to, but I may say that the instructions sent out for transfers to the Infantry contemplated that, as far as possible, men should be allowed to go to the regiment they preferred. Should it become necessary to order further similar transfers, the question of allowing men to select the regiment they wish to go to will be borne in mind when issuing the instructions.
    Colonel YATE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be possible to allow these reserve regiments to go to the front as units under their own officers, as Infantry, leaving their horses and so on at home?
    Mr. TENNANT: I recognise, of course, that that is a very desirable consummation to achieve, and I will make representations to the proper quarter.
    Mr. J. O'CONNOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this shameful practice has been applied to a division called the 16th Division in Ireland, which was supposed to be an Irish Division, or an Irish Brigade; will he try to remedy this state of things?
    Mr. TENNANT: I hope my hon. Friend will not use the word "shameful." I do not think it would be a proper expression
    1790
    to apply. The 16th Division is an Irish Division, as my hon. Friend quite properly says, but it is not the only Irish Division. There is another Irish Division, and 200 men were transferred from the 16th Division to the 10th Division to supply a demand. I do not think that is a matter to which exception should be taken.
    Mr. J. O'CONNOR: I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that no complaint was ever made about transferring men from the 16th Division to the 10th Division, but complaint has been made about the transference from the 16th Division to other regiments with which the country has no connection whatever.
    Mr. TENNANT: That is rather making our country into separate countries, which I should be sorry to see done. However, if the hon. Member will bring to my notice the exact transference to which he alludes, I may be able to do something. It may possibly be too late. If the men are put into formations which are ready to go to the front it may not be possible to alter these details.

    ARMY AND NAVY CONTRACTS
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Department is paying to its contractors an acceleration bonus over and above the contract prices?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Where acceleration in anticipation of contract dates has been asked, statements of extra cost entailed has been submitted for payment. These are, however, for additional service and expense incurred, and are not of the nature of a bonus. In a special instance, a bonus for good time-keeping was offered by the contractor to the workmen with our authority. In a very limited number of civil engineering or building contracts we are paying a bonus for completion in anticipation of the contract date, over and above the contract price. Certainly it is the fact that in the most important of these cases the payment of the bonus to the contractor was accompanied by an increase of wages on his part.
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the number of applications which have been received by the Director of Army Contracts, and which have not yet been

    1791
    attended to, for certificates that material is required for War Office work; whether such applications are of an urgent character; and whether there is great delay in attending to them in this Department?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): It is not clear whether the question refers to applications for certificates to facilitate railway transit or for assistance in obtaining supplies of material from sub-contractors. Both classes of applications, however, are treated as urgent and dealt with as promptly as possible, though inquiry into the circumstances of each particular case is necessary. I cannot give the actual figures, but I am informed that the number of such applications outstanding is small.
    Mr. TERRELL: Is it not a fact that there are some thousands of these applications waiting to be dealt with in this Department, and is it not desirable that they should be dealt with daily as they are received?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir; the number is much smaller—there is no question of thousands, I am told. All these applications are dealt with as promptly as may be, but, in cases where application for material is made, my hon. Friend will see the necessity of some inquiry before the application can be granted.
    Mr. TERRELL: But are not these purely formal applications, which might be dealt with on the day on which they are received, instead of being indefinitely delayed?
    Mr. FORSTER: I can assure my hon. Friend there is no indefinite delay. These cases are dealt with as promptly as possible. He will see we really cannot grant applications of that kind without making some inquiry.
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the Department is paying to its contractors an acceleration bonus over and above the contract prices?
    Mr. FORSTER: Generally speaking, the answer is in the negative, but in a few special cases such a bonus has been granted, and in certain other cases an addition to the contract price, to be payable only in the case of goods delivered by a certain date, has been given to cover the cost of overtime and night work.

    ARMY MEAT STOLEN (TUNBRIDGE WELLS).
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that one or two local butchers at Tunbridge Wells have received and been in unlawful possession of stolen Army meat; whether he knows that one butcher has for months past been buying Army beef from the lieutenant-quartermaster of several regiments at 1½d. a pound and reselling it as sausages at 5½d. a pound; whether by this means the butcher made an illegitimate profit of £600 in six months; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with such practices?
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that two butchers at Tunbridge Wells were fined on Saturday last for receiving and being in unlawful possession of stolen meat from the Army; whether he is aware that one of the butchers stated in the Court that for months past he had bought Army beef from lieutenant - quartermasters of several regiments at 3½d. per pound and resold it to them as sausages at 5½d. per pound, and that this was done with the approval of the colonel; and if he will have the matter inquired into and a Report made thereon?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am aware that it came out in the course of the trial that transactions of the nature referred to had taken place. These grave charges will, of course, be fully investigated. There has been no time, as the trial only took place on Saturday, to ascertain who is implicated.

    VOLUNTEER TRAINING CORPS (UNIFORM).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the War Office will consider the propriety of treating the uniform of the affiliated Volunteer in the same manner as that of the Territorial and Regular soldier, namely, making it illegal for any person to wear such uniform unless duly authorised; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the feeling of affiliated Volunteers regarding the wearing of the brassard?
    Mr. TENNANT: No uniform has been authorised by the War Office for Volunteer

    1793
    Training Corps, and the action suggested in the first part of the question is therefore not possible. I am afraid I cannot undertake to make the inquiries suggested in the second part of the question.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the brassard is unpopular?
    Mr. TENNANT: As I have already informed my hon. Friend more than once, I am told by those who do not share the hon. Member's views that the brassard is not unpopular.

    ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (STUDENTS).
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the necessity of securing the services of as many medical men as possible for the Army, he will consider the suggestion of giving the rank of sub-lieutenant to medical students who have passed their second M.B. examination and are willing to join the Royal Army Medical Corps for the duration of the War?
    Mr. TENNANT: Students of sufficient seniority and medical training to be of use in the Army in the way suggested would be better employed if they continued at their medical schools and qualified as medical men as soon as possible. They would then be eligible for commissions in the Royal Army Medical Corps. The services of senior students are required to help in carrying on the work in the large civil hospitals connected with their teaching schools. Nearly all of these hospitals are providing accommodation for sick and wounded soldiers, and their staffs are very hard worked. It is not proposed to admit into the commissioned ranks of the Royal Army Medical Corps any candidates who are not fully qualified medical men.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care that the mere conferring of the name of a titular rank is not substituted for real medical education, which is necessary for the work?
    Mr. TENNANT: I hope my hon. Friend is misinformed as to that.
    Sir H. CRAIK: I am not.
    Mr. TENNANT: It is considered very desirable that no one shall be admitted
    1794
    into the commissioned ranks of the Medical Corps who is not fully qualified.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Will the right hon. Gentleman be careful not to give way to any such suggestion as giving a titular name which would imply experience when that experience is not possessed?
    Mr. TENNANT: Oh, yes; that will be most carefully safeguarded.

    VOLUNTEERS (PROFICIENCY PAY).
    Mr. NEEDHAMasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that forty-seven soldiers in the 8th Manchester Regiment who served in the Volunteer Force for many years are denied the proficiency pay of 3d. per day; and whether he will reconsider the decision under which their service in the Volunteer Force is regarded as not qualifying for proficiency pay?
    Mr. FORSTER: There is nothing exceptional in this case. Under existing Regulations service in the Volunteers does not qualify for proficiency pay. The question whether it should be allowed to do so is being considered afresh, but the hon. Member must not take this as holding out any great hope of a change.
    Mr. NEEDHAM: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question later.

    WAR TAX.
    Sir JOSEPH WALTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will use his influence to prevent undue interference by the State with the natural course of the trade and commerce of the country; and whether he will take steps to secure by legislative enactment that the excess income of every taxpayer during the War over the average of the two years preceding the War shall be paid into the National Treasury as an extra war tax, less 20 per cent. to cover extra cost of living?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): I can assure my hon. Friend that His Majesty's Government have no intention of interfering with the natural course of the trade and commerce of the country, except so far as may be absolutely necessary in the

    1795
    national interest. As regards the latter part of the question, I fear I can, for the moment, add nothing to the statements already made.
    Sir J. WALTON: Cannot my right hon. Friend, at any rate, assure me that he will endeavour to devise a scheme of war taxation, which will, as far as possible, impose equality of sacrifices on all the taxpayers in the country?
    Mr. McKENNA: That is a very valuable principle of taxation.

    WAR EXPENDITURE.
    Mr. LOUGHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, up to the 31st March in this year, Ministerial statements as to the total cost of the War were an estimate of the sums being spent in addition to or in excess of the annual expenditure in the year immediately preceding the War; and, seeing that this is the fairest way for the nation to look at the question, will he say now what he estimates to be the daily expenditure on the War in excess of the total normal expenditure, including the Army and Navy, in the year preceding the War, omitting loans to foreign Powers and the Colonies and all expenditure on the purchase of articles, such as wheat or sugar, which will be repaid to the Government?
    Mr. McKENNA: The statements made in this House as to the cost of the War in 1914–15 were estimates of the additional expenditure necessitated by the War over the provision on a peace footing for the same year, 1914–15. It is difficult at any intermediate period of the year to make an exact comparison, but if all loans to foreign Governments and Colonies are excluded from the calculation as well as expenditure on commodities which will be repaid, then the expenditure which has been incurred from 1st April, 1915, up to date over and above the normal peace expenditure as estimated for 1914–15 may be put, roughly, in the neighbourhood of £2,000,000 per day.

  WAR LOAN.

    PUBLICATION OF DETAILS ABROAD.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked whether arrangements have been made for telegraphing to India, the Colonies, and foreign countries where there is a large
    1796
    British population the exact terms of the War Loan, so that opportunity to invest may be afforded to all interested?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am glad to have an opportunity of informing the House that the Eastern Telegraph Company patriotically offered to telegraph, free of charge, the full terms of the War Loan Prospectus to various places in the British Empire which are within their system, and this offer was gratefully accepted by the Government. Steps are also being taken to make sure that the terms of the Prospectus are made generally known in the other parts of the Empire and in certain foreign countries.
    While I am anxious to give residents in the Dominions every opportunity for subscribing to the War Loan, I trust they will not lose sight of the fact that they can do perhaps an even greater service to the Empire by lending their resources to the Governments of their own Dominion's and so reducing the calls by those Governments on the resources of the United Kingdom.

    "PEACE COMMITTEE."
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been directed to a group of persons calling themselves a "peace committee," of which J. S. Duckers, C. H. Norman, and Ethel Bellis hold themselves out as chairman, treasurer, and secretary, respectively, with an address at 66, Charing Cross Road; whether he is aware that these persons are engaged in distributing pamphlets of a character harmful to the national interest in relation to the War; if he can say whether any uninterned alien enemies or persons of hostile origin or association are in co-operation with this group; whether he will take steps to ascertain the source from which they obtain such financial support as they possess; and whether, having regard to the fact that their propaganda, although without influence, is offensive to the patriotism of the public, he proposes to take any measures to provide against the danger of the persons named being lynched or assaulted in an outburst of popular indignation?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): The Attorney-General has already stated, in reply to questions, that the activities

    1797
    of the group of persons referred to are under his consideration. As regards the last part of this question, such violence as the hon. Member contemplates would call for the severest repression, and a great responsibility would attach to anyone who might be supposed to suggest that it was excusable.
    Mr. McNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to reply to the question as to whether he has taken any steps to avoid that danger, in view of recent experience?
    Sir J. SIMON: I hope the hon. Gentleman has as much confidence in the Attorney-General as I have.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Would my right hon. Friend say whether he does not think it inadvisable to advertise such an insignificant and obscure organisation?
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these people are guided by a publication which has a large circulation, which says, "Blessed are the peacemakers," and will he have this book suppressed?

  CENSORSHIP.

    GERMAN OFFICIAL NEWS.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked whether the official announcement that the idea of keeping back news from the public because it is disagreeable to disclose it is a policy that would never be pursued represents the views of the present Government; whether the official news of the German Government has been censored; and why the country is kept in ignorance of the lines held by the British and French in the Dardanelles seeing that this information is well known to the enemy?
    Sir J. SIMON: Yes, Sir. News is not kept back because it is disagreeable. German wireless messages are censored only if they contain wholly false information intended to mislead neutrals and others. As regards the positions occupied in the Dardanelles, the Naval and Military authorities supply such information as they think may be published, and the Press Bureau publish it as supplied.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question as to whether the official news of the German Government has been censored. I want a reply to that, Yes or No. I would also ask whether the right hon. Gentleman
    1798
    considers that Lord Kitchener, who is in charge of the official censorship, considers people who have given their life's blood and money to carry on this War cannot be trusted to know the truth, seeing that we have to get the truth from the American papers, which arrive a week or two late.
    Sir J. SIMON: I think the hon. Baronet did not hear the answer which I gave, because it deals with both the points he has now put.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: No, it does not.

  MUNITIONS.

    LABOUR EXCHANGES (SKILLED LABOUR).
    Mr. G. TERRELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the delay on the part of the Labour Exchanges in supplying the skilled labour required for War Office work; and whether he can state what course an employer is now permitted to take to obtain labour in cases where the Labour Exchanges have failed?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman): I am not aware of any delay on the part of Labour Exchanges in supplying labour other than that which is unavoidable owing to the actual shortage of certain classes of skilled labour. As regards the latter part of the question, I may point out that if the employer so desires he may, in addition to applying to the Labour Exchanges, publish a Press advertisement in accordance with the procedure set out in the "Notice to Newspaper Proprietors" issued by the Board, of which I am sending copies to the hon. Gentleman. As he is no doubt aware, further proposals for dealing with the supply of labour are at present before the House.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the Press advertisement to which he refers is simply a Press advertisement in the name of the Labour Exchange and not in the name of the proposed employer, and consequently of very little value?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: That is not quite the case, for labour obtainable within 10 miles there is no restriction; but for labour from a distance, on account of the danger of withdrawing men from other munitions work, the name of the employer cannot be given.

    CONTROL OF COPPER AND ZINC TRADE.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government intends either commandeering or controlling the trade in copper or zinc; and, if so, whether he will bear in mind the requirements of the process-engraving industry and make arrangements to have available the specially polished metal required by this trade?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MUNITIONS DEPARTMENT (Dr. Addison): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. Arrangements are being made with the copper and spelter industries to ensure sufficient supplies to meet the Government requirements, and this is being done with a view to interfering as little as possible with other trades. It is not the intention to commandeer these metals unless it is found impossible to obtain sufficient supplies otherwise.

    CHAUFFEUR MECHANICS.
    Sir J. WALTONasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that many thousands of chauffeur mechanics are being retained for the convenience and pleasure of their employers; and whether he will issue a strong appeal to all motor car owners and garage owners to release these men so that they may be able to volunteer for national service in munition works or motor transport, giving an undertaking to reinstate them at the end of the War?
    Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. Friend has no definite information as to the number of chauffeur mechanics retained for the purposes suggested in the question, but he is very glad to take this opportunity of making an appeal to any person who may now be employing, for private convenience, a mechanic of any kind who might be employed on munition work, to encourage any such workman to transfer his services to such work. I would point out that the organisation of the War munition volunteers, just set on foot, affords a full opportunity for transferring men in this way, and all such men should be urged to offer their services at the nearest Munition Work Bureau.

    EXPLOSIVES (SUPPLY).
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Minister of Munitions whether his attention has been drawn to a statement made at
    1800
    West Hartlepool on 25th June by the President of the Board of Trade that it was truer now to say than on 21st April, when a statement was made on the subject of munitions, that we have enough explosives for our own use and some to spare for our Allies; whether, seeing that he recently stated we were short of shells, he will say whether he authorised the President of the Board of Trade to make this statement; and whether this statement represents the views of His Majesty's Government?
    Dr. ADDISON: The statement of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is in accordance with what the Minister of Munitions said here on Wednesday last. The President of the Board of Trade was careful to distinguish between the supply of explosives and other munitions of war, which, of course, includes shells.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Did the right hon. Gentleman say a word about the Newcastle speech when he spoke on the Munitions Bill?
    Dr. ADDISON: My hon. Friend will see that the answer I have made is strictly accurate if he consults the speech of the President of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Was not the President of the Board of Trade quoting the words of the Minister of Munitions used in this House on 21st April?
    Dr. ADDISON: The statement of the President of the Board of Trade was strictly in accord with that made by my right hon. Friend in this House.

    EXCHANGED PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Mr. IAN MALCOLM: May I ask the Under-Secretary of State for War a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely: Will he give the House the names of the four British officers who arrived yesterday from Germany as exchanged prisoners of war?
    Mr. TENNANT: The hon. Gentleman's notice only reached me after luncheon, and therefore I have not been able to get the names, but I hope to be able to supply them to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.
    Mr. MALCOLM: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough, if he cannot supply them to me—I am going back to

    1801
    France—to supply them to the Press as soon as possible, because there is a great deal of anxiety to know who they are.
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes.

    COAL PRICES.
    Sir J. WALTONasked whether, in "view of the price of coal having been forced down by State intervention, he will also take steps to correspondingly limit the prices that may be charged by the consumers of coal for the productions they have to market; and whether he will, as far as practicable, fix maximum rates of freight for shipping?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: If the hon. Baronet's suggestion were adopted the Government would have to undertake to fix maximum prices for the sale of all commodities as well as maximum rates of freight. I am afraid that such a course would be impracticable.

    TRADING WITH THE ENEMY.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what action has been taken in regard to Messrs. Israel and Company, Limited, of Bradford and Hamburg, under the Trading with the Enemy Act?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: In November last my right hon. Friend appointed an inspector of Simon Israel and Company, Limited, of Bradford, and in December last, after considering the report of the inspector, a supervisor was appointed.

    SCOTTISH CHURCHES (PROBATIONER MINISTERS).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the increased necessity for pulpits in Scotland being supplied by probationers owing to the large number of ministers serving as Army chaplains; whether he is aware of the shortage of such supply owing to the number of students serving with the Colours; whether he is aware that the practice of giving weekend fares to such supply was to meet a regular practice covering the whole year, as in the case of commercial travellers;
    1802
    whether he is aware of the particular need for regular ministrations in Scottish churches, particularly in the country districts where so many men have given their lives for their country; and whether, in view of all these circumstances, he can see his way to place week-end fares for probationers, in the course of their regular duty, in a different category from weekend fares for pleasure or special holiday camp fares?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am afraid I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave my hon. Friend on the 24th June.

    GLASGOW OBSERVATORY.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Secretary for Scotland whether any representations of any sort have been made to Professor Becker by the Government on the propriety of his continuing to act during the War as head of the Glasgow Observatory?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The answer is in the negative. As I informed my hon. Friend on the 24th instant, inquiry was made into Professor Becker's case last autumn.

    WEATHER FORECASTS.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Prime Minister whether special instructions have been issued with regard to the non-publication of all weather forecasts and reports; and whether he will take steps to avoid having a gentleman of German origin, even if recently naturalised, in charge of the Glasgow Observatory?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have been requested to reply to this question. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part of the question, I have no reason to believe that any steps of the sort suggested are required. The gentleman referred to was naturalised not recently, but twenty-three years ago, as my hon. Friend was informed on 24th instant, and while I have the most satisfactory assurances as to his loyalty, the means at his disposal in the Observatory and otherwise are not in any case such as to enable him to make any effective forecasts or to communicate them if made.

    WAR TRADE DEPARTMENT.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that an application for permission to export goods to the United States, made by Messrs. Joseph Benn and Company, Limited, of Bradford, on 25th March last, was not dealt with by the War Trade Department for over two months, and that letters sent by the firm to the Department in question on 30th April, 3rd May, and 15th May, inquiring as to the result of the application, were not replied to or acknowledged; and if he will take steps to put an end to the cause of this and other numerous complaints against the War Trade Department?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): I regret that the application in question, which involved consultation with the Textile Association and the War Office, took so much time to settle, but there was no avoidable delay on the part of the War Trade Department. I understand that the later letters referred to were left unanswered in the hope that an answer to the main inquiry might be given at any moment, but special instructions have now been given to avoid the recurrence of such an omission.

    FOOD PRODUCTION COMMITTEE (IRELAND).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state the constitution of the Committee appointed to consider what steps can be taken to increase the production of food in Ireland; the terms of reference; whether the Committee is directed to visit the evicted ranches or any of them; the date by which it is required to report; and what preparations are being made by the Estates Commissioners for promptly acquiring and distributing such ranches as the Committee report ought to be broken up and brought under tillage.
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The constitution of the Departmental Committee on Food Production in Ireland, together with the terms of reference (which are identical with those of the corresponding Committees for England and Scotland) appeared in the Press yesterday. No directions beyond those contained in the terms of reference have been given to the Committee,
    1804
    and no date has been fixed by which the Committee are required to report, but they will doubtless realise the desirability of framing their recommendations as early as possible. With regard to the last part of the question, I must refer the hon. Member to the last part of my reply to his question of the 24th instant.
    Mr. GINNELLasked, having regard to the obstacle to the increase of food supply in Ireland afforded by the practice of grazing on the evicted lands and the consequent dearth of labour, whether the Local Government Board will immediately enable all the district councils whose districts comprise such lands to provide sufficient cottages and plots for labourers to work those lands when broken up for tillage?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The promotion of schemes for the provision of cottages and allotments under the Labourers Acts rests with the rural district councils and all schemes so promoted are dealt with by the Local Government Board in due course. Owing, however, to the restrictions in borrowing money from public funds, the erection of cottages under such schemes is at present confined to those proposed in substitution of houses proved to be unfit for human habitation and incapable of being properly repaired.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman make any provision whatever for the case referred to in connection with food production in Ireland?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir; not in connection with labourers' cottages.

    MINISTERS OF THE CROWN (DIRECTORSHIPS).
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Prime Minister whether the rule laid down by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, and enforced for the past nine years, that no Minister of the Crown should act as director of a public company applies to all Members of the present Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): Yes, Sir.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: May I ask, as a mere matter of information, whether there is any authority who has the right constitutionally to impose any such condition?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Prime Minister can impose any condition he pleases.

    REGISTER OF VOTERS.
    Mr. LOUGHasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the work of the local authorities in England and Wales in preparing the annual register of voters involves an expenditure of £300,000 per annum and does not commence until the 25th July, so that an opportunity could be given to the House of saving a great proportion, if not the whole, of this sum by enabling it to consider the Bill for postponing elections without further delay; and whether, under these circumstances, he will endeavour to introduce the Bill at once and expedite it at all stages?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Some considerable part of the expense of this year's registration has been already incurred. Notwithstanding the postponement of elections, I do not think it would be for the general convenience to discontinue the registration now in progress. The Bill to which my right hon. Friend refers will be introduced as soon as possible.
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: Is it not essential that this registration should be performed for municipal purposes?
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is it not essential that revising barristers should have more fees, which are quite unnecessary?
    Mr. LOUGH: Do not the expenses already incurred fall mainly upon candidates and Members, whereas the expenses referred to in the question are those to be incurred by the local authorities, and might not these latter be saved if the Bill were introduced at once?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I was not referring to the expenses of candidates. Of course, the question of local elections is most important.

    CONDITIONS OF PEACE.
    Mr. DAVID MASONasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of certain speeches by some members in the German Parliament demanding a speedy and honourable peace, His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of stating more specifically than heretofore
    1806
    the terms upon which such a peace would be possible with the object of hastening such a happy consummation?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I feel sure that it would not be in the public interest to add anything at present to what I have already publicly stated on this subject.

    PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS (NATURALISED GERMANS).
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Prime Minister whether, as a matter of precaution, naturalised Germans have been asked to withdraw, at least temporarily, from the directing or advisory staffs of public institutions whose normal operations may be assumed to have some connection, direct or indirect, with the prosecution of the War?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware what class of institution my hon. Friend has in mind, or that any case exists for such steps as he indicates. If he will bring any specific cases privately to my notice, I will certainly look into them.

    Governor-General of India (Executive Council).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether the selection of a judge of the High Court of Madras to fill a vacancy on the Executive Council of the Governor-General is to be regarded as a precedent for making judicial office the stepping stone to high executive appointments?
    The SECRETARY Of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): The submission of Sir Sankaran Nair's name to His Majesty the King for appointment to the Viceroy's Executive Council was made by my predecessor on the merits of the particular case; it does not indicate the adoption or the abandonment of any general principle of selection.
    Sir J. D. REES: Has it not hitherto been the salutary rule not to promote from judicial office to high executive office?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend is mistaken if he supposes that has never been done before. The only inference which he, or anyone, can draw from this appointment is that the Secretary of State will always get the best man he can.

    National General Insurance Company.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the case of Mr. John Brearley, an operative painter of Bradford, who met with an accident whilst following his employment on the 16th November, 1912, and was afterwards awarded compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act at the rate of 17s. 4d. per week, payment of which sum was stopped on the 28th March, 1914, owing to the National General Insurance Company, with whom the employers concerned in the case were insured, having gone into liquidation; and if he will say whether the Government held a deposit for the National General Insurance Company at the date of liquidation from which the company's liabilities could be discharged?
    Sir J. SIMON: My attention had not been previously called to this case. My hon. Friend of course appreciates that the right of the workmen to be paid compensation by his employer is not in the least affected by the failure of the insurance company. I am informed by the Board of Trade that the company in question did not make and were not under any obligation to make any deposit in respect of their employers' liability insurance business. The obligation to make such deposits does not extend to companies which commenced to carry on that class of business in the United Kingdom previously to the passing of the Employers' Liability Insurance Companies Act of 1907.

    Collinstown Sub-Post Office.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Postmaster General whether it is usual to establish a sub-post office in a house condemned by the local council on behalf of the public as unsuitable and unsuitably situated and held only by a caretaker's tenure; will he state what his officers find the cubic feet of air space to be in the business part and in the living part, respectively, of the house so used in Collinstown, Westmeath, and whether premises with that air space are approved for post offices in this country; if he will explain why the Dublin postal authorities, having first approved the most suitable house in the village for this business, offered to the present sub-postmistress and still available to her, after-wards withdrew their approval and required her to go into the condemned house; will he say on whose information
    1808
    the contrary assertion is based; and at whose instance he threatens to dismiss the most satifactory sub-postmistress unless she lives and works in a house condemned by the local public?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): My right hon. Friend has made inquiry and finds that the present premises are the best which the sub-postmistress can secure. He has not threatened to dismiss her.

    London and South-Western Railway (Wimbledon Station).
    Mr. FELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the condition of Wimbledon Station, on the London and Southwestern Railway, and to the death of a porter there on 22nd June, who was carrying a trunk across the line from one platform to another, and who had to pass behind milk vans standing at the platform, which made it impossible for the porter to see or hear the approaching express train; if such arrangements are permitted; and if the Board of Trade will see that they are altered—at any rate immediately the War is over?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The railway company have reported this accident to the Board of Trade, and I have ordered an inquiry to be held.

    National Insurance Act (Supply of Drugs).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the hon. Member for Lincoln, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, if he is aware that the panel committee at Newcastle-on-Tyne have decided to surcharge those practitioners whose drug cost has exceeded that allocated to them under the Act a portion of the cost, with a view to making them more careful in the future; that this has been done without any consideration as to whether the excess is accounted for by the special character of cases; that the two women practitioners on the panel have been surcharged; and that the excess expenditure on drugs in these cases is owing to the special character of their panels, and cannot be avoided if justice is done to the patients; and will the Insurance Commissioners take the steps necessary to stop this practice of surcharging medical practitioners in cases where it has clearly been necessary to exceed the allocated expenditure upon drugs in the interests of the patients?
    The COMPTROLLER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. C. Roberts): I am not in possession of the details of the specific cases referred to, but I would remind the hon. Member that a practitioner has a right to be heard by the panel committee of the area before that body report to the insurance committee; and, further, to appeal to the Insurance Commissioners against any decision of the insurance committee to impose a surcharge.

    Athlone Assault Case.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the girl assaulted at Athlone by two English soldiers has yet succumbed to her injuries; whether the two soldiers are in custody; and before what kind of tribunal they are to be sent for trial?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The young woman who was the victim of this outrage was confined to bed, but is now progressing favourably. She will be able to attend the Assizes on the 1st proximo, to which the two soldiers, who are now in custody, have been committed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  WAR LOAN (TRUSTEES) BILL.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): I beg to move, "That leave be granted to introduce a Bill to enable trustees to borrow money for the purpose of exercising any option to convert Securities given under the War Loan Act, 1915, to holders of that Loan, and to indemnify trustees for any loss in respect of any such borrowing or any transaction in relation to the Loan, and to authorise the investment of moneys subject to any trust in any Securities created under that Act."
  The Bill which I ask leave to introduce will enable trustees to borrow money for the purpose of obtaining under the War Loan Act, 1915, conversion of securities now held by them. The House will remember that under the terms of the existing War Loan holders of new War Loan are entitled to convert certain amounts of old War Loan, Consols, and Annuities, of which they may also be holders. It has been brought to my notice that many trustees who are now holders of Consols and old War Loan will be most anxious in the interests of the estate to convert their Consols and old War Loan into new War Loan, but they are not in possession of the necessary funds to enable them to apply for a sufficient quantity of new War Loan. It is proposed now to give such trustees the power to borrow money for the purpose of the purchase of a sufficient quantity of new War Loan in order to enable them to convert such convertible securities as they may hold. The power of borrowing is strictly limited to that purpose, and to the amounts requisite for that purpose.
  I know it may be said that it is making a big stride to give power to a trustee to borrow money, but in this case the borrowing is strictly limited to a specific purpose, which is for the benefit of the estate. It does seem to be rather hard upon the person who is the beneficiary of property in Consols that he should not be entitled to the benefit of the conversion to which holders of Consols are entitled merely because his trustee has not available the necessary funds for the purpose of the application. The risk that the estate runs, I venture to assume, is the minimum risk.
  1816
  The amount that can be borrowed is only the amount which is required for the purpose of the application for the new War Loan. The estate, while it will owe a debt in respect of the new application, will have at least double the quantity of the new War Loan as compared with the amount of the debt, and, even if the new War Loan hereafter has to be sold at a loss, the estate will still benefit unless the loss is extravagant — and I do not think we have any reason in this House to apprehend that. The estate would still benefit, because of the great advantage conferred by the conversion. I think there would be a real hardship upon estates held in trust if facilities were not given to trustees to do this. I do not mind calling the attention of the House to the fact that it is a real advantage to the State that every opportunity should be given to persons in possession of means to apply for the Loan. The draft of the Bill—and that is all I am in a position to lay before the House at the present moment—is in the Vote Office, but it is not quite complete. It should include another Clause, which I should like to read to the House:—
  "It is hereby declared that any sum paid to any Court, or otherwise under the control of any Court, may without prejudice to any other mode of investment be invested in securities created under the War Loan Act, 1915, and any finch sum may, if the judge so direct, or in accordance with the Rules of Court, be realised and reinvested in that Loan."
  In the course of the Debate yesterday a question was raised by an hon. Member as to whether funds which have been paid into Court under an award of the County Court judge in compensation cases can be invested in the new War Loan. They may now by Statute be invested in Consols, but the hon. Gentleman who raised the point was doubtful whether they could be invested in the new War Loan. In order to make it quite clear, I thought it advisable to ask the draftsman to include a Declaratory Clause, providing that any sum paid into Court may be so invested. Here, again, it is to the obvious advantage of the beneficiary of the trust sum that his capital should be invested in a 4½ per cent. security instead of a 2½ per cent. At the same time it is to the advantage of the State. I see the hon. Member (Mr. Shirley Benn) who raised the point last night is now present. We are not quite sure it is

  1817
  necessary, but in order that there may be no mistake we have introduced this Declaratory Clause into the Bill.
  Mr. T. LOUGH: What is to be the rate of interest?
  Mr. McKENNA: There is no provision as to the rate of interest, nor is any such provision needed. The Loan obviously will only be for quite a short period. The trustee will borrow the money for the purpose of applying for the new War Loan, and when he has applied for the new War Loan, he will use that new War Loan for the purpose of converting, his Consols, and he will then have, in the trust fund, the original quantity of stock in converted Consols, but also the new War Loan stock bought for the purpose of conversion. He will, after the issue is closed, be able to sell new War Loan stock, and pay off the debt, so that whether he pays 4 per cent., 4½ per cent., or 5 per cent. interest, it will not be very material to the estate, because it is only for a very short period that the loan will be required. What is important is that, whereas the estate obtains for its capital 2½ per cent. only, in future, after conversion, it will get 3 per cent.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: How about Parliamentary deposits here and in the House of Lords?
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. and learned Member means the deposits on private Bills; they are held permanently.
  Mr. HEALY: But why should they not have the benefit of the 4½ per cent.?
  Mr. McKENNA: I shall have to look at the original Bill to see whether there is power to invest these funds. I think there is, but I am not quite sure.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say out of what funds the interest is to come? Is it to be paid by the trustee or the beneficiary? Out of what funds is the loss, if there be any loss on the realisation of the War Loan, to be made good?
  Mr. McKENNA: It will be paid out of the estate. The transaction is for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the estate, and the profit or loss will accrue to or fall on the estate.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the operation was to the advantage of the
  1818
  beneficiaries, and yet the loss, if there is to be one, is to fall on the estate. Surely that is not right.
  Mr. McKENNA: I was having regard to the interest of the beneficiaries in the estate as a whole. If the beneficiaries of the estate are to get the benefit of the conversion, I assume that if there be any loss it will fall on them in their due order. They will get the immediate profit, but they may have to refund any loss. Inasmuch as the result of the conversion to them is an increased income from Consols—an increase from a 2½ per cent. to a 3 per cent. basis—it is very unlikely that any mere turn of the market will involve a loss on the sale of the new War Loan which would wipe out the advantage to them of the conversion. I think it would be most improper to prevent the estates getting the advantage of the terms now offered. I hope I have sufficiently explained the Bill, and if the House will give it a favourable reception now, I would ask, inasmuch as it is-urgent, that it should be carried through all its stages to-night.
  Sir JAMES DOUGHERTY: Does this Bill apply to funds in Chancery?
  Mr. McKENNA: This is only a Bill to enable trustees to borrow money for the purposes of conversion. The only other Clause is a Declaratory Clause, enabling funds in Court which are dealt with under a specific Act to be used for the purposes of investment in the new War Loan. If the House agree to the introduction of the Bill I propose, for very obvious reasons, to ask the House to pass it through all its stages to-day. The value of the Bill will, of course, be exhausted by next Saturday week, when applications for the new War Loan will be closed, and, consequently, unless we give time for the trustees to make use of the provisions of the Bill we shall deny to the estates concerned all the advantages which I hope they will derive from it. I beg to ask leave to bring in the Bill.
  Mr. HEALY: I desire to put a point to the right hon. Gentleman which has not been covered. Take the Trinity College deposit of £5,000 and also Parliamentary and House of Lords deposits. I do not know how they stand. If the right hon. Gentleman would say that between now and the Bill going to the House of Lords he will look into the matter and see that it is wholly covered, I do not object.

  1819
  I hardly think it is right to push this Bill through all its stages without giving us some little opportunity of looking at it. We might take the Second Reading, but there should be some stage at which we could make Amendments if necessary.
  Sir JAMES YOXALL: I want to be assured that the term "trustee" in the Bill legally covers a case in which a Government Department is itself a trustee. I have in mind a case in which a Government Department holds, on behalf of a great number of beneficiaries under a "Superannuation Act, some millions of money in Consols. Will it be possible under this Bill for that Government Department itself to exercise the power of borrowing which the Bill otherwise confers upon a trustee? It is a very important point to these beneficiaries, and I should like to have some assurance upon it from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am afraid it is my fault if I did not put my question quite clearly to the right hon. Gentleman a few moments ago. Perhaps he will permit me to put it again, and I will give an illustration in order to make it quite clear. Supposing there is an estate of £10,000 consisting of Consols which gives to a beneficiary, whom I will call John Smith, £250 a year. John Smith's trustees convert under this particular Bill, and the result will be that John Smith receives £300 a year instead of £250. There is a loss on conversion, made up of the sale at a discount of the new War Loan and of the money to provide the interest on the sum which has been borrowed in order to make the conversion. Who is going to pay that loss? Is John Smith going to pay, he being the beneficiary and getting £50 a year extra, or is the body of the estate going to pay, and so deprive the remainder man of the capital which should be his? I think I have made the point clear now, and it is a question which should be answered. My hon. and learned Friend near me (Mr. Sanderson) wants to know whether that is dealt with in the Bill. I cannot answer that, because I did not know the Bill had been printed and I have not seen it. With regard to what the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) said just now, may I venture to suggest, as none of us have seen the Bill, that we should take the Second Reading to-day, then we might dispose of the Committee stage to-morrow.
  1820
  One day would make no difference, but I think we ought to have some opportunity of looking into the Bill, which is an important one, so that we may have, if necessary, a slight debate upon the Committee stage.
  Mr. McKENNA: I think that is an extremely reasonable proposal, and we should be willing, if the general principle is accepted, to take the Committee stage to-morrow. I think the principle will meet with the general acceptance of the House, and I will answer to-morrow the objections and the points raised.
  Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: I would like to suggest one point for the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman. It is not, I need hardly say, put forward in any other spirit but that of a desire to help in this great work of raising the funds. The point is, that under the proposal as it has been laid before us there will be probably a large number of trustees who will have to sell large quantities of this War Loan very soon after they have converted their Consols or other securities. That will mean throwing a lot of this War Loan upon the market and possibly a temporary depreciation in its price. All I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day is to consider carefully whether something could not be arranged to prevent that depreciation occurring. It might only be a temporary one, but it would certainly be rather damaging if it did occur.
  Mr. HOLT: I am very glad indeed that my right hon. Friend has agreed to postpone the Committee stage, because this is a proposal at which we ought not to rush. It is a proposal to encourage trustees to enter what is more or less a gambling transaction. That is a very serious thing for this House to do. A trust is formed for the express purpose of providing a certain income to the beneficiaries without any risk whatever. We are going to encourage the trustees to run a risk possibly for the benefit of the beneficiaries but possibly for their loss—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"]—not because we are thinking about the beneficiaries at all, but because we want to make a good Loan. The question put by my hon. Friend who has just sat down (Mr. A. Williams) shows clearly what was in his mind. This is a proposal we ought to look at with a great deal of caution. It does not seem a proper thing that this House should encourage trustees to gamble in the beneficiaries' property.
  Sir WILLIAM BEALE: I do not go so far as my hon. Friend (Mr. Holt) in regarding this particular arrangement as a gambling arrangement. I do not know whether we are now having a Debate on the Second Reading, but I am not at all prepared to say that the principle of the Bill has been sufficiently explained to make it acceptable to those who have a large experience in the administration of trusts. There is already a procedure whereby, at a very small expense, if a transaction of this sort is beneficial to a trust, either the trustees or any beneficiary can get the approval of a judge in a particular case if he thinks it is a proper thing to do. I do not at present understand on what principle and how it might be more beneficial to a trust estate for the trustees to borrow money, the trust estate being liable for any loss that may occur in raising the money with which to apply for the War Loan. It all depends how-much you have to sell. I know the difficulty. All trust securities are necessarily depreciated by the issue of this Loan. What I do not see at present is how it can possibly be more economic, rather than to sell at what price you can get now, to borrow money by pledging the investments or placing them in the hands of somebody else to sell at his discretion. He must have a market to sell at his discretion. It may be all right, but at the present moment I do not think the principle is made out satisfactorily from the point of view of the beneficial administration of the trust.
  Mr. NEVILLE: I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the facilities given by this Bill will apply to charity trustees? There is an enormous number, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer will know, of small parish charities all over the Kingdom which are vested, I believe, in the official Trustee, such as charity funds or charity lands. Will they have an opportunity of taking advantage of the facilities afforded by this Bill for the purpose of converting their Consols? The amount of Consols held by small charities throughout the country is something enormous. It would be a great advantage to them if they could convert. If the right hon. Gentleman can answer that question I should be much obliged.
  Mr. SANDERSON: I have some hesitation in speaking about the Bill, because I have had no opportunity of seeing its terms. I have listened to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer
  1822
  and, so far as I can understand it, I am bound to say I am in favour of the principle. I suppose most trusts of any importance contain Consols as part of the securities. There is no doubt whatever that this new War Loan at 4½ per cent. and the conditions attached to it have affected very considerably the position of Consols. Looking at the matter from the point of view of a trustee, I do not think it has affected them for the better. Therefore it seems to me that the trustees ought to be put into a position to get the most benefit they can in connection with that which is perhaps the most important part of their securities. Having regard to what was said just now by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir P. Beale) that trustees ought to sell instead of borrowing, I would respectfully draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that it is very difficult indeed to sell Consols at the present moment.
  Sir W. BEALE: I said that.
  Mr. SANDERSON: I did not catch it. In fact, it is almost impossible to sell. Therefore, if the trustee is to get the advantage of the War Loan, if he happens to be a holder of Consols, the only possible way to do it is to give him power to borrow for the purpose of applying for the Loan. If he has not got it, the only possible way by which he can get it is to give him statutory power, as is proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am not so familiar with this branch of the law as some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House who, I am sorry to say, are not here—for instance, my hon. and learned Friend Mr. Cave; but, as far as I can see, I think the principle is a good one under the present extraordinary circumstances.
  Mr. JAMES MASON (indistinctly heard): Of course, the advantage to trustees derived from this Bill falls entirely on those trusts whose funds are invested in different securities. In that case they are pledging the whole of the trust funds for the purpose of converting a proportionate amount. In the case of trusts in which the whole trust fund is in Consols it is, of course, obvious that they would only be able to borrow about half the amount and convert five-eights. It seems impossible otherwise to give sufficient security to convert the whole of the Consols. The principal object I had in rising was to emphasise the disadvantage which was suggested by the hon. Member (Mr. Aneurin Williams), who said that the depreciation

  1823
  caused by the sudden throwing upon the market of large quantities of new War Loan might have very serious effects. I should like to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to this aspect of the case. In the anticipation that as the result of this Bill large quantities of War Loan will be thrown shortly on the market, is it not possible that investors who now might otherwise apply for the War Loan will hold back in order to take advantage of that depreciation?
  Mr. McKENNA: I think the last suggestion is not one which is likely to be realised. We do not anticipate that these powers of borrowing will be as widely exercised as some persons seem to think. A great many estates will sell securities in order to apply for the new Loan. Some I know cannot, but a great many will, and I am sure what a good trustee will do will be to go through the list of securities and sell American securities and securities of that kind, for which he can obtain a ready market at a good price. I have personally done this work myself, and I know as a fact that there are some other securities which can be sold. That will be done, and the funds will be applied for the purpose of applying for War Loan. We are thinking now of the case of trustees who wish to apply and have to borrow for the purpose. A trustee will not throw his new War Loans on to the market immediately after the issue. He will sell the War Loan prudently and wisely in order to get the best price for the estate.
  As to the notion that it would be necessary to throw it upon the market, it is quite a mistake. The War Loan is issued on such favourable terms that there is sure to be a large active market in the stock after the issue is closed, but I certainly do not anticipate that there will be any such vast number of sales as will lead to the evil which the hon. Member thinks is likely to happen. There, will be a very large demand after the issue is closed for new War Loan, which is much more likely to send it to a premium, by persons who are holders of Consols and old War Loan and have not acquired the War Loan in time for the purpose of conversion. People forget that the amount of War Loan which would have to be applied for in order to convert all existing Consols, annuities, and old War Loan, is something like £700,000,000 or £800,000,000, and it is perfectly clear, when we remember that a considerable number of those
  1824
  who apply for War Loan will lock it away and never use it for the purpose of conversion, that applicants for conversion will be in excess of the stock which can go round, and so far from anticipating a drop in the stock, I should rather anticipate that it will hold its own, even though trustees do wish to sell. I quite agree that one stock may be a stock which has been used for the purpose of conversion and the other is a stock which has not been so used, but the market demand for the investment is equally well satisfied with the stock which can be-described as ex rights, as the stock cum rights. In Committee I shall be in a position to answer all the points which have been raised, with regard to particular kinds of trustees and trust stock where they are provided for under this Bill. I do not think, however, that these points touch the principle of the measure.
  My hon. Friend (Mr. Holt) treated this as a Bill which was authorising a gamble by trustees. Is he justified in even approaching the subject from that point of view? By the issue of the new War Loan we automatically reduce the capital value of the trust fund. If the trust fund is in Government securities we do something to increase its capital value if application is made for the new War Loan. I cannot regard it as a gamble to give power to a trustee to enable him to take advantage of the opportunity which is offered him. Let us be quite clear on the point. If there is to be any loss to the estate on this transaction you will have to see new War Loan, a 4 per cent. Government security, standing at something not far short of 20 per cent. discount. That is not a possibility which we are contemplating at present, and certainly not a possibility within the time in which the trustees could regulate their accounts. There is no gamble.
  Mr. HOLT: How do you make out that it would have to drop 20 per cent. Surely if it drops 1 per cent.—
  Mr. McKENNA: No; because he converts Consols, which pay him now 2½ per cent., into stock bearing 3 per cent., consequently the estate has a large margin before the loss occurs. That is how it happens. A mere 1 per cent. drop would not wipe out the advantage of conversion. It would have to be a drop of more than 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. before the advantage is lost. I might put it at something between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent.

  1825
  discount before the advantage to the estate would be lost. In those circumstances we cannot regard it as a gamble. I quite admit that it is contrary to some principles of equity, but when the principles of equity were, after many years of practice, deduced from the legal constitution I do not think conversions of this kind were in contemplation. We have to adapt our principles of equity in relation to trusts to the new conditions of conversion, and I cannot believe that it would be contrary to any real principle of equity, properly understood, that a trustee should be able to enter into a transaction which is for the benefit of the estate.
  Sir W. BEALEmade an observation which was not heard in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, in proper cases I have no doubt they will do it by a simple application to the Court, but in other cases, where they cannot do it except by borrowing, I think they ought to be allowed to borrow, particularly as the security is so uncommonly good.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I wish to ask a question about procedure. The right hon. Gentleman says he will answer questions on the Committee stage. The Debate will be confined to the Clauses, and it is possible that some questions asked may not be in order on the Clauses. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman will arrange with the Chairman of Committees that the rules may be a little relaxed.
  Mr. J. A. PEASE: Will the Bill be circulated in the morning?
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. McKENNA: The Bill will be circulated immediately. I will ask the Chairman of Committees if he will be so kind as to allow us that latitude. The case which was put by the hon. Baronet is that of a trustee of an estate of £10,000 in Consols. If he will allow me I will take the case of the old War Loan, because the figures are easier. He wants to know what will happen in case there is a loss. Let us work the figures out in regard to £10,000 of old War Loan and see what it means. The trustee of the estate will go to his bank and he will say, "I desire to borrow from you £10,000 for the purpose of applying that sum to new War Loan, and I give you as security £10,000 of old War Loan. The bank will, assuming that it is an obliging bank, advance from time to time the necessary sum up to the
  1826
  total of £10,000 in November, in order to apply the £10,000 to new War Loan. The bank will hold as security against £10,000, old War Loan of £10,000, and new War Loan, £10,000; so that the bank will have ample margin for the whole Loan. The old War Loan will then be converted into new War Loan on an additional payment of £500. The estate will now be in possession of £20,000 of new War Loan, on which the interest at 4½ per cent. would bring in £900 a year. The estate before this transaction is undertaken possessed £10,000 old War Loan, on which the interest was £350 a year. The estate, therefore, will have a surplus income of £550 a year; against that the estate have got to pay back £500 of cash borrowed and interest on the £10,000 borrowed. If it borrows from the bank at 5 per cent. it can pay the interest on the money borrowed with a margin, but if it has to borrow at more than 5 per cent. it will have a slight loss. Suppose there is a loss and that in order to repay the debt the holder has got to sell, not £10,000 of new War Loan, but £11,000. I am leaving a margin of 10 per cent. Of the £10,000 a sum of £500 will go to pay for the cash advanced, and £500 will go to pay the loss on the transaction, assuming that there is a loss. That will still leave the estate with £9,000 of new War Loan at 4½ per cent., which is very readily calculated, and will bring in £405 a year. The estate started with £350 a year, and it ends up the transaction with £405 a year, and in that calculation I have allowed for a loss of £500.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I wish we were in Committee. May I point out that I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the estate will have £9,000, but it started with £10,000, and it would have £10,000 at par in thirteen years? It had got its old War Loan of £10,000, therefore there is a loss of £1,000 to the estate. There is an increase in the interest, but the trustees have to regard the body of the estate and not the interest.
  Mr. McKENNA: That is perfectly true. I was looking at the case only from the point of view of interest for the time being. Though that sum would be redeemable thirteen years hence at par, when you get the amount the estate is saleable for it would have a greater value if the transaction is made as I have pointed out than if it is not made. If the hon. Baronet will work the sum out on paper he will see that the gain to the estate is obvious. The

  1827
  estate as a whole will benefit. In the case of Consols or Annuities it is exactly the same as in the case of old War Loan. However, we may resume the discussion in Committee to-morrow.
  Mr. NEVILLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the point I raised?
  Mr. McKENNA: I will deal with the point in Committee to-morrow.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir John Simon, and Mr. Montagu. Presented accordingly, read the first time, and ordered to be printed. [Bill 112.]
  Bill read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. JAMES MASON: The right hon. Gentleman suggests that the case which he has given holds equally good with Consols, but does he maintain that if a trust consisted of £750 worth of Consols, the trustees will be able to borrow £1,000 for the purposes of conversion? What would be the security?
  Mr. McKENNA: I do maintain that. The trustees would not be able to go and lodge £750 of Consols and receive from the bank £1,000 for them, but if the trustees lodged with the bank £750 worth of Consols and gave the bank the right to hold the War Loan, for which application was made, as well as the Consols, then I think the bank would be willing to lend the £1,000.
  Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: I hope sincerely that the Chancellor of the Exchequer between now and the Committee stage will reconsider this question of possible depreciation of stock after conversion, because it is quite clear that the people he spoke of as wanting to buy stock will want to buy stock cum rights of conversion, but with respect to those who hold stock ex rights of conversion, that demand will be no good to them. When they want to clear up an account with their bankers as between capital and revenue on their trust account, they will certainly be under a strong temptation to put their stock ex rights upon the market. I think there will be a serious danger of depreciation of stock ex rights. What I desire is that something should be done to avoid
  1828
  that, which I believe would be a serious disadvantage. I also would like to say that as between capital and revenue on trust estate it is absolutely essential that something should be put into this Bill in the Committee stage, or else trustees will be afraid to launch out in this matter and apply as we desire them to apply, because they will not know whether they are to treat the bankers' charges and possible loss on re-sale of War Loan as falling properly upon income or upon capital. If they make a mistake, of course they are liable to have it charged some day upon themselves personally. Therefore I hope that it will be distinctly provided in the Bill when we come to the Committee stage how any losses of that sort and any expenses of that sort are to be borne.
  Colonel HALL WALKER: I hope there will be an opportunity when the Bill is considered in Committee to deal with a point which arises out of these transactions in regard to people not being able to deduct their interest on Loan from their Income Tax on Income. I will give a typical case of a trust which has an investment in Consols of the nominal value of £10,000. The trustee is able to sell these £10,000 worth of Consols to the Government with the object of converting them into £10,000 of new War Loan which he is privileged to do on the strength of holding these Consols of the nominal value of £10,000. He sells them to the Government at the value of 65, which is equal to £6,500 on conversion. By placing that amount of £6,500 new War Loan, together with the £10,000 of new War Loan which he would get by virtue of his possession of his £10,000 worth of Consols, there is an amount of £16,500, which will be the security to the Bank for the loan from them of £10,000 with which to pay for the new War Loan. There now arises the situation that the trustee will have to pay his banker interest at 5 per cent. on the borrowed money of £10,000, which means £500 a year, and as the total income from the £16,500 new War Loan at 4½ per cent. is equal to £742, he will have to pay Income Tax upon that amount, and will not be allowed to deduct from that sum of £742 the £500 interest which he has had to pay to his banker. In that case, from the rough calculation I have been able to make, the total income of the new estate will amount to only £242, as against £250 income on Consols at, say, 2½, without calculating the loss in Income Tax.
  Mr. McKENNA: I have made provision for that. We agreed yesterday that we would meet that case.
  Colonel HALL WALKER: I have not had that quite clear. If that is so, I am quite content.
  Mr. McKENNA: Oh, yes, we agreed yesterday that we would meet that case.
  Mr. HOHLER: I am in doubt about the transaction which the Chancellor of the Exchequer put to us just now, namely, the conversion of £10,000 of old War Loan into new War Loan, which involved the purchase of £10,000 of new War Loan. He put to us the case of an obliging banker, whom he assumes would leave his money out for ever. Supposing he does not, and the money is called in? Who is to be responsible? Is the trustee to make himself personally responsible? Is it clear that the bank may not call upon him at any time? If, on the other hand, the trustee has to go to a solicitor and raise the money through him, look at the cost of the stamps on the mortgage deed. I think the transaction which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us is exceedingly remote. The trustee has got to find £10,000 and convert it into new War Loan; in addition he has got to find a sum of £500, and it is suggested that the security of the old War Loan and the scrip of the new War Loan will be satisfactory security to the bank. That may be so as long as the bank likes to leave the money out, but if not a difficult situation may be created and the trustee may be involved in an immense obligation. Suppose the money is called in, what is he to do? What is the position then of the trustee who borrows money from the bank? I do not know whether it will do much harm to bring in the Bill, but I hope that no trustee will act upon it. I object entirely to the principle of the Bill.
  Sir W. BEALE: I would like a rather clearer answer than that which the right hon. Gentleman gave to the hon. Member for Windsor. Suppose a trust estate to consist solely of Consols, of course the Chancellor does not pretend that you can on these Consols raise enough money to convert it all. I am sure that his answer would be that if you raise what you can, and put it into War Loans, and mortgage the Consols and the War Loan, that would be an advantage to the estate. It seems to me that that is hardly correct and that it must depend on what interest
  1830
  you are paying on the money which you have borrowed. Then, there is another point. If you put this security into the hands of the bank, or whoever you borrow the money from, they may realise those, Consols at any time and at any price. I do not think that the question which was put by the hon. Member has been answered in a way that would give any greater feeling of security to beneficiaries under a trust estate, if the trustees are to have this large power.
  Mr. KING: I view this matter from a different point of view from those who have spoken in this Debate, because I am a trustee and I hold Consols for the benefit of the beneficiaries of this trust; and as I have sat here and listened to this Debate I have been considering what I ought to do myself, and I am candidly of the opinion now that it would be a rather difficult and uncertain transaction for me to go to my banker to-morrow and say on the strength of this Bill that I want to borrow money, and, if I did so, I am quite sure that I should not in a week's time feel so secure about this trust as I do at the present moment. For one thing it is quite impossible for me to make any agreement with my banker for a loan at a fixed rate, say, for more than six months. In a year's time, if the War continues, the rate of interest will most certainly be raised, and I can conceive that trustees in my position would be in a very difficult position. I hope that if this Bill passes a word of caution will be uttered, at any rate, by those who are greater authorities in the House than myself as to the difficulties and dangers that may have to be met, so that only those who can do so with complete security, and with some margin against possible risk, should invest in the War Loan on the terms offered by this Bill.
  Mr. ROBERT PEARCE: I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be good enough to allow the Second Reading of this Bill to stand over until we have seen it. At present we do not know the contents of the Bill. However much we may be disposed to agree to the principle of having it brought in a first time without Debate and without consideration, it seems to me to be unfair to the whole body of trustees and to all the beneficiaries who are concerned to ask for the Second Reading and to force it through the House before we have seen even what the title of the Bill is to be. As to the position of the trustees and beneficiaries

  1831
  —and I suppose we are all in that position in some way or another—I wonder what we have done, what sinners we are, that we should have this calamity forced upon us, that trustees should have to consider whether they are to convert their present holdings into the new Loan, the fate of which is dependent upon the War and upon rates of interest, which, as the hon. Member for Somerset says, will certainly increase. It is a very serious thing for those who have to advise beneficiaries whether they should relinquish the tempting offer held out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase their incomes by some 50 per cent., as beneficiaries are not able to resist the temptation, and all trustees who have any concern for the welfare of their securities will be urged to take advantage of the present opportunity of convening their holdings, and many trustees will feel that there is considerable difficulty, and they will be bound to advise the beneficiaries that on no account should a conversion be made of the trust moneys in their name. At least that is the judgment which I arrived at after hearing what has been said.
  Mr. McKENNA: I am extremely sorry to hear my hon. Friend say, as a result of this Debate, that he has definitely come to the conclusion that he will have to advise all beneficiaries that in no circumstances should advantage be taken of the conversion of their money into the new War Loan for the benefit of the estate. I do not think that that is the general feeling of the House. Let me remind him that this power is only optional. No trustee is bound to follow this Bill. A trustee who thinks that he is doing better for an estate by leaving beneficiaries to get 2½ per cent. instead of 3 per cent. is at liberty to hold his views, but I think, on the other hand, that the House will be well advised to give trustees the opportunity to improve the income of the beneficiaries and to allow this Bill to go through the Second Reading to-day, on the understanding that we take the Committee stage and the other stages to-morrow, so that the Bill may become law in time for trustees to apply for the new War Loan.
  Mr. PRINGLE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this Bill will be taken as the first Order to-morrow? The Committee stage of the Munitions Bill is down for to-morrow, and there is likely to be
  1832
  a prolonged Debate upon it. I should like to know the order in which the two measures are to be taken.
  Mr. McKENNA: I should like an opportunity to consult my right hon. Friend. I should think that the Munitions Bill will probably come first, but I will not answer for it.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Thursday).

  NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS, ETC., BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—[Mr. McKenna.]
  Mr. HOGGE: The scope of this Bill practically means that we are having a reconstructed Royal Patriotic Fund in operation, and, though there might be other alternative methods by which those funds could be administered, still as the Government have agreed that a more democratic and widely extended patriotic fund will meet the case we need not occupy the time of the House to-day in suggesting any alternative body to whom those powers might be committed. Some of us have views on that, but as this Bill is in type and the Government are agreed upon it we do not think it worth opening up the matter now. Therefore my remarks will be confined to the Bill as it is printed. The first Clause provided that twenty-six persons, who are to make up this new corporation, shall include a minimum of women representatives. I think that the Government might consider whether that minimum is too small, and whether it might not be increased. The bulk of those pensions will be paid to widow's or female dependants of soldiers or sailors who are killed during the War, and therefore presumably, if the women can be obtained, they are in a better position than the majority of men to determine how far those pensions should be paid and to what amount, especially as regards the supplementary portion. Of the twenty-six members the minimum number of women allowed is only four. If my right hon. Friend will consider this point it may lead to a concession of considerable value.
  The House will be glad to observe that the salaries of the chairman, and possibly

  1833
  the vice-chairman, if that is considered necessary, will be upon the Consolidated Fund. That is an excellent suggestion while the House is engaged as we are at the moment in discussing purely war proposals. But, when we return, as we hope we shall speedily return, to more normal times, the Consolidated Fund Bill is used in the House of Commons by the Whips on either side for the discussion of business which cannot always come up, and the discussion of the Consolidated Fund Bill in ordinary times rather takes the form of a field day in the House. I desire to suggest that it might be possible to create an opportunity whereby the annual discussion of the distribution of those pensions might come more regularly before the House of Commons. I do not know whether it could not be done on the Army or Navy Votes instead of on the Consolidated Fund Bill, which, in normal times, is confined to one Bill. This year we are having several Consolidated Fund Bills, but in normal times there is only one. I think perhaps that it is limiting the occasion too much. Then, coming to Sub-section (6), page 2, I am not sure that the number of the quorum which is necessary for the statutory Committee is large enough. Members will observe that five Members of this statutory Committee of the twenty-six who are to form the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation are to form a quorum. Five is less than one-fifth of the whole of those members. There are on the statutory Committee more than five officials of various Government Departments—one from the Treasury, one from the Admiralty, one from the Army Council, one from the Local Government Board, one from the Local Government Board for Scotland, and one from the Local Government Board for Ireland. That is to say that the quorum might possibly be made up of none but officials of Government Departments. I think that that ought to be remedied. Twenty-six is the full number of the Committee. I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that they ought to increase the five to nine. I do not take any specific number, but if you keep to five it would be possible for the affairs of this Committee to be controlled entirely by the officials of Government Departments. I think, in the interests of people who are to derive those pensions, that it is advisable to increase the quorum, so that they may be sure on every occasion that a certain number of officials other than members shall be present.
  1834
  Then with regard to Sub-section (7), the term of office of a member of the statutory Committee is to be three years, and the retiring members shall be eligible for re-election. I would point out that this provision, precisely as it stands, would break the continuity of policy of that Committee. If you make it compulsory that every member of the new Committee shall retire at the end of three years, it is conceivable, though not probable, that the membership of that Committee might be entirely changed. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that in Sub-section (7) he might very reasonably make an arrangement by which one-third of the Committee might retire every year after serving three years, so that there would always be one-third of the Committee who had a knowledge of its continuous policy, and anything which was required in the way of stimulus from outside might be secured in the new third being re-elected. I hope that Sub-section (8) of the same Clause does not mean that we are in for a very large crop of new officials. It is suggested that you may employ a secretary, an assistant secretary, clerks, and servants, and also that there may be a scheme of pensions for those persons. I do hope that this Committee will not create more officials than are absolutely necessary, and that a minimum number of persons will be engaged to conduct this business. I would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is saving so much money at the present moment, that, at any rate, at the commencement, the work of this Committee will be large. After it has been settled for some time, the work will become routine in character in a large number of cases, and I trust that in the establishment of a pensions scheme for the people engaged in that work—for, as in the establishment of the insurance scheme for the country, a large number of people will be required at the beginning but will not be continued—the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take care that only the minimum number required to carry this scheme through, looking at the fact that in future the work will be routine, should be put on the pension list.
  I now come to Clause 2 of the Bill, in regard to the establishment of local committees. I have a point to raise, and it is one upon which other Members also feel strongly. By Sub-section (2) it is proposed to set up new local committees for the purpose of aiding in the localities

  1835
  what the statutory Committee is doing at the centre. There, again, there is an arrangement for members of the Committee, to consist of members of city and borough councils, and the minimum number of women included is to be not less than two. I hope that a larger number of women will be put on the Committee, because they are the very kind of persons who can assist the Committee determining whether supplementary pensions ought to be given. But why have a new Committee at all? You have in our localities at present the Pensions Committees dealing with old age pensions. I myself have served on one of those committees in my municipality, where there were at least two city councillors from each ward sitting on the old age pensions committee There were also co-opted members from the city who were interested in the administration of schemes similar to this. Why create new Committees, which, as the House will observe, require new officials, when there are already in existence the Pensions Committees engaged with just such another work, and which could do well and ably the work which is now required. On those committees are the very type of persons you are going to ask to come on to these local committees for the purpose of administering these pensions and allowances. I do suggest that this is a point in which the Bill might be improved.
  Then as regards Clause 3, I have one or two words to say. I think Clause 3 is important from the point of view of the administration of these pensions. The House will remember that we have accepted in spirit, and I gather from the form of this Bill—I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will correct me if I am wrong—that we have also accepted the decision of the Committee, and that we cannot increase or decrease the sums allowed for separation allowances to dependants, and of pensions for the widows of our soldiers and sailors. If you look at paragraph (b) of the Clause I think you will find I am right. May I ask whether I am right in assuming that we are not entitled under the form of this Bill to deal with the sums that are given, and that these are permanently fixed under the Report of the Committee which we have accepted.
  Mr. McKENNA: They are settled.
  Mr. HOGGE: I would remind my right hon. Friend that what he asked us to do
  1836
  was not to accept the Report in its entirety, but to accept the spirit of that Report.
  Mr. McKENNA: I think my hon. Friend is mistaken. So far as the actual amounts of pensions and allowances are concerned, those are the sums to be actually paid.
  Mr. HOGGE: I wanted to obtain that clearly, and to be quite sure about it. Clause 3 says, "The functions of the Statutory Committee are to frame a scheme of supplementary Grants." I hope that in the course of the Debate the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher) will deal with this point, and will give the House some indication of what is precisely meant by these supplementary Grants. We have a large variety of pensioners to consider. We have, for instance, the widows and children of men who have served in the ranks, or of able-bodied seamen of the Navy, who gave up a very great deal to go to the War, and whose people are left in a very unfortunate position. We have also this fact to bear in mind, that, according to the figures given us by the Pensions Committee, whatever is paid to the widow of a soldier, or sailor, or rather whatever is given to the widow of a soldier or sailor, is different according to whether she resides in London, in the provinces, or in the country. I have called attention to the point before in the House of Commons, that in dealing with the pensions, it is perfectly obvious that the widow of an agricultural labourer who had served, or of anybody in a country district who had served, is so many shillings better off per week than the widow of a soldier in a provincial town. In London there is a special provision of an extra 3s. 6d. per week for rent, and therefore the case of the widow in London is perhaps not so difficult as that of the widow in a provincial town—big towns like Manchester, Glasgow, and Edinburgh, where the widow is going to be 2s. 6d. or 3s. a week worse off than the widow of an agricultural labourer. I do hope that on any discussion which is to follow the reply from the Front Bench will give us some indication that these things will be taken into consideration by the Committee, and will receive sympathetic consideration. On Sub-section (d) of the Clause, which deals with Grants in cases where no separation allowances or pensions are payable out of the public

  1837
  funds, I should like my right hon. Friend to take special note of this fact, and that he will give me if he can a specific answer. Just look at the phraseology of that Section. They are, "To make Grants in cases where no separation allowances or pensions are payable out of public funds." Does that mean that as soon as this Bill passes all its stages in the House that the new Patriotic Fund is to be the authority who will determine, so long as the War lasts, cases for separation allowance that cannot be dealt with by Army Order? Is that right?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes.
  Mr. HOGGE: Many of us in this House are interested in this question. I have raised a particularly hard case, and without going into the whole facts of it again, I would merely point out that a young man joined the Army, but did not take the separation allowance because his father was alive. While serving, his father died, and his mother then required the separation allowance. Under the Army Order Regulations now, though the lad is serving his country, his mother cannot get the separation allowance. I think everybody will agree that this is hard lines. If the Government are not going to deal with that themselves by Army Order, then the sooner this body gets to work in dealing with cases of that kind the more satisfaction will be given to Members of this House. I wish to call my right hon. Friend's attention to paragraph (i), which is to make provision "for the care of disabled officers and men after they have left the Service, including provision for their health, training and employment." Another specific question on which I should like to be clear is this: Am I to understand that paragraph (i) means that the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, as reconstituted under this Bill, is going to take it over and put into operation the Report of the Committee appointed by the President of the Local Government Board upon the provision of employment for sailors and soldiers disabled in the War? Can my right hon. Friend say if that is so?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes.
  Mr. HOGGE: I think that is very important, because my right hon. Friend will remember that the summary of the Committee's recommendations was that in regard to soldiers and sailors disabled during the War provision for them was a duty to be assumed by the State. Secondly,
  1838
  that the duty should include the restoration of a man to health, the provision of training facilities if he desires a new employment, and the finding of employment for him if he stands in need of such assistance; thirdly, for the discharge of those duties, that a Central Committee should be appointed to act through the agency of the public Department, or independently as may be decided; and, fourthly, that the Central Committee should have the assistance of sub-committees in Ireland and Scotland, and so on. Does this Subsection (i) mean that this is going to be the Central Committee referred to in this Report?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes.
  Mr. HOGGE: The House may take it, therefore, that this is the body which is going to deal in future with the question of our disabled sailors and soldiers? We want to understand that.
  Mr. McKENNA: That is so.
  Mr. HOGGE: I am only endeavouring to elicit the information in order to see exactly what is included in the Sub-section. There is only one other remark I desire to make about that Sub-section. Are you quite sure you have taken all the powers you want? You have paragraphs from (a) to (i) and why not say at the end of the Clause "and any other relevant matters," and not tie yourselves down when there are other incidental things relating to the work of this Committee which will arise? I know that paragraph (g) includes amongst the functions of the Committee
  "To determine any other question in relation to pensions or grants or separation allowances which may be referred to the Committee by the Admiralty or Army Council."
  Do you think those powers are wide enough? I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the wider the powers of this Committee are the better, and therefore I suggest to him to take a note of the point and see that he gets all the power he wants. Sub-section (4) of Clause 3 provides that a statutory Committee shall each year make a Report of their proceedings which shall be included in the Annual Report made by the corporation to His Majesty. Will that Report be a Parliamentary Paper distributed to Members in the same way as other Parliamentary Papers, because obviously if the salary of the chairman and that of the

  1839
  vice-chairman are placed on the Consolidated Fund, thus enabling questions to be raised in Parliament, then these Reports should also be available. I do not propose to make any comment on Clause 4, although there are some things that strike me in it, but I do not want to take all the time of the House. Section 5 provides that any lord mayor or mayor or lord provost or provost who is a member of the corporation is to be appointed. Is that necessary? After all, is not the man who is lord mayor or lord provost of a city one of the busiest men in the city council? Is he not a figurehead for many purposes, and why put him on a committee on which he does not want to be? I have served under quite a number of lord mayors, and I have always found that while they are lord mayors they cannot take any interest in any committee, since they have got all the city work to do. Why then rope them in, and why not make the person to be appointed the chairman of the pensions committee or someone of that kind? Subsection (2) of Clause 5 provides for the co-option of as many members as thirteen by the corporation. Is that the local corporation or the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): That refers to the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation.
  Mr. HOGGE: It did not seem to be quite clear.
  Mr. McKENNA: Clause 1, Sub-section (1), refers to the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, "hereinafter referred to as the Corporation."
  Mr. HOGGE: In what I have said I thought it better to put these points than to discuss anything further generally on the Bill. I believe that the sooner we get some body set up and at work the better. There are a great many people in the country whose relatives have been killed in the War to whom a separation allowance is being continued as a pension. These people are very anxious to be put on a satisfactory footing and to get a pension. Then there are a great many people who have been receiving separation allowances as dependants, and they are not sure whether they are entitled to pensions or not. They are still getting a separation allowance. It may be the case of a sister or an aunt or a stepmother to whom the man has made an allotment.
  1840
  I am perfectly certain that the country wants to be satisfied as soon as possible that the Government is looking after the interests of the relatives of our men who have been killed at the front, and therefore I have confined my criticism to what I hope may be found to be helpful to the Committee.
  Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend who has just spoken has, I am sure, in the course of his speech displayed a very wide knowledge of the circumstances of the case which this Bill proposes to meet. If I do not follow him through the various matters which he has mentioned I hope he will understand it is not because I am not anxious to reply immediately to him, but because I do not on the present occasion propose to make a speech at all. On a former occasion, introducing the Report of the Select Committee, I outlined the scheme of the present Bill, and I gathered then that the general opinion of the House was in favour of some scheme of the kind. In speaking on that occasion I told the House that the Select Committee had founded their scheme largely upon the evidence brought before them by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board, who sits next to me. It is quite true that the scheme which he proposed to the Committee was a much-larger one, but the Committee, while seeing a great deal in his larger scheme to recommend it, were unanimously of opinion that at the present time and under present circumstances it would be impossible to get such a large scheme as he proposed set going. The present scheme, therefore, while modelled upon his proposal, does not embody all his ideas, and, indeed, in one or two respects runs rather counter to his proposal. When I spoke on the Report of the Select Committee my right hon. Friend then accepted the modified scheme proposed by the Committee. He was on that occasion sitting opposite, and he then expressed his willingness to assist us in every way in his power, although the scheme was not fully his scheme, in making the then proposals of the Committee a success. I am fortunate enough now to have my right hon. Friend sitting next me on this bench, and in consequence I think it would be most desirable that he should take the more active part in any reply as to the details of this measure. By that arrangement, while allowing the opportunity for some other labours and saving time, the House would

  1841
  have the advantage of being replied to by a Minister with a more detailed knowledge of the work of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation than anybody else. He is vice-president and chairman of the Executive Committee, and as this is a Bill to set up a statutory Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, I am sure the House will agree that it is best to leave the discussion of the details in the right hon. Gentleman's hands, and that course I venture to adopt.
  Colonel YATE: The statutory Committee is to look after the pensions both of officers and men, and two representatives of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association have been appointed on the Committee. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take the question of officers into consideration, and to appoint to this Committee two representatives of the Officers' Families Fund so that they can keep the Committee informed of the present wants and needs of the families of officers? The Officers' Families Fund has had great experience during the South African war and the present War of the special needs and requirements of the families of officers. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will give some special representation on the Committe to that body. There is the further point, and that is, I suggest that some provision should be made in this Bill that the pensions allotted to officers and men, in the event of any further service being required by the State from those officers and men, should not be liable to confiscation, or to consideration of any appointments that are given to those men.
  Mr. DICKINSON: While I think that the subject could not be left in better hands than those of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher), I regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should withdraw from this discussion and not follow criticisms which undoubtedly will be of value I think to him and to the Government with regard to this Bill. I rejoice that this Bill has been brought forward at the present time, and I think it ought to have been brought forward long ago. There are arrears waiting at the War Office which require immediate treatment and which cannot be attended to until this new body is constituted, and even then I can foresee that some time will elapse before that body gets into operation. I notice that the Committee stage is put
  1842
  down to follow immediately on Second Reading. I must press the Government not to take the Committee stage to-day. If they do we shall have no opportunity of putting down Amendments.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: There is no intention of taking the Committee stage to-day, and there never was.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. DICKINSON: I am glad that we shall have the opportunity of putting down Amendments which we require. I do not object to bringing in the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, and I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is, perhaps, the best body to deal with the subject, but I do hope that some means will be found whereby the very important questions that will be decided by this corporation will come under the purview of Parliament. We never had a problem of such magnitude before to deal with, and I think it is regrettable that the whole of the administration of pensions under this Bill is going to be withdrawn from this House and handed over entirely to the statutory Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. I rather wish to refer to one particular branch of this question. It is one with which I have been intimately connected, because for the last few weeks I have acted as chairman of a Committee set up by the War Office for the purpose of adjudicating on questions of separation allowances to be made to dependants. The question of separation allowances and pensions to dependants is a much more difficult question than that of allowances to wives or pensions to widows. Wives have a definite amount allowed to them, and widows are to have a fixed amount, subject to a certain latitude given to the Royal Patriotic Fund to increase the amount in suitable cases. Allowances and pensions to dependants hang upon totally different considerations. Every case has to be considered on its merits, and no one except those who have been engaged in this particular work can realise the difficulties of fixing the amount which represents the proper compensation for dependants.
  I do not know whether Members realise the actual problem which presents itself in regard to dependants. We have not only to give separation allowances to dependants, but we have to decide what amount will put the family in approximately the same degree of comfort that they were in before. I will give a simple

  1843
  illustration to show how difficult a question this is. Suppose you have a family of four people where the soldier has been paying into the common stock 15s. per week. Suppose that that family, by reason of the earning capacity of the other members, has had a total income of 60s. a week. That brings out an average of 15s. a head. Therefore, as the soldier had been bringing in 15s., the dependants' allowance would probably be nothing, or near to nothing. The mother would get nothing because the man would be supposed to have been consuming to the extent of 15s. and bringing in the same amount. Now take the case of a poorer family, in which the soldier's contribution has been 15s. and there is another contribution of 10s., making a total of 25s. In order to place that family in the same degree of comfort, you have to realise that the man was actually contributing something to the maintenance of the rest of the family. As a rule, we should find that particular case would be assessed at 8s. or 9s. a week. There you have two instances, showing the immense difficulty of settling not only what the dependants should have as separation allowances, but what should be given when it comes to a question of pensions, because in the one case the mother would get no pension, and in the other she would get a pension based on the particular sum of 8s. or 9s. That is only typical of thousands of cases occurring all over the country every day, which have to be adjudicated upon by the various pension officers or committees.
  That does not exhaust the question of how dependants' separation allowances are to be turned into dependants' pensions, because a widow may very properly be given 10s. a week for life by reason of her husband's death, but when a son dies it does not at all follow that you are entitled to give the mother a pension equivalent in amount to the separation allowance. A mother expects her son to marry, and to go out into life. There would be no justice in giving a pension equivalent to the amount allotted as separation allowance. The House will realise that it is a question not only of mothers, but of fathers, brothers and sisters. All these people are now receiving separation allowances upon a system laid down by Parliament, namely, that they shall be put into a position of approximately the same degree of comfort as that in which they were before the man
  1844
  went to the War. All these people ought to stand in a totally different position when it comes to a question of pension. What I find in the Bill is that the Government have absolutely shirked this question. It has been shirked all along, until at the present moment it has disappeared altogether. In their first Report, paragraph 13, the Select Committee state:—
  "Pensions to dependants cannot be settled by fixed rules, but must, to a large extent, be dealt with on the merits of each individual case. We propose that some body, either an existing organisation, reorganised and strengthened, or a new body to be specially created for the purpose, should have discretion to frame schemes for pensions or grants to dependants on the expiration of the twenty-six weeks allowance from the notification of death. The general aim of such a scheme should be to secure to the dependants, so far as may be possible, approximately the benefit they receive from the deceased sailor or soldier during his lifetime, subject to the proviso that the amount awarded shall not, in the case of any dependant, exceed the amount of a widow's pension."
  That was the line of suggestion, which, as I have already said, I think, was mistaken. When the matter came to be considered on a second occasion, all that was reported is in paragraph four of the second Report, where it is stated the functions of the statutory Committee should be mainly as follows:—
  "First, to decide questions of fact, in regard to pensions payable out of public funds to dependants other than wives and children. The scale of payment to such dependants will be determined by the finding of the Committee, and the payment itself will be made, as in the case of separation allowances and all other pensions payable out of funds provided by the State, direct by the naval and military authorities."
  That points out, first of all, that the decision of questions of fact in regard to pensions would be one of the functions of the statutory Committee, and that the scale of payment to such dependants would be determined by the finding of the Committee. As far as I am able to understand, the Bill only refers to this question of dependants in Clause 3, Sub-section (1) (a), where it is stated that
  "the functions of the statutory Committee shall be to decide any question of fact on the determination of which the amount of a pension or grant payable out of public funds to a dependant other than a widow or child may depend."
  The statutory Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund will decide questions of fact upon which the determination of the amount of pensions rests—that is to say, questions of fact as to what relation existed between the man and his family, the amount of money that he contributed, and so forth. But the real question which lies at the root of it all, namely, upon what

  1845
  basis, or upon what scale these pensions are going to be settled for all time, as far as I can see, is not referred to in the Bill. We are no further forward at all, so far as I understand the Bill. I may be wrong. The Secretary to the Admiralty (Dr. Macnamara) indicates that I am right. If I am right, this very difficult question of the system upon which these pensions are to be based, is left to nobody, or else to the Government, or to the Departments to settle without any reference to Parliament If that is so, the whole question of the granting of pensions upon a totally new system, a system not known in this country, or, I believe, in any part of the world, a system under which pensions are to be paid to relations who are not widows or children, is going to be left entirely to the War Office and the Admiralty to decide. I submit that that is not at all the right course to adopt in relation to a financial matter of any magnitude, least of all to one of the magnitude which this will undoubtedly be, because we shall be dealing with claims involving hundreds of thousands of pounds
  Clause 2 deals with the constitution of local committees. My experience of this work is, that you are bound to have local committees of some kind; but they must be very closely supervised by a central authority The system will be satisfactory or not according as it is administered on some uniform principle all over the country. You will not have the same figures, but you must have the same uniform system; and you cannot get that uniform system unless the arrangements made are subject to the supervision, and the very close supervision, of some central authority. I do not know why—I think some good reason ought to be given—the old age pensions committees are being absolutely ignored. I have seen a good deal of the results of their work. Many of the committees certainly have devoted an immense amount of time and responsible attention to their duties; others, I can only say, have not. From many parts of the country, I quite agree, we have had most ridiculous proposals. But these committees certainly have experience, and they know what they are about. Under this Bill—if I may speak specially of London—there are to be new committees appointed by the borough councils. I think it is a mistake. In London the pensions committee is a committee of the whole county. It is undoubtedly a great deal of experience. My right
  1846
  hon. Friend (Mr. Hayes Fisher) knows its work much better than I do, because he has been in touch with it on the county council recently, since I left that body. As far as I have been able to see its work in connection with the particular branch in which I have been interested lately, it has given a great deal of attention to the subject, and has dealt with this difficult question with great ability. Perhaps the most difficult work of any in the Kingdom is the work that they are doing in London, where the circumstances of individuals are so difficult to ascertain.
  I certainly think, if you are going to have a committee in London, it should be one committee for the whole county. I do not think you gain anything by having committees of the borough councils. I quite agree that you get more local knowledge, but it is not so much local knowledge that you want. You want a knowledge of London life, and you want the work to be systematised. I do not think you will systematise it if you hand it over to various committees formed by the borough councils. I have no doubt my right hon. Friend will have some arguments to put forward in favour of that particular proposal. I merely suggest that in my opinion it is a mistake, and I hope that it may be reconsidered before the Committee stage. Those are the only points of importance which occur to me. We have only had the Bill in our hands this morning, and it is difficult to form an opinion as to how it will operate in detail. As I have already said, I warmly welcome it, now that it has at last appeared, and I hope it will be passed into law. I only ask that when we get to the Committee stage the Government will consider any proposals for improvements in detail which may be put forward by Members in different parts of the House.
  Mr. HOHLER: I confess to a great disappointment in this Bill. So far as I can see, the only people who are going to get money out of the Bill are the chairman and vice-chairman to be appointed. I am not going to discuss public bodies or the form of them. They may or may not be improved upon. Speaking generally, I have great confidence in their desire and endeavour to do justice; therefore I do not propose to say a word about them. But I turn to Clause 3, which is really the only important Section, in my view, of this Bill. This Clause gives the powers and states the functions of the

  1847
  statutory Committee, which, I note, is to be constituted a statutory Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. I put to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury a question on this point only a few days ago. I asked him, in relation to a man who had lost both a leg and an arm, and who was then receiving 1s. per day, when he had his proper pension. The Financial Secretary answered me that nothing could be done until effect was given to the recommendations of the Committee.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): He is being paid under the old scale, and he will get payment under the new scale as from March 1st.
  Mr. HOHLER: The Financial Secretary is speaking a little too soon. He said that nothing could be done as to the man's pension until effect had been given to this Bill and the statutory Committee appointed.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: In relation to the new scale.
  Mr. HOHLER: Clause 3, Sub-section (1), paragraph (a), of the Bill contains the only functions, so far as I can see, of importance that will be given to the statutory Committee—that is
  "(a) To decide any question of fact on the determination of which the amount of a pension or grant payable out of public funds to a dependant, other than a widow or a child, may depend."
  That is the only function that I can find in this Bill given to the statutory Committee, which is to be set up by the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. Observe, it does not deal with the case of wounded men. It does not deal with the case of the widow or child. They are specially excepted. It only gives it a function in regard to the amount which is payable to the dependant. Before we get to that point the condition on which the amount is payable is to be determined cither by the Admiralty or the Army Council. That is to say, supposing there is a dependant; before he can come before this Committee at all, the Admiralty have to decide the precedent conditions, and whether or not he is entitled to a pension of any sort or kind All then that the statutory Committee have to do is to determine the amount.
  1848
  If, in fact, the Admiralty or the Army Council refuses to grant it, then the man can never come before the statutory Committee to allow them to review the decision. All he can come for to the statutory Committee under this Bill is simply the question of amount, while the whole importance of the matter to the dependant is to ascertain the right to the pension, and not for the moment so much the question of the amount. Look at the rest of this Clause. The statutory Committee do not get a halfpenny from the Crown. Look at what paragraph (b) sets out. It provides that they may frame regulations for supplementary grants, but not out of public funds. If the statutory Committee frame regulations, and say, we think that such and such increased grants should be given, they will find—on reading later Sub-sections—as I will point out in a moment—that they have to provide that increase either out of funds given by the charitable, or I should prefer to say, the benevolent, public; otherwise the Bill is waste paper. Paragraph (b) says:—
  "(b) To frame a scale of supplementary grants in cases where, owing to the exceptional circumstances of the case, the pension or grant or separation allowance payable out of public funds seems to the Committee to be inadequate."
  So you see public funds are necessary before supplementary grants can be given. The statutory Committee may say that they think that pensioners ought to have more. They will then have to turn round and say, "We have nothing to pay." It is illusory. Again, there is the important question of the aftermath of this War, when people begin to forget about it and the feeling of doing our duty to our soldiers and sailors is not so apparent as it ought to be. How then are these supplementary grants to be got? The Sub-section simply introduces words with a view to co-ordinating or giving one rule throughout the country for the amount of supplementary allowances, Paragraph (c) says:—
  "(c) Out of funds at their disposal (this particular branch of the Patriotic Corporation) shall supplement pensions and grants and separation allowances payable out of public funds so, however, that no such supplementary grant shall be made except in accordance with such scale as aforesaid."

  1849
  Various powers, I say, are given under paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d), but if the benevolent public come in and subscribe money for the benefit of certain pensioners, the trustees of that money do not want Parliamentary powers to distribute it! They can do it without the assent of this House, and the Courts of Chancery will keep them in order if they break their trust. What need they come to Parliament for? All this Bill provides is the endowment of the chairman and the vice-chairman under a certain Clause, and this Bill, in my view, in regard to the future and the unfortunate necessity with which we have to deal, is purely waste paper, and the most distasteful Bill I have ever seen presented to Parliament. Let us go to the next Clause:—
  "(d) Out of funds at their disposal, to make grants in cases where no separation allowance or pensions are payable out of public funds."
  The assent of the Government is not necessary to do that! Where is the money to come from? All the Government are providing for is pay for the chairman and the vice-chairman, and very likely, for all I know, they will be political appointments. Next we find
  "(e) To decide, in any particular case, whether any pension or grant or separation allowance has, under the regulations subject to which it was granted, become forfeited."
  The Bill begins with this provision, to "make better provision for pensions, grants, and allowances made in respect of the present War to officers and men in the Naval and Military Service, and their dependants," and so on. All this statutory Committee can do in this case is to decide whether or not a pension becomes forfeited! I think that is a great injustice. When a man has earned his pension the pension should not be taken from him. He has earned it, and he is entitled to it. The result of this sort of provision is that you see a man who has fought for his country standing in the criminal dock and treated more severely than would be a man in civil life under similar conditions. Offences against the law may involve the loss of the pension on conviction. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that we have approved of a generous scale of pension. Of course we did, but I would remind the House that my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher)—whom I congratulate on his appointment as Parliamentary Secretary to
  1850
  the Local Government Board—was strong on several of these points, and I hope he may explain why they do not appear in this Bill. I protest that a man who has earned his pension is entitled to it. It ought not to be forfeited. I submit that it is a grossly improper thing, and we are precluded from discussing it. The issue in some of these matters will be confused with some question about illegitimate children, or some silly point of that kind. [Laughter.] Well, say, some unimportant point. We are told in
  "(g) To determine any other questions in relation to pensions or grants or separation allowances which may be referred to the Committee by the Admiralty or the Army Council."
  To whom will the Admiralty refer, I should like to know? They will consult the Treasury, and the Treasury will say, "That is our decision; there is nothing to refer to." The next paragraph says:—
  "(h) To administer any funds which may be placed at the disposal of the Committee by the Corporation or by local committees.…"
  You may have some funds given to the Committee for benevolent purposes in connection with the Army and Navy, or the Patriotic Corporation may delegate to the Committee the distribution of certain funds which they have already in hand. But I suppose the Patriotic Corporation can do that just as well without coming to Parliament. Note again
  "(i) To make provision for the case of disabled officers and men after they have left the Service, including provision for their health, training, and employment."
  I wonder how that is done without money? They have not got a brass farthing. The whole Bill is a sham and a humbug There is nothing in it from first to last as to how the statutory Committee can make that provision. There is a recommendation in the Report in respect to the desirability of the employment of disabled soldiers and sailors in public offices, so far as they are suitable for that employment. That is most desirable I am satisfied that no Bill will be satisfactory that does not take over the whole control and right to make these appointments; that ought not to be made by the patronage, or right, or privilege of particular persons. We have got to deal with a crisis such as the country has never known, and with wounded men, the like of which we have never seen, or

  1851
  probably any country has ever seen. These matters ought to be taken over and ought to be given to this or some body to deal with them—to deal with all appointments in the Police Courts, County Courts, High Courts, Government offices, the Post Office, and other similar appointments for which wounded and disabled men would be suitable, and which they ought to have. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board and the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty what are they proposing to do in this matter? Where the public come forward and contribute money for these purposes you do not want to come to Parliament for any assistance, or pay a chairman or vice-chairman for the purpose. The public can form and run a trust without the intervention of Parliament. The statutory Committee may refer a matter to the local committee. That is in the Bill. And you are going to pay a chairman and vice-chairman out of public funds at a time when everybody is crying out "economy," and this for a Committee which, in my judgment, has got no powers whatsoever worthy of the name. You are going to flood the country with a series of local committees to do, what?—to give out funds at their disposal. Where are those funds to come from?
  Another point, I remember well, was raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, and that was in relation to death after seven years. Why that limitation? Quite recently we had a case, which I communicated to the Admiralty, where the poor fellow was seriously injured, I think, by a boiler explosion. He lingered for seven years and a week or two. His widow could not get a halfpenny, though he might have died at any time during that seven years. If a man dies of injuries or wounds, at any time, that have been caused by the War we ought to give his dependants the pension whenever he dies. Another question that arises in regard to the pension is that there are a great number of men who suffer and who will suffer in this War from having volunteered to serve under the terrible conditions that prevail and have prevailed. Old illnesses and old weaknesses will break out again. These men may be suffering from bad chests which may end in consumption. Under your pension scheme, in a matter which it is important to discuss, but which we get no opportunity of discussing, they cannot get
  1852
  a halfpenny unless it is certified by a doctor that the disease is contracted while on active service. You are excluding by these words a great number of men who have volunteered and gone up for training. I know, myself, the case of a young fellow who has never been on active service at the front, but whose leg was broken in obeying an order of the sergeant instructing him. He has been incapacitated for three months and may suffer for life, and he will not get a halfpenny under your scheme.
  This Bill, I submit, is a most unsatisfactory Bill to deal with a great subject. All this machinery is quite unnecessary. The only power conferred is a power to deal with the amount of the pension or grant payable out of public funds for a dependant, other than a widow or child. I therefore submit that this should be entirely refrained and measures taken to introduce a just basis for the grant of pensions for these men for all time; that it ought to be controlled by Parliament and not by the Departments, either the Admiralty or the Army Council, but that now, when we are in the mood, when we appreciate the services that have been rendered to us, we should do justice to these men by securing to them that to which they are justly entitled. I would further remind those representing the Army and those representing the Admiralty that, in so far as it is suggested that they are waiting for this Bill to pay pensions, it is quite incorrect. There is nothing under this Bill which enables them to pay any pension of any sort or kind. Therefore you are hanging up these pensions, which are payable to those who have been barely existing for months, and I say it is a hollow sham and a farce.
  Mr. ANDERSON: Members in all parts of the House will agree, at any rate, that there is need for machinery, and that machinery ought to be set up at the earliest possible moment. There will be no doubt as to that, and I believe Members in all parts of the House want to avoid overlapping in this question and to secure co-ordination. There has been far too much overlapping, and I believe that is largely responsible for the dissatisfaction that exists, and rightly exists, among large numbers of dependants of our soldiers and sailors. Therefore we start there at least on common ground. But for my part I should very much have preferred this statutory Committee to have been a Committee in some way appointed

  1853
  by the House of Commons, and directly responsible to the House of Commons, having public money behind it. In our treatment of soldiers and sailors in the past and to-day there has been, and is, far too much the element of charity. It is made to appear that they have not in some way earned what we are going to give them, and that "if you act in some way we will give it to you, but if you do not we will not give it to you." We have to say what these men have earned, that they have the right and shall receive payment, and that the element of charity shall be eliminated altogether. That is not going to be done under this Bill.
  I want to ask, when this new statutory Committee is set up, what measure of Parliamentary control are we going to have over the administration? That is a point I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman will tackle when he comes to reply, because it is highly important that the whole administration of matters dealing with soldiers and sailors, their widows and dependants, should not pass out of the control of this House, and that those who are wrongly done by should have a right to appeal to some Member of this House, who perhaps represents their constituency, or in some way so that the matter can be brought forward and put right. I want to ask what measure of Parliamentary control we are going to retain under this Bill? When I come to look at the people who are going to constitute this Committee—I am not speaking of individuals, who are not named—but when I see how they are going to be appointed, one by the Treasury, one by the Admiralty, one by the Army Council, one by the Local Government Board, one by the Local Government Board for Scotland, one by the Local Government Board for Ireland, and so on, I begin to ask myself, Are we going by these means to get rid of the official and red-tape methods which in the past have done so much harm and caused so much delay? Where is the money to come from?
  I see that two members of this statutory Committee are to be appointed by the governing body of the National Relief Fund. Now why is it that two members from the National Relief Fund are going to be elected to this Committee? Is it because it is expected that a large part of the money that is going to be used for this purpose is to be taken from the National Relief Fund? Is that the idea? If it is, I want to ask: Here is a great
  1854
  national fund amounting to between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000, organised by public subscription for the purpose of relieving distress during and consequent on the War, and how much of that money is going to be taken to do work which the nation ought to do, and of the responsibility of which the nation ought not to rid itself? How much of this money is going to be used for the purpose of getting rid of national responsibility? In this respect I would say that a large number of the people who have subscribed, and very generously subscribed, to the National Relief Fund, have done so under the conviction that the money was going to be used for distress arising out of the War, but was not going to be used to get rid of our proper obligations as a nation. I would point out that if, happily, there has been far less economic distress than was anticipated—and we are all glad of that—we know there is less economic distress at this moment because of the organisation of the New Army, and because of the activity inside the zone of Army contracts; but, after the War, there may be a very acute outbreak of civil distress. We have a right to ask in the meantime, Is the nation going to appropriate the whole of this National Relief Fund, or a large part of it, for military purposes, and when there comes the civil distress that may follow the War, are we then going to find that the money is gone? That, at any rate, is a very important point, and it is a point I want the right hon. Gentleman to meet. I want him also to tell me what is going to be the relation between this new statutory Committee and the National Relief Fund.
  I agree with the hon. Member for East Edinburgh that there ought to be more women upon any committee that is appointed. Here is a Committee of twenty-six members and you propose that women shall have four places. In view of the fact that you are dealing practically entirely with women and children throughout the country, women ought to have far more than four places guaranteed to them on a committee of that sort, and it ought to be definitely established that the working people of the country are to have adequate representation. After all, you are dealing very largely with a matter of working-class homes, and there is absolutely no guarantee that you are going to have a single working-class representative placed on the Committee.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: It is in the Committee's recommendation.
  Mr. ANDERSON: It is not guaranteed in this Bill that there will be a single working-class representative, and I say the great trade union organisations ought to have a right to see that the interests of their people are properly protected on a Committee of this sort. You give a statutory right to the War Office, Local Government Board, and so on, and I do urge that the working-class organisation ought to have the same power. This Committee is to have very wide powers and very wide functions. There is at present a very large amount of dissatisfaction, as is well known to Members who have taken an interest in this matter, amongst the dependants because their claims are being delayed. I am quite sure other Members have the same experience as I have of receiving scores of letters, and, although I always get consideration and courtesy, and when the matter comes before the representatives of the War Office, both the present Financial Secretary and his predecessor, I have nothing of which to complain, but there is something wrong with the machinery behind them. The latest thing that has happened is that newspapers are beginning to give the names of individual Members of Parliament. I am receiving shoals of letters from people, especially mothers, who have been kept out of money for two or three months or more. There is, therefore, need for very prompt dealing and for very fair dealing with this matter. That is all we are appealing for. We want a Committee that is going to do that. We do not very much care about the exact method of the Committee, so long as it is going to do this work in the right spirit. It is only because I am doubtful on these points that I would like to see the Committee made in some way more democratic by getting rid of some of the red tape, and enabled to carry out its work in the best interests of those who are now fighting the nation's battle and of those dependent on them at home.
  Sir CHARLES NICHOLSON: I find myself entirely in agreement with what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and also the hon. Member on the other side. It seems to me this Bill is entirely inadequate to meet the purpose for which it should be intended. The only power that this Committee is to have is to decide a question of fact as to what is the allowance to be given to
  1856
  a dependant. We have settled already what are the pensions to be given to widows and orphans, and we have this one question left to be decided—as to what is to be the allowance to be given to a dependant. I should have thought that surely it would be unwise at this time to overburden the War Office and the Admiralty with such an enormous question as this will be, to settle the amount to be given to dependants in these cases. What is going to happen? So far as this House is concerned, I should think the House will be flooded every day by questions put down by individual Members as to hardships arising in their constituencies—why Mrs. A gets 3s. 6d., while Mrs. B gets 4s., and matters of that sort. The Financial Secretary will be asked how he discriminates between these two cases. Surely it would be wise, simple, and much more easy to set up your statutory Committee and to give them power of deciding what is to be the amount to be given in each case of dependants.
  I entirely agree with what has fallen from the hon. Member for East Edinburgh on the subject of women. I think we want a great many more women on these Committees, both on the central body and also on the local bodies. As the hon. Member speaking from the Labour Benches said, we are going to deal with questions of working-class homes and women and children, and it is essential that a much bigger representation should be given to women on all these Committees. I must also say the sooner we get to work the better. The delay in giving these pensions to people, and the uncertainty as to the continuance of separation allowance and pensions, is very hard lines upon them indeed. I also wish to express my agreement with the hon. Member who spoke last on the question of the National Relief Fund, for it seems to me entirely wrong to take the money away from the purpose for which it was originally contributed, and devote it to purposes which ought to be a charge upon national funds. With regard to what has been said about separation allowances, I thought we had settled all those questions, or, at any rate I know that there is machinery in existence by which they are being dealt with, and those entitled to separation allowances are not going without their money because they are being provided for by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association. I should have thought it would have been wise to confine this Bill entirely to the

  1857
  question of pensions without complicating it with separation allowance, the machinery for which has already been set up. May I also point out that these separation allowances are going to come to an end directly the War is over, and therefore there is no necessity to set up an elaborate organisation to deal with them, whereas the pensions will have to be continued in the future.
  May I suggest what I really think ought to be done in this matter? I believe this Bill is entirely inadequate to meet the necessities of the case. We have settled the pensions in the case of widows and orphans and disablement allowances, and we are now settling what are to be the pensions to be granted to dependants. That is all very well so far as charge upon public funds are concerned, but it does not nearly meet the sort of demand which the nation is going to make in the long run, and there should be a sort of clearing house which can give full information as to what is going on in any particular case. An hon. Member has already pointed out the danger of overlapping, and it is a great danger because there is any amount of fraud going on. I know of a case recently where a woman was drawing three separation allowances at one time, and those who read the newspapers will have seen the account of a gentleman who posed as the holder of a Victoria Cross, and who has been living at other people's expense in North Wales and other places, but who is now, I am happy to say, spending his time in prison. There should be some method by which the general public may be able to obtain knowledge of what is done in a particular case, and if something of the kind is not done, confusion will be very much worse I should like this Statutory Committee made the nucleus through which everything is going to be paid. They should deal with all pensions to widows and orphans and allowances from Chelsea and Greenwich, and also the pensions that will be settled by the Statutory Committee. We should then know exactly what has been done in each case out of public funds, and the soldier and sailor would then know that there is one office to go to where all his legal claims can be settled. The necessity for this will be apparent when I point out that the Committee for the county of Staffordshire deals with cases from Hampshire. Does it not seem ridiculous that a man whose home is in Hampshire and who has anything wrong with his
  1858
  claim should be compelled to go the whole way to Lichfield. Why should this not be done through a county committee set up by this Bill and a central organisation like the Statutory Committee.
  I think that is a very necessary thing from the soldiers and sailors' point of view. We all know that the public is going to contribute large sums of money after the War is over, and every charity organisation will want to know what is being done in all these cases. Take, for example, the regimental funds of every regiment. People will be perfectly ready to contribute to those funds, but those in charge of them will want to know what amount each case is drawing, and if you have a central organisation you will get your information at once. I had an application from my Constituency from the War Relief Committee of the Miners' Organisation, and they brought before my notice the case of a man who had had his hand seriously damaged in the War, so much so that he will never be able again to earn any money in the mine. His allowance was 14s. a week, whereas before he had been able to earn £3 or £4 a week. He has a wife and three children and therefore 14s. is absolutely poverty to these people. To whom should that man apply? If we had this Statutory Committee set up with a central organisation at work it would have been very simple to deal with this case, but there is no central organisation at present to whom application can be made in those cases.
  I will give another example. I happened to be acting as a member of the Board of Control for Regimental Institutes at the present time, and we are accumulating much money which the military members of my board have decided to bank for the benefit of soldiers after the War. When the War is over this board is not competent to decide as to which are proper cases for assistance; but if there is a central organisation dealing with all these cases as they come round they can come to us and say, "We have a certain case which we recommend to you and our board will be perfectly willing to assist, but we must have advice because our business is managing canteens and not distributing money." The organisation of which I am speaking is now making arrangements in France in regard to canteens, but you cannot expect the Army Council to inquire which are deserving cases, and you must put at their disposal the information to be obtained from the

  1859
  central body upon whom they can rely. It seems to me that the most important thing is to set up a central organisation, and I see no reason why this statutory Committee which is proposed by this Bill should not form the nucleus of such a Committee. If that is done we shall be able to stop a great deal of confusion and overlapping, which is bound to occur unless some such step as I suggest is taken. While I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Hohler) in saying that this Bill as it stands is entirely illusory and very little good at all, I think it may be made the basis upon which a much better organisation may be founded. I hope the Government will reconsider the Bill as it stands and decide to introduce alterations which will bring about the change I have suggested.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I have listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for Doncaster (Sir C. Nicholson), and I think that what he suggested in his closing references ought to receive very careful consideration. In order that there should be no misunderstanding I wish to turn to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham, who, I think unintentionally, gave a wrong impression as to what is being done now for these poor people. I think the hon. and learned Member quite misconceived the purpose of this Bill. Undoubtedly he seemed to me to give the impression that we were doing nothing like the amount we ought to do for the soldier, the widow and orphan, and the children. However true that may have been in the past, it is no longer true to-day.
  Mr. HOHLER: What I say is that this Bill does nothing in that direction, and it gives us no opportunity of ameliorating the conditions of which I have complained.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I think my hon. and learned Friend misconceives the purport of this Bill. It is not true—and I do not think I should be standing here if it were true—that we are acting in a niggardly way in regard to those who are serving their country and those whom they may have left behind. The provision made by the State to-day is, broadly speaking, out of all proportion to the provision made in the past. I was born amongst these people and brought up with them, and I know from experience that there is nothing like the provision we are
  1860
  making in any naval or military provision on the Continent of Europe. I think that ought to be made perfectly clear, so that there should be no misunderstanding. This is not the desire of any particular party, but it is the common effort of all parties since the War began. Take separation allowances. Before this War only the soldier's wife who was separated from her husband and married on the strength was entitled to separation allowance. On 3rd August there were 16,000 soldiers married on the strength and 1,100 separated from their husbands, and the number of separation allowances was slightly over 1,000. I do not think it would be wise for me to give any indication of the number of separation allowances paid to soldiers' wives to-day, but my hon. And learned Friend knows that in the case of every soldier's wife separated from her husband there is no question of married on the strength, and, instead of there being 1,100 cases which was the number on 3rd August, the hon. and learned Member can multiply that a good many times before he reaches the total to-day.
  6.0 P.M.
  May I also point out that the sailor had no separation allowance prior to the 1st October last, and the provision which has since been made for dependants, and the father, mother, and sister, is entirely new and has never before formed any part of our Army or Navy provision prior to this War. Take the case of the widow. Before the War the provision was 5s. to the widow and 1s. 6d. for each child, and only those widows who when they were married were married on the strength, and that is a very important fact, were entitled to this 5s. What was the result? I see that in the financial year 1903–4 the number of widows on the Boer War Pension Fund was about 3,000. There was a patriotic fund, ably presided over by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Hayes Fisher), which rendered assistance over and above the State provision, but, so far as the State provision is concerned, it was 5s. for the widow and 1s. 6d. for each child, and only widows who were married on the strength when the husband was alive received the pension. The cost, including that of orphans, was about £64,000. That was the provision on the Estimates. In the financial year 1914–15 the figures for both the Army and Navy were, I think, £43,000, to provide for 2,000 widows at 5s. each and for the children at 1s. 6d. each. The hon. and learned Member knows that the present scale is out of all proportion to

  1861
  that, and I think we are entitled to correct the idea, if it obtains, though I do not think it is intentional, that we are not making adequate allowance.
  Mr. HOHLER: I never said so. You are answering criticisms which I never made.
  Dr MACNAMARA: I listened carefully to the hon. and learned Member, and that was the impression his speech made upon me. "This Bill was a humbug." [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, it was as bad a Bill as he had ever seen in his life. I am afraid it might be assumed from those comments that we are not doing all we ought to do for these poor people. This is a matter which is very close and dear to me, as it is to all Members of the House. The hon. Member knows that the widow of the lowest rank gets 10s. a week, increased to 12s. 6d. a week at thirty-five and to 15s. at forty-five, and that so far from it being 1s. 6d. for each child the first gets 5s., the second 3s. 6d., and each succeeding child 2s. The provision for children by the State since this War commenced has been on a scale altogether out of proportion to the provision made in the past. I will take the case of a disabled soldier. I listened very closely to the hon. and learned Member. He gave the case of a soldier with a broken leg. I will take the case of a soldier or a sailor totally disabled, and total disablement is held to include a man who has lost two legs or is totally blind. He gets 25s. per week and 2s. 6d. for each child under this new scale.
  Mr. HOHLER: What is the meaning of the words "on active service"? That is the real point. This fellow was injured whilst training to become a soldier. Is that active service?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say what is the administration of the War Office. I can speak for the Admiralty, and had my hon. and learned Friend given the case of a sailor I would have done my best to have told him exactly all the facts. The partially disabled soldier or sailor gets such a sum which, together with the amount he is capable of earning, will make 25s., and a sum up to 2s. 6d., though not necessarily 2s. 6d., for each child. The provision made for disabled soldiers or sailors, either totally or partially, is an advance on the past. That is quite true. I will take the point which I think was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for
  1862
  North St. Pencras (Mr. Dickinson) that the thing has been rather held up, and that we have not gone on with these pensions. The idea might get into some people's minds that we thought that they could be left with nothing, and that we were not doing all that we should do. There is some misapprehension there. So far as the Navy is concerned, and I have not the slightest doubt that the same is true of the War Office, everyone knows that separation allowances have been duly paid.
  Mr. HOGGE: With exceptions.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Well, there may have been difficulties, but every endeavour has been made to make these payments as promptly as possible. It is not the case that men who come home broken are getting nothing at all. They are getting provision under the old scale, and they will get their allowance under the new scale as from 1st March with arrears when we receive the Treasury sanction. I believe that we have now received the sanction of the Treasury and that payments under the new scale can be made forthwith with arrears from 1st March.
  Mr. HOGGE: The Army Order has been published.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend who follows this matter says that the War Office Order has been issued. The new scheme for disablement allowances has received the Treasury sanction, and they will be paid with arrears from 1st March. Do not let it be imagined that these men have been kept out of payments at all. They have received payments under the old scale. An hon. Gentleman opposite referred to officers. We have submitted schemes for officers' widows' pensions to the Select Committee. The same thing is true there, and also of officers' disablement pensions. We have submitted schemes to them, but until we receive Treasury sanction we cannot pay on the higher scale. They are, of course, getting payments on the old scale. The hon. Member for North St. Pancras is very anxious to know what has become of other dependant relatives. The separation allowance, as every hon. Member knows, continues, in case of death, for twenty-six weeks. We have gone on continuing beyond the twenty-six weeks in certain cases. I have not the slightest doubt that the sum of money which they will receive as the result of that policy may be more

  1863
  in some cases than the pensions which will be awarded. Do not let anybody imagine that we have left anybody without provision. We could not do it under any circumstances. The provision for other dependant relatives, father and mother, who have received separation allowances has been continued in the case of death for twenty-six weeks, and we are waiting, I admit, for this Clause 3, paragraph (a), which places upon the statutory Committee the duty
  "to decide any question of fact on the determination of which the amount of a pension or Grant payable out of public funds to a dependant, other than a widow or child, may depend."
  We shall wait for them to determine the question of fact, and then we shall pay to dependants other than widows and children whatever is due to them, or whatever is recommended upon a scale which we, the War Office and the Admiralty, shall prepare. The point made by the hon. Member for North St. Pancras is a fair one. He says, "You are going to prepare a scale for these dependants, and nobody is going to know anything about it." I think that it ought to be laid on the Table of the House, and so far as I am concerned, if I have the authority to give that undertaking, I do give it. Under Clause 3, paragraph (a), the Statutory Committee will help us to determine questions of fact with regard to pre-war dependants, and we shall prepare a scale for that particular class. The other scales are in being, except that we are waiting for the new ones in certain cases. These are not in being. They have to be adopted by the Select Committee. It is a fair thing to ask that they should be laid before Parliament. I have said that the officers' widows' pensions, and officers' disablement pensions are before the Select Committee, but we shall go on paying under the old scale until the new ones are adopted. I think that my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Hohler) misconceived the purpose of the. Bill. It is to set up machinery for the purpose of supplementing from funds other than those wholly provided by Parliament the Grant which the State has made to these people, widows, orphans, disabled soldiers, officers, officers' widows, and so on. That is the whole function and purpose of this Bill.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: It does more than that.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am taking the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend. Broadly, that is its purpose. When you discuss this Bill you cannot leave out of purview what is already done by the State. This is supplementary, and my hon. and learned Friend did not seem to sufficiently realise that for the moment. I want to make a comment on the very interesting speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Sir C. Nicholson). He suggested that a public body outside the Admiralty and the War Office, a local body, a civil body, should take over the work in connection with these Army and Navy grants, pensions, and allowances. It is a very common view that the War Office and the Admiralty has so much to do that they are not quite competent to tackle this great and important question upon which so many human issues hang, and that therefore it would be a good thing to take it out of their hands and to have some local authority to make all these payments, both from public funds as well as from supplementary funds. That superficially, I admit, is a very attractive proposal. I may run counter to the popular opinion, but I do think that it is a wrong view. Of course, both Departments go, and ought to go, for advice and assistance outside, and they ought to act upon advice from the locality. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Hohler) knows, though I am not for the moment dealing with any argument which he used, that whenever a large sum of money has had to be paid to some poor person, as in one particular case, I have been only too ready to put to him the question, "What is the best way of administering this in the true interests of this person?" We have always sought advice along those lines. Both Departments certainly should be open at all times to get advice from those who know how best these sums may be administered in the best interests of these poor persons. We have sought that advice, but beyond that I suggest that so far as public money is concerned the responsibility must rest with the Departments who are responsible to this House for the money voted.
  Apart from the Parliamentary or constitutional aspect of the matter, I do not think it should ever be forgotten that after all the Departments have all the detailed records. They have the medical record. They have the story of his promotion from one grade to another; in reality they have all the facts which go

  1865
  to make up the record of his service to the country, and if you were to hand over the administration to some other body, you would not be relieving them in the slightest degree, you would not be giving effect to your desire to do so, because they have too much to do already, but you would simply be duplicating the work. I am quite certain that outside bodies, from whom we are only too glad to get all the advice we can, will not do more justice to particular cases than is done by those who are in the closest detailed touch with the claims of the persons under consideration. If this suggestion is advanced on the grounds that the claimants do not get sufficient consideration, I can only say I have had over seven years at the Admiralty; I am fairly familiar with its administration on this side, and for both the naval and military authorities I claim that they do carry out this administration in a generous and sympathetic manner. They treat their old servants as generously as they possibly can. I am speaking for all connected with my Department, as well as with the War Office—for I feel that I can speak on their behalf as well. I should, personally, feel that the heart would be taken out of my work if I were no longer directly responsible to these poor men and those whom they have left behind.
  Mr. WING: I should like to associate myself with the words of commendation which have been uttered in connection with the production of this Bill, the object of which is to give the civil authority discrimination and supplementary powers. We have heard from various Members as to the advisability of fixed sums, but if you take that view and test how it works, you will find you get just as many anomalies from the system of the fixed sum as you do from almost any other system. For instance, the allowances are now fixed, and anomalies of this kind arise. If a man enlists in the Army, the allotment and the allowance comes to 12s. 6d. a week. If the eon joins, there is another 3s. 6d., but no Government allowance, and the income is therefore 16s. If the father stays at home and two of his sons enlist, it is possible for the return to that house to be 25s., but if a father and his three sons enlist, the total under the present system would be only £1 2s., as against 25s. granted in the case of two sons alone who enlisted. The Clause of this Bill, to which reference has been made, gives a discriminating power to
  1866
  supplement and deal with facts like that, and I believe cases of this description would receive sympathetic consideration at the hands of such a Committee.
  I do not like the idea of the creation of a new Committee in our various districts. The words "old age" could be easily eliminated from the title of the old age pensions committee. You could call it the pensions committee. The work of these committees has been spoken of exceptionally well. No doubt in the rush that occurred at the commencement, there were delays, but they have been gradually overcome. The Committee which dealt with the question of pensions and allowances had before it witnesses who gave evidence in favour of the old age pensions committee. Mr. (Smillie, the President of the Miners' Association of Great Britain, said:—
  "My experience in my own county, is that the pensions committees do their work very satisfactorily."
  Another witness, Mr. Gosling, a member of the London County Council, declared:
  "The pensions committee in London is very satisfactory."
  Further evidence on that point was given by Miss Phillips, who said:—
  "I think the old age pension committees are the best authorities, and their officers are suitable people to see to the payment of these allowances,"
  These committees are in existence. They can, if necessary, be improved upon; and with regard to the possession of facts by the Department, the argument advanced by the Secretary for the Admiralty applies equally to the local committees. They have in their possession all the local facts; they know the history of the various people affected. They are in close touch with them, and I hope when the Under-Secretary gets up to reply we shall have an assurance that we are not to have a new organisation with a number of new officials, but that we shall carry out the idea recommended on every side of the House and use the organisations that already exist rather than create new ones.
  There have been certain difficulties arising in relation to delay in the money being paid. What I feel is this: This Bill seems to me a fulfilment of the Government promise to raise a statutory authority, and I hope we shall do our best, as a House, to give it a very hearty welcome. I hope, too, that the right hon. Gentleman will accept such Amendments as are proposed with a view to making it a real live Committee and a real sound Court of Appeal. I hope, further, it may

  1867
  be kept within the purview of Parliament, that it will not be outside and beyond approach by any Member of this House. What occurs at the present time? An hon. Member writes a letter to a constituent saying, "I will lay your case before the Army Council." And later on he conveys to the man the decision of that body. But the man replies, "Who the deuce is the Army Council?" He sometimes uses more definite, emphatic, and perhaps more vulgar language, but the fact remains that One is unable to tell him who comprise the council. I hope this Committee will not occupy such a position as that. I hope it will be easily approached and that it will become a real help to the country in the work which it will have to do.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I am very pleased indeed that this Bill has been brought forward. The delay in producing it has been a great trial to a very large number of people in the constituencies. This Committee was appointed on 19th November. It presented its first Report on 1st February, and its second Report on 14th April. We are all delighted to welcome the Bill, and I think, by a little improvement, we may be able to so fashion it that it will serve the community much better than it has been served in the past. I do not agree with suggestions which were made by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Sir C. Nicholson), and I agree entirely with the Parliamentary Secretary for the Admiralty that once a Committee is decided upon all the pensions, separation allowances and dependant's allowances should be paid direct from the Department through the Post Office to the people entitled to them. I hold that view very strongly, and I should deprecate any proposal that public money should be paid through local bodies.
  So far as my experience has gone—and I have had a very considerable amount of experience in these matters—and so far as the people themselves are concerned, I can say they are delighted with the two changes—the proposal to pay the money direct through the post office and the arrangement to pay it weekly. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty will no doubt remember that at the beginning of the War I suggested to him that this money should be paid weekly, and I am very glad that that is now to be done. I am certain that the recipients are equally delighted. I trust that nothing whatever will be allowed to disturb that arrangement.
  1868
  There is certainly a misconception about the Bill in the minds of some hon. Members. The Bill is set up for a particular purpose. It does not propose to deal at all with separation allowances. Those allowances were fixed by the first Report of the Committee; the Bill does not propose either to touch the pensions to widows and their children, but it does propose to touch the pensions of others.
  I should like to say with regard to the Central Committee, that, on the whole, in my opinion, its constitution is very satisfactory. It is quite evident from the remarks of the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield (Mr. Anderson) that exception is taken to the Department having six representatives I hold it to be essential there should be departmental representation on the Committee, because it would have to deal with public money, and those representatives ought at least to be parties to any recommendations which might be put forward. There are only six departmental representatives on the Committee of twenty-six; they will therefore be in a minority.
  I should like to support two recommendations made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, both of which, I think, were practical. The first was, that the quorum should be raised. A quorum of five, such as is proposed here, is very small indeed for so large a Committee. Usually it is fixed at one-third of the total body. The other recommendation of the hon. Member in that the whole of the members of this Committee should not go out of office at the same time. I believe in the municipal principle, apart from what is arranged on the London County Council and on the county councils of England. In our municipal bodies one-third go out every year. That is an excellent arrangement, because it ensures a continuity of policy. A matter upon which I wish to ask for information—and it is an important point—has reference to the re-election of the outgoing members. I want to know who is going to re-elect them. Is it to be the council or the corporation? Or is it to be the Crown? Or are they to be elected by the various constituent bodies who appointed them in the first instance? I believe there are ten members to be elected by the Crown. I would like to point out to the hon. Member for Attercliffe that in the Report of the Committee itself it is provided that out of the ten appointed by the Crown two shall be representative of labour. I hope that

  1869
  recommendation will be carried out, although there is nothing about it in the Bill itself. Certain and proper representation should, in my opinion, be given on the Committee to the several component parts of the county—that is to say, that the whole of the central Committee shall not represent London alone, but shall be drawn in part from the provinces. The provinces have subscribed an enormous amount of money to the Prince of Wales' Fund, and as the Committee will have to deal with the distribution of some of that money, it is essential that the provinces should have a certain proportion of representation upon it.
  Four members of the Committee must be ladies. I quite agree that that number ought to be increased, because the work of this Committee will have an important bearing so far as women are concerned. I desire to call attention to another important matter in regard to the powers conferred upon the local committees. I quite agree with the recommendation of my hon. Friend the Member for Hough-ton-le-Spring Division (Mr. Wing) and the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) that the old age pensions committee is the best committee for this purpose. I am not going to destroy this Bill for that reason, but I am going to make a suggestion, which I hope the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will take into consideration. The new local committee is going to advise the central Committee upon the statement of facts with regard to the positions of those whose pensions are to be fixed under this Bill. At the present time the old age pensions committee is dealing with the recommendations to the War Office and the Admiralty as to the allowance in addition to allotment of the sons. They must keep a record of the position of each family. When it comes to fixing the pensions for these dependants it is essential that the same body should deal with both, and that you should not have duplicate bodies in a county. In the county of Durham we have twenty-nine old age pension committees sitting at the present time. To establish another set of committees to deal with these matters would be duplicating the work. The Municipal Corporations Association has made a recommendation on this point. As the administrators of local bodies they strongly recommend that the Government ought to fix for this matter the old age pensions committee, or, at least, that they must give to
  1870
  this Committee the power the old age pensions committee already has in regard to fixing allowances to dependants, otherwise you will have two committees doing practically the same work.
  There is another matter on which I have cause for complaint, namely, the functions of the local committee. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh went through them seriatim, so there is no need for me to discuss them in detail. I am glad to see one member of the Pensions Committee present, because the evidence before that Committee, and I have gone through the whole of it, upon the difficulties of administration in our localities by the War Office has been very faulty. They have not taken that evidence from the localities which they were intended to do in regard to the shortcomings of the administration. There is nothing in this Bill dealing with the difficulties to which I am going to call attention. So far back as November I discussed this matter with Sir Charles Harris at the War Office and laid before him a scheme by which I thought we might overcome some of these difficulties. He, on behalf of the War Office, accepted the suggestion, which was to be embodied in the scheme. The Pensions Committee was then set up, and the War Office informed me that in view of the fact that the administration of the separation allowances was to be referred to that Committee they postponed making an announcement in Parliament with regard to the suggestion that I made. Looking through the evidence, I am sorry to say not a single question was put as to the causes of delay in the payment of separation allowances and dependants' allowances. That is really the crux of the business. Those who are at present in receipt of separation allowances are satisfied if they get their money regularly. It comes through the Post Office, and once it is fixed there is very little trouble. If the dependants' allowances come regularly through the Post Office there is no trouble in connection with them, but, unfortunately, we have a very large number of difficulties with which to contend in our constituencies. I live in my own Constituency, and sometimes on a Saturday I have almost a stream of visitors to see me with regard to difficulties as to the payment of their money. Sir Charles Harris admitted to me that they had in the War Office thousands of letters with which they could not deal—letters asking for separation

  1871
  allowances and letters about the delay in payment of dependants' allowances. They could not deal with them.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): Will the hon. Gentleman say why we could not deal with them?
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: Because many of the letters were lacking in information. I want to pay this compliment to the War Office: I have visited it at least once a week, and sometimes twice a week, in connection with these cases, and I am bound to say that in every case I have taken to them they have dealt with it promptly. Within the last two months the people have received sums of money by this intervention and by taking the correct information. The trouble has been that these poor people have not been accustomed to this kind of thing, and through some error they have not been able to get the separation allowance or dependants' allowance, and they have gone to somebody and asked him to write to the War Office. A letter has been written to the War Office, and, owing to the fact that correct information has not been sent, there has been a long delay, as the result of which the applicant has gone to other people. As I have said, they have come to me in very large numbers, and, as was my duty to do, I have taken their cases to the War Office, who have dealt with them promptly. I do not think there has been a single case which I have taken to the War Office in which the people have not had their money within a very few weeks. I am bound to pay that compliment to the War Office. They admitted to me, long before the present Financial Secretary came into office, that their difficulty was to obtain proper information in order to put the thing into operation. I submitted a scheme to the Pensions Committee, but they did not think fit to adopt it. Under my scheme the people would have the right to go to some local person and to place their case before him. I want to extend that power to this Committee. Within the last two or three months I have been able to obtain for these people arrears, in one case amounting to £5 19s. 6d., and in others to £6 13s. 6d., £2, £4 5s., and £5 17s. 9d. I contend that these cases should not occur. At present they are occurring in every constituency. I do not suppose that the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F.
  1872
  Banbury) has many of these persons living in his constituency, because I believe it is practically vacant during the night and there are very few residents there. If he represented a working-class constituency—
  Mr. W. THORNE: That would be impossible.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: Or if he represented Peckham, as he used to do, he would have the same experience as I have had.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I hope I should be as successful.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I found at the War Office that they had a system, so far as London is concerned, which is the same as I had advocated for the provinces. I found that they had a staff of men, that scores of women were attending every day asking for separation allowances and so on, and that these particular clerks attended to these special cases at once. The women came from all parts of London. People in London can do that, but the people in the provinces cannot come to the War Office in London; therefore, they must move through their representatives. I would ask the hon. Member in charge of the Bill if he is prepared to adopt what I now suggest, namely, that the local committee should have its powers extended so that, in addition to advising the Central Committee on certain matters within the confines of the Bill, in all cases where a person desires to make a claim and there is delay, the person should have the right to go to the local committee. In the case of separation allowance and allotments, where there is difficulty or delay in connection with the payment, the person should have the right to go to the local committee to state the fact that the separation allowance and allotment is not forthcoming, and that the clerk in the office of the Committee should write to the War Office and place the facts before them. My second suggestion is that it is the same with dependants. I think that is done now in the case of Birmingham, where there is the Citizens' Committee, which is really one of the best committees in the country, and where I believe there is very little trouble, because it is taken up by public spirited men and women and where the persons who make these claims have the right of appearing before the committee. I would apply the same principle to dependants, that where there is delay

  1873
  they should make their case known to the Committee. In the third place, I would give the right to every man who comes back from the War, that is the soldier or the officer, as this Committee will have to deal with officers, and where he is disabled, totally or partially, I would give him the right to go before this local committee and make his claim and let them communicate with the War Office. I have myself had cases of that kind. Men who have been wounded in the War have come back. They are dissatisfied with the amount of money they have been receiving, and I have been to the War Office on their behalf and I am told by the War Office that they cannot pay them the maximum amount until this Committee is set up for the purpose of recommending it; but I want these men to have the right to go before this Committee and make their claim. Then, where there are motherless children who are entitled to payment, the person who represents them should go to the Committee and let the Committee make the claim on behalf of these children. In every case where there is a claim for a pension, instead of the women writing to the War Office or seeking someone to write for them, they should go to the local committee in the same way that they apply to the local committee for the old age pension.
  These are some of the suggestions that I make with regard to this Bill. We are all indebted to the Committee that sat upon this question. They took a large amount of evidence, though I thought the evidence was lacking from the administrative point of view, but we are much indebted to them. They have brought in a unanimous recommendation for us to adopt; but still I believe this Bill could be extended with very great effect and with very great benefit to our provincial towns, and for these reasons I hope the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will not close his mind against any suggestions or recommendations or Amendments in Committee, but that we shall try to shape and fashion it in such a way that in future many of these people who have suffered in the past from the lack of proper administration will derive great benefit from it I believe the Bill is doing the right thing with regard to the distribution of money apart from State money. That is to say, in future, all moneys, whether from the Prince of Wales' Fund or from any other fund, shall be distributed by the local committee.
  1874
  In the town that I represent and in other towns in the North where the working men at present are subscribing large sums of money weekly to the Prince of Wales' Fund, they have no representation upon any of these local committees and they are dissatisfied that they should continue to pay this money without obtaining proper representation. They are quite satisfied if the money will be distributed through this Committee, because they will have representation upon it.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Is there anything in the Bill relating to the Prince of Wales' Fund?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member referred for a moment to a contentious matter, but passed rapidly on.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: Although the Prince of Wales' Fund is not mentioned in the Bill, there is a Sub-section which deals with the fact that all money from any source, in the way of payment to soldiers' and sailors' families, will be paid through this Committee. I am afraid the hon. Baronet has not read the Bill with that care with which he usually does. I believe the Bill will be a great improvement, and will give general satisfaction in the country.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: We have had a very interesting Debate. Much ground has been covered, and though there has been a certain amount of criticism directed against the Bill, on the other hand a great deal has been said in its favour, and there is no doubt that after it has been though Committee we shall see a Bill which will satisfy all sections of the House. I do not know whether the House will agree, but I think it is unfortunate that we have not before us the Report of the Committee on the officers. That would have enabled us to deal with the Bill in a more complete manner. Another matter which I think is to be regretted is that we have not before us the Report of Sir George Murray's Committee. If we had them we should have had all the evidence which was required to discuss the Bill as it should be discussed. As we have not those Reports we can only deal with things as they are. Clause 1 says that the body shall consist of twenty-six members, and it says exactly where they shall be drawn from. Several hon. Members have called attention to the fact that apparently not more than two women are to be appointed upon this body. To my way of thinking that

  1875
  is a very great error. The Bill largely concerns women and children of all classes, and therefore there ought to be women of all classes on this body, certainly not less than six. Two of these women might represent the officers and two the men, and two might represent practically all classes.
  Then I think there is an important omission. One member of the Committee should certainly be appointed from the Education Board. The education of the children of the men who have fallen in the War is a very serious problem which will have to be taken in hand by this very Committee. It has the power, I admit, to make certain grants out of a fund which at the present moment we do not see, but it is supposed that that fund will some day be in being. When it is in being the Committee will have to make certain grants for the education of the children, and these will have to be given in two directions. There will have to be grants with regard to free places in the schools and there will have to be grants towards the technical education of the children. I will give an example. Only the other day I was asked by the grandfather of a boy whose father had fallen in the War whether or not I could get the boy apprenticed in the dockyard, so that he might become an electrical fitter. I found that it-was necessary for the boy to pass a certain examination which it would take him possibly a year or two to work up for, and that would require a certain amount of money. The father had left no money behind and there was nothing for the boy to do but to go into the dockyard as a yard boy, where he will only have the opportunity of becoming an ordinary labourer at 24s. a week. That is not what we expect to be done for the children of the men who have fallen in the War. For the reasons I have given I submit that it would be very much better if the Government would add someone appointed by the Education Board.
  Then I see that the chairman and vice-chairman are to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, therefore it is very certain that whatever salaries are voted these they will get. But sometimes in public bodies where you have a chairman and a vice-chairman, especially where they are paid, the chairman does very little work and the vice-chairman does a very great deal, but as a rule the chairman receives
  1876
  the larger emolument and the vice-chairman receives the smaller. I hope in this case it will be seen that both the chairman and the vice-chairman share the duties equally. One does not see who is to appoint the chairman and vice-chairman. I take it that the chairman will be appointed by the Government, but whether the vice-chairman is to be appointed by the Government or by the body does not appear to be clear. On the question of the quorum, the number of five is far too small. That will admit practically of five official members meeting together and settling the whole affairs of the body, which is the last thing the country wants and certainly the last thing the House would desire.
  My hon. Friend (Mr. Hohler) made some very interesting remarks in regard to Clause 3, and I do not know that I can find fault with very much of what he said. The only point perhaps on which one might differ from him was where I think he went a little astray in endeavouring to lead the House to believe that the Government had not dealt sufficiently generously with the widows and orphans and the dependants. The right hon. Gentleman (Dr. Macnamara) put that matter very clearly. Whatever fault we may find with the Bill we have no fault whatever to find with the allowances and pensions which are given, provided, of course, we take into consideration the other part of the Bill, which allows the body to give certain grants and to extend the pensions in cases where they think it necessary. If you take that matter into consideration it must be allowed that the Government have behaved very generously in the matter. My hon. Friend (Mr. Hohler) and the right hon. Gentleman seemed to fall foul of one another in another way. What my hon. Friend wanted to point out was that this Bill did not do away with a difficulty which he and I and certain other Members who sit for military ports know too well, and that is that there is, or has been in the past, very great difficulty in getting pensions for certain classes of men and certain widows. Take the case of a man who has contracted some disease as the result of the War. We will say that the man has contracted rheumatism. What sort of pension is he to have, or if he dies what sort of pension is his widow to have? In the past we have always had to fight against the Admiralty and the War Office and the Treasury who put forward the plea that the man died of a disease

  1877
  not attributable to the Service. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to make it very clear to the House that this point has not been overlooked by them, and that in connection with a war of this kind we shall not have men years afterwards, or widows whose husbands die from diseases contracted in the War, having to depend upon the Admiralty or the War Office alone to say whether that disease was attributable to the War itself. That is what the hon. Member for Chatham wanted to bring out. He wanted to say: "Let this body deal with all these matters." If this body is to deal with all these questions then, I think, the matter would certainly be more complete. There is another point which we have had to contend with, especially in regard to sailors. A man may have had his arm cut off, or the finger of one hand cut off, or he may have a leg paralysed. What has happened up to the present moment? He goes before the Board, and the Board say: "Oh, yes, you are injured, certainly, but you are able to contribute to your own support." The man may have a wife and children, and he may have to contribute to their support, but what employer would employ a man of this kind—a man he cannot insure. No one would employ him, and therefore the poor man is unable to get any work at all, and he is placed in a very difficult position. I ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to see that we do not have these poor men, after the present War, going about the towns as they now do unable to get any employment. It must be the duty of this body to obtain employment for these men, and it must not be said that they are able to contribute to their own support, and that, therefore, one shilling a day is quite sufficient pension for them. That will not do.
  7.0 P.M.
  There is another point to which I would like to refer. It is in regard to Clause 3, Sub-section (1), which is to make provision for the care of disabled officers and men. There it stops. It says nothing about their dependants. The disabled men's dependants ought certainly to be looked after, and ought to be looked after even more than the dependants of the man who has not been disabled. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear that in mind. We must have some provision made for the dependants of these disabled officers and men. We were told during the Debate,
  1878
  or at any rate it was suggested, that the public offices have a certain number of places set apart for disabled soldiers and sailors. If that is the case I hope that the proportion will be very much enlarged after the present War. I will give the House one instance of what happens in regard to the Navy. In the Royal dockyards there is a regulation, which was brought in not long ago, that a certain number of men who were injured in the Service should be employed in light work in the dockyard. But when you come to inquire into the matter you find the cases number perhaps twenty or thirty. If you take all the dockyards in the Kingdom, that will not give employment to a very great number of men. I do hope that the Government will take care that any means which are suggested by this Committee for the employment of men in the Government service will be arranged on a wider basis.
  There is one matter which I do not see touched upon in the Bill in regard to which I may have to suggest a Clause in the Committee stage, and that is that there is no provision whatever made for assistance being given in the case of men, women, or children who want to emigrate. I have had a good deal to do with emigration, and I have had a great, number of soldiers and sailors passing through my hands. I would like to know whether the grant, which is allowed to be paid in certain circumstances, is available to cover the expenses of emigration. When these soldiers come back from the War a great number of them will desire, after living an outdoor life perhaps for a year or two, to build up a home for themselves overseas. Is there to be any provision made which will enable them to do so? As the right hon. Gentleman knows, they can take their pensions with them, and the widows can take their pensions with them. They can take their allowances with them too. Therefore they will be in a very good position either in Canada or in Australia. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should set up Pension Boards in Canada and Australia, which would act in conjunction with the Central Board in London, and that these boards should pay out to the men who emigrate, or to the widows and to the children, the sums that may be due to them, and that these boards should, while acting in conjunction with the head board in London, practically have the control of matters locally. As the right hon. Gentleman knows,

  1879
  and as I have no doubt the House knows, when a widow remarries she is allowed two years' pension as a sort of bonus. That bonus will be a very useful thing to the woman if she emigrates. Knowing that she has two years' bonus she will not go to her husband without any money, and the children will be a very great profit to the family, and, in fact, the family will be able in a comparatively short time to build up in Canada or Australia a home such as many people in this country might envy. I would like to see some provision made in the Bill which would enable that to be done. At the present time the money has to come out of voluntary funds, but what the voluntary funds are we do not know. We are told, and there is some reason to believe it, that the bulk of the money is to come out of the National Relief Fund. I would, however, call attention to the fact that this National Relief Fund was mainly contributed for civil purposes—at any rate, it was contributed for purposes arising during the War. What it is proposed to do, apparently, is to take this entire sum, and it is mounting up day by day, and to hand it over to form a benefit fund for soldiers and sailors, and their wives and children, for services that have been rendered in the War. That is not what this fund was got together for. Do the Government propose calmly to take this money without in any way having any consultation with the individuals who provided it? If so it is a matter which requires some explanation.
  Mr. G. THORNE: I only intervene before the right hon. Gentleman who has charge of the Bill replies for two purposes. My own experience in regard to this matter has been so much in accord with that expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. J. Samuel), and he has so fully stated my own views in regard to this matter, that I do not propose to repeat them. I only wish to refer to two points, namely, the constitution of the local committees and the powers of the local committees. As to the constitution of the local committees, he referred to a report issued by the Association of Municipal Corporations. I have got a copy of that report and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he has not already done so, to give very full consideration to those suggestions before the Committee stage. If these suggestions could in some way be carried
  1880
  out, it seems to me that they would lessen the complication very largely and help forward the due performance of the work in hand. The other point is in regard to the functions of the Committees. In regard to that, my difficulty is the difficulty felt by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees. In Clause 3 we have the functions of the statutory Committee specifically declared, and I have found by experience that when there is any attempt to specifically declare functions, then if anything be left out there is difficulty as to whether those functions are held by the Committee or not. The functions of the Committee are detailed in various paragraphs, but I do not find in any one of these paragraphs the point so lucidly referred to by my hon. Friend, and that is, that persons in localities having difficulties which they desire to be investigated should not be required to send particulars of them to the head office or the head Committee, but should have the opportunity of approaching the local committee direct on these particular matters and that the local committee should have the right, and it should be their duty to consider these matters and then make a report to the Central Committee. I am afraid that the Bill as it stands does not make provision in that behalf. What I would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman is that he would be good enough in the interval between now and the Committee stage to give great consideration to that point, so that the difficulty which my hon. Friend entertains and which I entertain, may be met, and that persons having difficulties in localities may go direct to the local committee.
  Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I have only one point to put before the right hon. Gentleman replies on the Debate. I agree most strongly with what my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. G. Thorne) and the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees have said. It is most desirable that these local committees should have some power of initiative, at any rate, the power of hearing local complaints beyond those referred to them by the statutory Committee. These local committees in my judgment are well formed and will be of great use, but it is not in the public interest that the pensions committee should be doing half the work and these local committees doing the other half. While I prefer these local committees to pension committees very much, that is a matter which we can discuss in Committee. My point is

  1881
  this: That the great difficulty now experienced in the working of these pensions committees with regard to allowances is the question of appeal. At present the appeal is really not an appeal; it leads to most unfortunate soreness of feeling. What we want is a short and satisfactory appeal from the decision of the local committee as to allowances. If the right hon. Gentleman would provide that the Central Committee which is to decide questions of fact in regard to pensions should also be the court of appeal with regard to allowances, then I am confident it will have the very greatest effect in giving satisfaction both in town and in country, and it could be done by extending the functions of the local committees under Clause 4. The local committee could decide in the first instance, and the appeal to the Committee in London would satisfy all the persons concerned. We are glad to have the right hon. Gentleman conducting this Bill, which is associated so enormously with the valuable work that he has done in the country.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: We have had a very varied Debate, and a great number of points have been introduced. I think, after all, that the consensus of opinion—I have not heard an opposite opinion expressed—is that having adopted a flat scale of pensions, we must have some supplementaries to that flat scale, and some new administrative machinery set up to administer those supplementary pensions; and, when we come to look to the future, when, not thousands, but tens of thousands of soldiers will return badly wounded or badly diseased, owing to their brave action in defending their country, and when we shall have them all over the country, we must have some machinery outside Government Departments altogether which would, of course, have more heart than Government Departments are ever allowed to have and which would have, or ought to have, a more sympathetic touch, and more knowledge, experience and leisure with which to deal with all those questions. There is a general consensus of opinion about that. The Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), in discussing the proposal, gave a very broad hint that that is not an ideal scheme. It is not an ideal scheme to me. I have already on the floor of the House, and in evidence, stated that some day I hoped to see a bigger reform, a bigger measure. For my own part, notwithstanding the views of my right hon. Friend the Secretary
  1882
  to the Board of Admiralty, I still think that a great deal of pension money might be taken away from the War Office and from the Admiralty with great advantage. I still hold the view that some day or another we may see one pension board administering pensions in one pension building, and that there may be one address and one secretary to whom all those who care for soldiers and sailors, or care for their wives, widows, orphans and dependants can address themselves.
  You cannot divorce responsibility for the spending of State money from a State Department. You cannot, at all events,, divorce responsibility of spending State money from the Government of the day. I quite agree with that. Still, I believe that much more might be done than I think is being done in this particular Bill to simplify the whole system of pensions, grants, and allowances that are paid in respect of our soldiers and sailors. I quite admit that the Government have many other matters which engage their attention—Bills for munitions, State Register, War Loan, and matters of that kind. They were bound, if they wanted to set up some machinery and to set up a scheme—and I admit that there has been very great delay—to proceed perhaps-along the line of least resistance, and to adopt a scheme which would be generally acceptable to the House, and which would not meet with the opposition which any such scheme as I once adumbrated to the Committee would undoubtedly meet with. Let us agree that the scheme is not ideal, but it is for all candid men a good, practicable, workable scheme, and I am glad that, generally speaking, it has been well received by the House. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Holder) does not seem to think that we require any new organisation at all; he thinks that charitable committees can be got up and that we can go to them with all our wants. But I believe that the House will give this Bill a Second Reading, and will proceed to put down practical Amendments, which I can assure them will be perfectly fairly considered by those in charge of this Bill, with the real desire of making it even a better measure than it appears on paper.
  Let us look at some of the features of this Bill. We are all agreed that as regards supplementary pensions, and all other questions connected with pensions, there should be a democratic body to deal with them, and the decisions should be

  1883
  made by people who are known, and that they will be decisions that can be both criticised and controlled. First of all take the statutory body. How is it controlled? Out of twenty-six members only six are necessarily officials, and I would point out to Members that on this Committee, of course, regard must be had to the component parts of the United Kingdom, and regard must be had to democratic representation, in addition to the beaureaucratic representation, which is afforded by the six officials, and regard must be had more perhaps than anything else, I think, to putting a sufficient number of women on this body. After all, all that is put in the Bill as regards women is that two out of ten appointed by His Majesty's Government must be women. It does not follow that half can not be women—and the council of the corporation must select two women. But so far as I know the corporation, I think they will probably select more. There is nothing to prevent the two representatives appointed by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, and the two representatives appointed by the National Relief Committee, all being women if those bodies so choose. I see every ground for thinking that a considerable number of women will be selected upon this statutory body.
  Turn to the corporation for a moment. Very little has been said about the corporation. I attach enormous importance to it. It is from the corporation, at all events, that the statutory Committee will to a large extent draw its life blood. The corporation is popular and democratic. It consists first of all of lord lieutenants—I do not say that they are democratic, but I hope that they are popular—also of all the chairman of county councils, who are fairly popular and certainly democratic, or of their nominees, and it consists also of all the lord mayors, mayors, or provosts, and again of their nominees. I quite agree with the criticism which has been made, that the mayors, lord mayors, and provosts are too busy to spend very much time on this work, but every such man can appoint somebody else to act for him. There is generally in a great town, such as Manchester, Liverpool, or Birmingham, somebody who is well qualified, far better qualified than a lord mayor or mayor, to take, part in these proceedings. The Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation meets at least once a year. I hope that this corporation will meet something like four
  1884
  times a year, because it is through the corporation and by means of the corporation that the local committees represented all over the country will be able to debate the proceedings of the statutory Committee and to review their general decisions. I do not mean their decisions in any particular case as to whether Mrs. So-and-So got quite enough, but to review the conditions that are laid down, and the general policy of the administration pursued by the statutory body.
  In addition to lord lieutenants, chairmen of county councils, lord mayors, and mayors, the corporation will consist of twenty other members. Those twenty will be chosen from those who have had experience in some kind of work similar to that which the statutory Committee is set up to perform. There, again, I think that among those twenty members there is bound to be a very large share of working-class representatives and those who can give sufficient time to this work. So I feel that I have justified my claim that, this Corporation and the statutory Committee are really popular and really democratic. Several Members have joined in the request that the proceedings of the statutory Committee, its decisions and its policy, shall be subject to debate in this House. I entirely share that view, and I think that you could not prevent the House from discussing it. It would discuss it, but it would probably discuss it at a very inconvenient hour, and it would probably discuss it on some Estimate of my right hon. Friend, on some Naval Estimate, or some Estimate of the War Office. But I hope that the presentation of the Annual Report will be made the occasion. Certainly for the first few years after the War there should be a first-class Debate upon it. It should be put down as the first Order of the day, and time given—if necessary, not one day, but possibly two or three days—to discuss the whole of this question, which will then be of such profound interest.
  Mr. HOGGE: Do you secure that in the Bill?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I am inclined to think that if it is not secured in the Bill some means will be taken of making secure that which possibly is not clear at the present moment. I am not going to discuss scales of pensions and allowances. Those scales have been accepted as a result of the Report of the Select Committee, and I believe from the Debate

  1885
  that has taken place in this House that the House generally thinks that those scales are not only a very great advance on any scales that have ever been laid down before, but that on the whole those scales are liberal and generous. Of course, if you adopt the flat rate, you want some supplementaries, but, speaking generally, these scales are liberal and generous. The hon. Member for Atter-cliffe (Mr. Anderson) said that there was too much of charity and not enough of right about this. I really think that he has not given quite the same attention to this Bill on this particular point that he generally does. This Bill does not interfere in any way, the statutory body does not interfere in any way, with the payment of the State pensions. Those will continue to be paid just as they are paid now through the Post Office, payable weekly, and authorised by the Department of my right hon. Friend. Nothing in this Bill disturbs any of those rights. Those pensions are pensions given as a right to which these persons have a legal claim. This Bill deals practically only with those pensions that are given by way of supplement, but not necessarily by way of charity, or not at all, at all events, in any degree to which exception can be taken. I shall discuss the funds allotted to the statutory body a little later on. It is plain to everybody that this body, except in one particular, is really only set up to deal with supplementary points. What is the one exception to that? Clause 3, Subsection (1), paragraph (a), where this body has to decide
  "any question of fact on the determination of which the amount of a pension or grant payable out of public funds to a dependant other than a widow or child may depend."
  I think that that is a very large function, because on the decision of this Committee on questions of fact will depend entirely whether certain mothers, fathers, or sisters perhaps get any pensions at all or any separation allowance.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is my right hon. Friend right in assuming that that is the only thing which this Committee have got to decide? The right hon. Gentleman will see in Section (f) that another important duty is assigned, to decide which of two or more claimants shall have a separation allowance or grant.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I am perfectly aware of that. But once they have de-
  1886
  cided the questions of fact the pensions are paid automatically, just as the State pensions are paid through the Post Office, on a scale to be decided by the Department. As to the pension, I think that should be a departmental decision. I have had a great deal to do with these matters, and I think, on the whole, that the power of fixing the scale of the pension should remain with the departmental or statutory Committee, assisted by the local committee on questions of fact. Then there is the question of deciding a particular case, as to whether the pension, under the regulations, ought to be forfeited. According to the decision of the Select Committee, pensions and allowances ought to be forfeited in some cases where there have been convictions of a criminal offence.
  Mr. HOHLER: That is just what I object to.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I think there are circumstances in which it might be well that there should be the penalty of forfeiture of the pension. I admit that it is a power that should be exercised with the very greatest care, when a pension of that kind is to be forfeited, and if it is not forfeited, it might, at all events, be vested in the family in some cases. I should like to point out that local bodies are linked, through the lord mayors, mayors, chairmen of county councils, or their nominees, with the headquarters of the statutory Committee, and could bring up those very questions which were mentioned by my hon. Friend, the Member for the Middleton Division of Lancashire. It is in that way, I think, that you will almost force an appeal to the statutory body. The fact that lord mayors, mayors, chairmen of county councils, or their nominees, are members of the Royal Patriotic Corporation will, I think, link local bodies up to the statutory Committee to enforce their claims for an appeal, not in a particular case, but on any general principle which the statutory Committee have adopted, and which principle may have shut out the very pensions or allowances of a certain class of people with whom the local committee are concerned.
  Colonel YATE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether two representatives of the Officers' Families Association will be on that body to represent the interest of the officers?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: That is really a matter for the scheme, and I do not think the officers can have any special representatives. There is no special representation given to any rank of the Army, and I do not think we could have one for officers, who have many friends in this House who have already stated that the pensions of officers are too low. My right hon. Friend (Dr. Macnamara) has practically told us to-day that those pensions are to be raised in proportion. My right hon. Friend's speech will be read tomorrow, and the hon. Member will see whether I have correctly interpreted what the right hon. Gentleman said. Then I turn to the functions of the statutory Committee. By Clause 3, excepting Paragraph (a), they are to
  "frame a scale of supplementary grants in cases where, owing to the exceptional circumstances of the case, the pension or grant or separation allowance payable out of public funds seems to the Committee to be inadequate."
  My hon. Friend the Member for the Don-caster Division objects to the new body having any decision on the separation allowance. He thinks that separation allowances might well remain where they are. I am not at all sure that the House may not agree with him when we come to the Committee stage. After all, however, we have settled that we must have a fixed scale in connection with separation allowances, and most of the delay in paying the separation allowances has disappeared; the machine is now fairly well oiled and working fairly well, and the House may feel it inadvisable to throw this question of separation allowances on the new body, with all the work which it has before it. But that is for the House to consider in Committee. Hon. Members should consider what enormous functions are performed outside the statutory Committee, and I want them especially to pay attention to paragraph (i)
  "To make provision for the care of disabled officers and men after they have left the Service, including provision for their health, training, and employment."
  There will be, as I said, not thousands, but tens of thousands of cases to be dealt with, and we must have set up in readiness some machinery by which we may deal with the unhappy victims of the War. The Report has been quoted to-day of Sir George Murray's Select Committee. This Committee laid down that it was the primary duty of the State to discharge its
  1888
  liability for the care of soldiers and sailors disabled in the War, and they then went on to say what it was necessary to do. They said that we must have some central organisation, and must have affiliated to them local committees throughout the country. Here are some of the duties which are to be carried out: To arrange for the care and treatment of disabled soldiers and sailors immediately on discharge, with a view to restoring them to health, and, where possible, to enable them to earn their own living; to appoint local committees or local representatives to assist the committees in the performance of their duties, especially in finding employment and negotiating with employers, and to organise training of men who desire new employment; to arrange for maintenance and for emigration, and many duties of that kind. These duties are all of the greatest importance.
  Apparently several hon. Members think that the old age pensions committees, should be entrusted with this work, and I am going to ask them whether those committees are the kind of committee and are so constituted as to be able properly to discharge duties of the kind which this Bill imposes? [An HON. MEMBER: "They could be augmented."] I proceed to argue for the scheme of this Bill—that is to say, for the setting up of new committees, which I believe to be necessary, particularly looking to the number of cases that will have to be dealt with. It will be necessary to set up everywhere, and not merely in great populous centres, committees so constituted and so composed that they will pay the greatest possible attention, and give the greatest possible care and thought and interest to the cases of soldiers and sailors, their wives, widows, families, dependants, and so forth. Nobody has a higher opinion of old age pensions committees than I have. I was chairman of the first old age pensions committee in London, and the business of that committee was never conducted on party lines, and when I ceased to be chairman of that body I asked that my hon. Friend the Member for Walworth, though he is a political opponent, should be my successor. On that committee we sunk all party differences, and I believe it did most excellent work. I do not believe, however, that the old age pensions committees could deal with the soldiers and sailors, their widows and families.
  I believe that you want specially constituted committees, composed of people

  1889
  who have spent perhaps years of their lives in doing this kind of work; who have their hearts in this work; who are in touch with the different organisations engaged in it, and who are giving infinite care to unfortunate people who are out of work; who try to get the children of these people into educational institutions; who are trying to get women employment or into service, and who are endeavouring, in countless ways, to assist those who are in need of help. But there is no reason whatever, in the Bill as framed, why the local committees should not utilise to an enormous extent the services of the old age pensions committees. I believe where those old age pensions committees are really doing good work the mayor or the chairman would very likely turn them on to the local committees to do the kind of work which is contemplated by the Bill. There is nothing to prevent it.
  Sir R. ADKINS: Could that be done with district committees and others?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I should think that could be done better in regard to district committees, and the county committee might well be able to delegate its powers to sub-committees. I am quite sure that the old age pensions committees, where they are found to be useful, will be utilised. I think it will be best, on the whole, that those who are responsible for the formation of the local committees should have a great variety of choice.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: Would the same committee deal with dependants' allowances as well as other matters?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I think it would create great confusion if they were not able to do so. I have already indicated the functions of these committees, and it might be necessary to put in that. That can be done when we come to discuss the particular terms of the Bill. I have been asked a great many questions. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh suggested that one-third of the members of the Committee should retire each year, but that is a matter which can be discussed in Committee. I was asked about hard cases. In Clause 3, paragraph (d), enables the statutory Committee
  "out of funds at their disposal to make grants in cases where no separation allowances or pensions are payable out of public funds."
  I think that is a very important function of the Committee. In working these
  1890
  funds I discovered that no matter how generously you framed the conditions you always left out somebody who was not eligible, but whose case was a very hard and pitiable one and calculated to attract universal sympathy. I hope that this body will have sufficient funds at its disposal to travel outside the rigid limits which must be set by Government Departments. There was the case mentioned, for instance, of the man dying more than seven years after the war as a result of wounds received in the war. We have had those cases time out of mind in the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. We have had cases of men who died as the result of wounds received in the Transvaal war, now almost fourteen years ago. Those would be cases which the Admiralty or the War Office could not deal with, and we would, of course, have to have very conclusive evidence connecting the death with the injury inflicted in the war. In such cases we are able to do what Government Departments cannot I do. Therefore I hope that this body will, amongst its many useful functions, be able to do for many hard cases what no Government Department possibly can do. I think most of the questions that have been asked are really questions that can well be deferred till the Committee stage.
  I come to a few remarks, general remarks on the Bill, and in doing so I express my own hopes and fears. My hopes are that those county committees and borough committees will vie with one another, and will take pride in seeing what each can do for the widow and the disabled soldier and sailor and those partially disabled who cannot get work necessary to employ their time. I believe if we set to work in the right spirit, and I that spirit does prevail at present, that I these committees will vie with one another and that they will take pride in saying, "That is the way we are treating our men; we are treating them better than you are." That is one of my great hopes in connection with the committees. I know it will depend very much on the personnel, and on the chairman perhaps, and the vice-chairman, and on having a very good secretary, and on having men and women on it of leisure, because an enormous amount of work will be entailed, and it is useless for anybody to go on these committees who is not prepared to take his or her full share. Those are my hopes, and now for my fears. I am aware that enormous functions and varied and great

  1891
  powers are given to those who have got to administer this Bill, and I am aware that nothing is said, or very little, to indicate the source' from which funds are to be derived. I have crossed the floor, but I am not one of those who, for that reason, can swallow all I have expressed when I was in a position of greater freedom and less responsibility. I have already said that I considered, and I have made some calculations on the matter, that at least £5,000,000, not £5,000,000 yearly, but a capital sum of £5,000,000 will be needed by this body if it is to carry out its functions throughout the country. I believe my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer entertains great hopes that he will be able to get the necessary money for this body without having any recourse to public funds or State contributions. He is Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he is responsible for very heavy payments and very heavy taxation. He naturally does not wish to add to those, and he will naturally desire to draw this money from the pockets of the benevolent, and he is very hopeful he is going to do it. I was asked a question as to whether the National Relief Fund, that is, the Prince of Wales' Fund, would be likely to make a large contribution to this. I am only one member of that body. I think that body would be wise if they would wait and see what sort of statutory body was set up. At all events, merely because I am a member of that body, I have no authority to speak for it, and I am not even going to tell hon. Members how I should vote on the question.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer is very hopeful indeed of getting the money required for this body. When that body is constituted let it make the best calculation it can, and I hope it will, as to what money will be required to carry out some of the various matters assigned to it. Let them then see what they can do with the amount of money which I understand will be forthcoming for them immediately. I am told so by my right hon. Friend. He, perhaps, will be able to attend the Debate later, and will be able to state his own views on this matter, but I am one of those who believe that if the money is not forthcoming from private benevolence or from any society that at present exists, and which has control of large funds, then that either this House or some other House will insist that adequate funds are placed at the disposal of this body, and
  1892
  that the figure which we create to-day is adequately clothed so that it may go into decent society and hold up its head and be properly respected, as I hope it will in the course of years.
  Mr. HOGGE: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is really being asked to take charge of this Bill and has had thrust on him the responsibility for providing employment for soldiers and sailors by a Bill on a Report of a Committee set up by the Government and that the Government is not going to give money to do it?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I have not said so. That is for my right hon. Friend. I have expressed my right hon. Friend's hopes that he will be able to get this money from other sources than that of taxation. He has a perfect right to hold that opinion, and a perfect right to get the money from other sources than by taxation. I am expressing my views because I expressed them before. I cannot disguise them. I still hold the same view that a capital sum of £5,000,000 will be required in order to properly carry out the functions assigned to this Committee. I hold the view that if that is not forthcoming from private sources that this House in all probability will take it into its own care and charge and will respectfully request the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find the money; that is to say, provided they are satisfied, after they have seen the statutory body, and think that in its working it is calculated to carry out the various functions assigned to it. The local committees, in their desire to be popular, might forget the burdens on the National Exchequer and they might possibly be anxious and desirous of making these supplementary loans too large and liberal, forgetting, after all, while they considered the payee that they ought to consider the payer, in the shape of the taxpayer, the ordinary working man who will never get a pension, except the old age pension of 5s. per week. After all we must consider the general body of taxpayers when we consider the scale, although we desire that a liberal and generous scale should be given supplemental to the scale already laid down. One sees throughout the country a splendid spirit, everybody is anxious to do something. I do hope that those who enter on this work, which they may find toilsome and tiresome, and those who begin it with great zest and energy,

  1893
  may not get weary of well-doing. I can detect no such spirit at present. This Bill, if it is to be successful, must rely largely on voluntary effort. I believe the same spirit will prevail throughout the country years after the War is over, and that years after victory is won we shall not forget the victims of the War who, if they had not been victims, could not have assured for us the perpetuation of those liberties which we have enjoyed and which we intend to continue to enjoy.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Thursday).

  NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS, ETC. (SALARIES).
  Considered in Committee.
  Resolved, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of salaries to the chairman and vice-chairman of the statutory Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, constituted in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to make better provision as to the pensions, grants and allowances made in respect of the present War to officers and men in the Naval and Military Service of His Majesty and their dependants."—[Mr. Walter Rea.]
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

SUPPLY [29TH JUNE].

  NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1915–16.
  Resolution reported,
  "That an additional number, not exceeding 50,000 officers, seamen, and boys, be employed for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, beyond the number already voted for the year."
  Resolution agreed to.

  PRIZE COURTS [SALARIES AND REMUNERATION.]
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of money to be provided by Parliament, of any salaries and remuneration which may become payable under
  1894
  any Act of the present Session, and to amend the enactments relating to Prize Courts."
  Resolution agreed to.

  PRIZE COURTS BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  ARMY ACT AMENDMENT (No. 3) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  CLAUSE 1.—(Provisions as to Separation Allowances.)
  8.0 P.M.
  (1) Section one hundred and forty-one of the Army Act (which prohibits the assignment of pay and other allowances) shall extend to allowances to wives of officers and soldiers; and, accordingly, in that Section, immediately before the word "widow," there shall be inserted the word "wife."
  (2) Sub-section (9) of Section one hundred and fifty-six of the Army Act (which restricts the pledging of identity certificates and life certificates by persons entitled to military pensions, pay and bounty) shall extend to separation or other allowances and relief and accordingly, in that Sub-section, after the word "bounty," wherever it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "allowance or relief."
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "wives," insert the words "and dependants";
  After the word "wife," insert the words "and for the word 'relative' there shall be substituted the word 'dependant.'"—[Mr. Forster.]
  Bill reported, with Amendments.
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

  MUNITIONS OF WAR [EXPENSES].
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Par-

  1895
  liament, of any remuneration and expenses which may become payable in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to make provision for furthering the efficient manufacture, transport, and supply of Munitions for the present War."
  Resolution agreed to.
  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

  OPERATIONS IN DARDANELLES.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL: Before the House adjourns, I wish to attempt to elucidate the reply given this afternoon by the Home Secretary to a question put by the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division (Sir A. Markham). In that reply the right hon. Gentleman stated:—
  "As regards the positions occupied in the Dardanelles, the naval and military authorities supply such information as they think may be published, and the Press Bureau publish it as supplied."
  What I desire to have made clear is that when the right hon. Gentleman referred to the naval and military authorities he meant the authorities in London. I do not think he would suggest for a moment that he had in mind any other than the home authorities. He would not go so far as to say that all the dispatches that have been received in London have been given to the public. I do not complain in the slightest degree of the action of the Press Bureau. The Press Bureau is a distributing centre which has power to give to the public only what is authorised by the different Departments concerned. Therefore, if any complaint can be made as to the withholding of important news, it is to the Departments and not to the Press Bureau that we must address ourselves. If the Government in its wisdom can plead that the withholding of any information from any centre of operations is in the public interest, I am sure that no Member of this House would for a moment make any complaint. For good or for evil we must abide by the judgment of the Government of the day as to what is or is not in the public interest. But I would ask the Government whether they could not give us more frequent announcements as to the progress of operations in the
  1896
  Dardanelles. Happily we have a dispatch to-night which is, I think, of a more encouraging character. But there are long intervals between the dispatches, and I would ask whether we might not have periodical announcements, not so frequent perhaps as we have from the Continent, but, at any rate, much more often than we have had them up to the present.
  I would further ask the Home Secretary whether he could give us an assurance that at no distant date we might have a Ministerial statement as to the progress of these operations up to the present. I do not suggest a Debate of a detailed character. I am not sure that that would serve any great public interest. It must be remembered that up to the present the House has really had no communication from the Government in regard to these particular operations. We are now getting men back from the scene of warfare, and we are getting information of a very detailed character from the German Press. It is, perhaps, not unreasonable to ask that any information that can be given to the House consistent with the public interest, might be given at an early date. There are many questions which one might be disposed to ask in connection with, these particular operations. Some of us might like to know why we gave the enemy two months' notice before we landed a single soldier, and thus enabled them to make their fortifications and to prepare for any attack that was to be made. But, for the moment, I will content myself with asking the Government whether they will not promise—I do not say nexk week, but at no distant date—to give the public more information than they have had up to the present. It is the first time we have made such a request to the new Government. We remember that the late Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bonar Law) pressed upon the late Government that they would be wise to take the nation more fully into-their confidence. We remember that the Secretary of State for India (Mr. Chamberlain) said that you could not lead this country in blinkers. We are waiting with interest to see whether there is going to be any change in policy as to the amount of confidence shown in the way of information relating to these important matters. The more the Government take the country into their confidence the greater will be the confidence they will receive from the country, and the more fully will the people fulfil every demand that may be made upon them by the Government.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I desire to associate myself with the observations of my right hon. Friend. In reply to the question which I placed on the Paper, the Home Secretary said:—
  "German wireless messages are censored only if they contain wholly false information intended to mislead neutrals and others."
  What I asked was whether it was the policy of the Government to refuse to allow this country to have information which was well known to the enemy. This country has given all that it has; the people have given their own flesh and blood; they are paying for this War; and yet we are asked to place in the hands of the Government a discretion to withhold from the public information of which the enemy are already aware. I say that this House did not grant to the Government powers of censorship which gave them a right to act in this way. The late Lord Chancellor, when the Defence of the Realm Act was before Parliament, stated:—
  "There is no idea on the part of His Majesty's Government to keep back news from the public because it may be disagreeable to disclose it. That is a policy that has never been pursued."
  That was what the ex-Lord Chancellor said. I ask whether that is the policy being pursued to-day? We are waging—I believe none of us know exactly how many wars we are waging—we are even kept in ignorance of that fact—but we are in point of fact waging nine wars, and I think the same policy of concealment has been carried through in respect of all these wars. My right hon. Friend stated that the Leader of the late Opposition, sitting on the benches opposite, said in very emphatic language that in the opinion of the party opposite, and in his own opinion, the country was entitled to have information. Still this policy of concealment continues. At the commencement of the War I made an attack on the present Lord Chancellor—then Solicitor-General—because I thought he had improperly censored the news which the public ought to have. It has since come to my knowledge that the two Censors—the late and the present Solicitor-General—have been fighting throughout this War to get information for the public. One man, and only one man, refuses the public this information, and that man is Lord Kitchener.
  Is it right that the public of this country should be treated as Dervishes, as we are at the present time? On what ground are we denied information respecting the Dardanelles which is perfectly well known to the enemy? How can my right hon.
  1898
  Friend get up and in reply state that we are not entitled to know what lines we are holding in the Dardanelles when that information, to within a yard, is well known to the enemy? We are entitled to have the dispatches of Sir Ian Hamilton. Not a word of these dispatches have been given to us. It is only to-day—I do not know whether or not it is a curious coincidence—there was a question on the Notice Paper about the Dardanelles, asking for more information than we have had in the past. The newspapers of this country very properly sent out correspondents to Turkey and the East to obtain information. Large sums of money have been spent. When the correspondents get out there all the information they are allowed by the Government to send back is reports as to the state of the weather. Those of us who have relatives fighting in the Dardanelles—and I had a brother-in-law missing last week—have no more information than any man in the street as to what is the position in the Dardanelles, or where we stand.
  When the country are making these sacrifices that we are making surely it is entitled to know how these wars are being conducted! I ask my right hon. Friend to state in precise language what are the military reasons which prevent this information being given to the House. If, as my right hon. Friend has said, there are any military reasons why we should not have this information, we are all willing to acquiesce in a policy of silence. But how comes it about that in every one of the nine wars the same policy of concealment continues? We are living in times of great national stress and danger, and even now the people of this country are wholly ignorant of the state of affairs, and of the seriousness of the situation. We hear talk of strikes and of men demanding—rightly or wrongly—increased wages. There never would be these industrial struggles if the Government had taken the country into their confidence and had told the country the seriousness of the situation. Instead of that, the powers-that-be for the time being chose to treat the country in a manner which no Government could justify, or could be justified by circumstances.
  We have an hon. Member below me (Mr. Wedgwood) who, having been wounded in the Dardanelles, is now back in the House. We all rejoice to see him. He will probably not join in this Debate to-night for the reason that he has been taking part in the operations at the

  1899
  Dardanelles. But people are, like my hon. Friend, constantly returning from the Dardanelles now, and we who are in Parliament have an opportunity of gaining far more information than the average citizen of this country. We know more or less what is going on there. The average citizen who has given up his children to the War is kept in ignorance of what is going on, and what I contend is that this is a great detriment to the conduct of the War. I am not making any personal attack upon my right hon. Friend. I know it is entirely due to Lord Kitchener that this policy of concealing all information from the public has been persisted in since the beginning of the War. The Press censors are not to blame. The Press censors have fought for the information, and the War Office have refused. Instead of Lord Kitchener devoting his great abilities—and we all admit his great abilities as a recruiting agent—instead of him devoting his abilities to censoring news from the nine seats of war, let him attend to the question of equipping the New Armies and getting them ready, and he would be filling a useful sphere of influence. He should let this matter of news be placed in the hands of some outside party who is not connected with or under the administration of the War Office.
  I have a question on the Notice Paper for Monday next to ask the Colonial Secretary whether he is going to persist in the policy which Lord Kitchener and the late Government have pursued. The late Government, acting on the advice of Lord Kitchener, have prevented the public having that information; and I wish to know whether in these nine wars the Colonial Secretary, the late Leader of the Opposition, is going to persist in the same policy. Let the Government come down to the House and say definitely that in the opinion of their military experts information cannot be given without serious injury to those who are entitled to the information. To-day, for the first time, we have had mention of the Border Regiment. I am proud to see it mentioned. I am proud that the Border Regiment made a gallant charge on Monday. What has Lord Kitchener done? He has killed all the county spirit. The object of War Ministers of this country for years past has been to create county regiments and county units. All that has been killed by the suppression of the names of the regiments. Even when prisoners have been
  1900
  taken on the Western Front the names of the regiments have not been given. In the Dardanelles, for the first time, we have been given the name of the Border Regiment. I hope that practice will continue and will be enlarged upon. This gallant regiment, which has fought in the Dardanelles under extraordinarily terrible conditions, has done honour to itself, and it is due to it that we should know the name, and that the country should know the gallant services they have rendered.
  It is a fact that the names of regiment? and divisions are actually published in the German papers. Before they leave this country to go to the Dardanelles statements appear in the German papers giving the names of the regiments and the division, and saying, "We are ready for them!" Knowing as we do that the Germans have a spy system which they have carried out in this country to a degree which we all recognise is remarkable, why cannot we even be allowed to be told the names of the regiments when the German Government have the information from the spy department? My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will not deny that the German Government have got a most complete spy system. No Government probably ever had in a friendly country so complete a spy system. They have the names of the regiments, the brigades, and the divisions. Yet in all areas of these nine wars these things are suppressed, and we are not allowed to have information. The question that my right hon. Friend has brought before the attention of the House is one that is really worth the consideration of the Government. This is a question on which the country feels deeply. Having made all the sacrifices it has, it feels entitled to have the truth told. We in this House kept our mouths shut for month after month, and this policy of concealment had the inevitable result of muddle and chaos in every Department. We are not going to shut our mouths in the future. We have only one object, and that is to carry this War to a successful conclusion, and in carrying that War to a successful conclusion, having regard to all the circumstances, of all these nine wars, we say the time has come, and it is the duty of the Government to say to Lord Kitchener that the people of this country are not to be treated as fellaheen, and to have the truth laid before them unless there are military reasons why it should not be.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): I think we shall all recognise that the question which has been raised on the Motion for the Adjournment is one of importance and gravity which, as the hon. Member who has just sat down says, deeply concerns and deeply interests the whole population of these islands, and everyone who is joining in the sacrifice involved in waging a great war. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and and hon. Friend for having spoken in moderation and in fairness as regards the part which the Press Bureau plays in these matters. I do not desire in the least, in answering what they have said, to shelter myself behind some sub-division of work between one office and another, because, of course, a matter of this sort is important in whatever Department it may happen to fall, and an answer is never complete or satisfactory which merely depends on pointing out that the duty rests with another Department. At the same time, it is a great point gained—and I am sincerely grateful to the hon. Baronet for making it so plain if the public will clearly understand that the Press Bureau in this matter is not the author of news, or the provider of news. It is a machinery which works for the purpose of informing those about to publish news what portion of their news, in the view of the naval or military authorities, ought in the public interest not to be published. It is, I am sure, a very ungracious and ungrateful task. I do not suppose anybody is envious of the work of the Press Bureau. It is discharged day and night with the very greatest diligence and the greatest care, and I am sure anyone who really understands what that task is cannot but feel we owe a great deal to the public spirit and devotion of those who conduct that office. That being so, the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Baronet say, "Yes, but we still feel that the news which is permitted to be published is less than the public interest would justify and indeed would require."
  It is difficult, of course, to judge of this matter without very expert knowledge. I am willing to confess that there have been occasions where I have thought that a particular piece of news might be published, and yet, when I have inquired, I have been completely convinced by the explanation offered to me by those who judge these matters with the skill of experts.
  1902
  I do not think we ought to assume that, because at first sight a bit of news looks innocent there may not be extremely good reasons for a contrary opinion. I will give one simple instance. Some short time ago there was a letter from the front which contained what appeared to be a perfectly innocent piece of information as to a number of soldiers who had been maintaining a position for some days and were resting in a particular building. It happened to be a rather prominent building on the landscape, and the man wrote home to his relatives describing the building in some detail. It so happened that that particular description was published in the paper, owing, I suppose, to the fact that its significance was overlooked. Within 24 hours that building was smashed to pieces by German shells, which undoubtedly had been directed at the building because of the publication in the newspaper. Really, it is a matter of the greatest importance that we should with care, industry, and diligence apply the rules, even though in some cases there may be astonishment that certain pieces of news are omitted.
  I do not know whether the application of the rules will be always thought to be right, but to my mind there are only two rules in this business, and I say this not merely on behalf of the Press Bureau, or the Home Office, but it is the view, I know, which the whole Government entertain. The first rule is that you must suppress the publication of any piece of news which, if published, could by any reasonable calculation assist the enemy; and the second rule is that, having fearlessly applied that first rule, you must publish everything else without regard to whether the news is pleasant or unpleasant, and without regard to the question of whether it encourages us or discourages us, for the real truth is that if the news is good it encourages us and we are happy to receive it, and if the news is bad it encourages us because we are determined to reverse it To my mind those are the principles on which any Press Bureau should be run. Let me come to the case of the Dardanelles.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me any single case where the War Office ever published any bad news since the War began?
  Sir J. SIMON: Yes, but let me just come to the particular case of the Dardanelles. I am very glad to think there

  1903
  is some recent news from the Dardanelles, and I am sure the whole House and country will be glad in that there is cause for satisfaction. But this particular question has been raised to-night because the hon. Baronet who spoke last put a question to me earlier in the day and thought that my answer did not quite cover the ground. I think, if I may say so, it did. There is one point I would like to make quite plain. My hon. Friend asked a question as to how far what he called I think, "official German news" was censored in this country. The news which comes to this country from what is called official German sources comes by wireless telegraphy. It is wireless news. It is picked up as a matter of fact by our own wireless establishment, and is available for publication unless there is a good public reason against it being published. As a general rule that news is published without any censoring or challenge at all, but there are cases when it is not, and I may tell the House why. It is a regular practice of the German Government to include in their wireless news from time to time statements which, as we know, are wholly unfounded about ourselves, about our proceedings, about the attitude of this country towards the War, and they include them in their wireless news in the hope that we will publish them in this country, and when we publish them in this country they are put in the German papers as news which has already been printed in the British papers. By that means they hope to induce a state of opinion unfavourable to ourselves, more particularly in neutral countries.
  I will give an example. There was stopped the other day, and I think quite rightly stopped, a piece of news which purported to be official German news by wireless which was in effect that the whole of our scheme for the raising of money for the new Loan was a complete and utter failure, that no one would have anything to do with it, and that it betokened the breakdown of the whole British financial system. This we were asked to publish in our papers, not because it would do us any harm, but because the enemy could say such-and-such a London paper had published the news and then set it out in their papers. It does surprise me that hon. Friends of mine who are so rightly zealous in following up cases of suspicion in connection with spies should
  1904
  not see there is exactly the same kind of danger unless a proper censorship is exercised over that kind of news. As regards the Dardanelles itself, the House will perhaps observe—or those, at any rate, who have read the evening papers will observe—that only to-day a very long and very important piece of news has been published from General Ian Hamilton at the Dardanelles. I cannot pay the hon. Baronet the compliment of saying it was published because of the questions he put down. It is one of those happy coincidences on which he is to be congratulated. The news is news of events which happened only two or three days ago. The dispatch itself was sent off, I think, only two or three days ago. It was placed before the confidential advisers of His Majesty only this morning. It was issued to the Press Bureau at 5.20 this afternoon, and it is now published in the evening papers. It is true that the dispatch contains some details which are highly gratifying to us, because it contains the names of some of the regiments.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: For the first time.
  Sir J. SIMON: I think it must be satisfactory to everybody to see how in details the story is told. How, at a particular hour and at a particular place, the Royal Fusiliers played a gallant part and the Royal Scots made a fine attack. Let me read two or three sentences to show that all the details in this case which can possibly be given are given. Sir Ian Hamilton says:—
  "During the afternoon the trenches, a small portion of which remained uncaptured on the right, were attacked, but the enemy held on stubbornly supported by machine guns and artillery, and the attacks did not succeed. During the night the enemy counter-attacked the furthest trenches gained, but was repulsed with heavy loss. A party of Turks who penetrated from the flank between two lines of captured trenches was subjected to machine-gun fire at daybreak, suffered very heavily, and the survivors surrended. Except for a small portion of trench already mentioned, which is still held by the enemy, all and more than was hoped for from operations has been gained. On the extreme left the line has been pushed forward to a specially strong point well beyond the limit of the advance originally contemplated. All engaged did well, but certainly the chief factor in the success was the splendid attack carried out by the 29th Division, whose conduct on this, as on previous occasions, was beyond praise."
  Such a record is not only deeply gratifying to the House and the country, but it is in itself an indication of the great advantage which may be secured by publishing news where possible in some detail. I feel quite confident that my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for

  1905
  War is as conscious of that as anybody, and the only thing I wish to remind the hon. Member for Mansfield of is this: The conditions at the Dardanelles and on the long line in Flanders are not in all respects the same. There cannot be extensive lateral movements in the Gallipoli Peninsula, and once the enemy know what troops are opposing them it cannot be a matter of advantage to us, as a general rule, I apprehend, to conceal what particular unit it is which has taken part in any particular operations. I am a mere layman in these matters, but I am assured by those who spend their lives in studying the problems of modern warfare that other considerations may well apply when you are dealing with a long line, and when it is of the first importance that you should do nothing, and, above all, do nothing officially, which will enable the foe to know exactly what are the troops and their number and composition facing them at a particular moment and a particular time. That is not for me to decide, and I say with great respect, it is not for the House of Commons to decide. If we are not prepared to put confidence in our own generals and military advisers on matters of that sort we are not fit to wage war. Subject to that, which is a technical matter, I say with all my heart, the more news and the more details you give, the more you will be able to stir public imagination, and reward the anxiety of hearts at home by stating what are the units that are engaged in a particular gallant enterprise. That is perfectly obvious.
  Two other points were mentioned. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) pointed out, and he did so quite accurately, that up to the present news as to the operations in the Dardanelles had been published only through the newspapers, either news which had come from the military authorities or news coming from special correspondents whose dispatches have to be censored by the military authorities. My right hon. Friend says he hopes the time would soon come when a statement might be made with the authority of the Government as to the course of operations in that part of the field of war. I am very glad to be in a position to make a statement to the House on this point, and I am authorised by the Prime Minister to say that as soon as the national interest permits a suitable occasion will be taken for making a statement as to the operations of the Allies in the Dardanelles. I am very glad to be
  1906
  able to inform the House that a dispatch from Sir Ian Hamilton—when matters so anxious as these are now taking place it is a matter of regret that written dispatches cannot always be forthcoming—has been received and arrangements for its publication are in an advanced state and will shortly appear in the London Press. I am glad to be able to deal to that extent with the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. He put one other point. He wanted to know what was meant when it is said the military authorities had to censor the unofficial reports from the Dandanelles. I understand that the plan is this: I am told that there are more British and Colonial correspondents at the Dardanelles than there are in Flanders, and of course they write their accounts and reports there on the spot. It is quite inevitable that they should be censored within limits on the spot. I do not believe that in any field of war any other course would ever be followed, but the dispatches having been in that way reviewed are sent by the quickest possible route to this country, and they are instantly handed out to the newspapers concerned, and it is not the practice of the Press Bureau to censor those newspaper accounts as they reach this country further than they have been already censored.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that dispatches from authoriscd correspondents at the front have not been censored in London?
  Sir J. SIMON: I know the right hon. Gentleman speaks with knowledge on this question, but I am telling him what I think is right when I say that as regards the special correspondents in the Dardanelles their reports, as I understand it, are censored by the military authorities at the Dardanelles, but I will make inquiries and let the right hon. Gentleman know. I am quite certain of this: I do not think that when they get here they are censored. No doubt they are censored by the military authorities here if there is anything that escapes notice, but I am quite certain that they are not censored inside the Press Bureau here. I am informed that they rely entirely on these newspaper correspondents having had their matter suitably censored from a military point of view, and we do not deal with that matter at all in the Press Bureau.
  I have done my best to deal with the points which were raised. I would like to assure my two hon. Friends and the

  1907
  House that I do not in the least resent such questions being raised. I sympathise with those who ask whether all that can be done is being done, and I realise to the full that the best way in which we can maintain the spirit of our people in connection with these great events, and it may be these great sacrifices, to earn victory is to give them as far as ever we can information of what their own friends, their own brothers, their own sons, and their own fathers are doing. Of course, at the same time, we I must ask the House of Commons and we must ask the country in this matter, as in others, which after all are expert matters, to trust the experts. I refuse to believe that the great authorities who conduct our I military affairs are other than fully alive
  1908
  to the fact that part of the stimulus which can be applied to the community is the stimulus of knowing what is going on at the front. I assure my hon. Friends that as far as I am concerned—and I am speaking in this matter, I am sure, with the authority of the whole of the Government—it will be our constant desire to make those publications as full as we can, keeping out of publication only such matters as expert authority has shown us is calculated to be helpful to the enemy.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I should just like to say that we are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for his very full and very frank statement.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen minutes before Nine o'clock.

WAR.
  WAR LOAN (NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS).
  WAR LOAN (NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS).
  BOOM-DEFENCE WORK (PORTLAND).
  BOOM-DEFENCE WORK (PORTLAND).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
  GOVERNMENT WORKERS (BADGES).
  GOVERNMENT WORKERS (BADGES).
  German and Irish languages.
  German and Irish languages.
  Children Act (Certificates).
  Children Act (Certificates).
  Convictions (England and Wales).
  Convictions (England and Wales).
  Food and Coal Supplies (Fair Prices).
  Food and Coal Supplies (Fair Prices).
LORD MUIR-MACKENZIE.
Sir Kenneth Augustus Muir-Mackenzie, G.C.B., having been created Baron Muir-Mackenzie of Delvine, in the county of Perth—was (in the usual manner) introduced.
SUNDERLAND CORPORATION (WEAR-MOUTH BRIDGE) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
CHELMSFORD CORPORATION GAS BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  To be read 2a To-morrow (The Duke of Devonshire).

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues—Ninety-third Report of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, dated 29th June, 1915:
Agriculture (Scotland)—Agricultural Statistics, 1911. Volume III. Part I Acreage and Live Stock Returns of Scotland, with a Summary for the United Kingdom:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Post Office Savings Banks—Accounts of all deposits received and paid during the year ended 31st December, 1914; together with a statement showing the aggregate amount of the liabilities of the Government to depositors in the Post Office Savings Banks on 31st December 1914, and the nature and amount of the securities held by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt to meet those liabilities at that date:
Shops Act, 1912—

1. Closing Order made by the Urban District Council of Omagh;

2. Orders made by the following Councils and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, affecting certain classes of shops within their respective areas—

I. Leigh (Lancashire) Borough Council;

II. Urban District Council of Wolstanton United:

Penal Servitude Acts, 1853–1891 (Conditional Licence)—Licence granted to a convict discharging her from Aylesbury Convict Prison on condition that she enters a home:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No.1) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 7) BILL.
CONWAY FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
SEA FISHERIES (CARDIGAN BAY) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
SEA FISHERIES (POOLE) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): the Amendments proposed by the Committee made: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.

INDICTMENTS BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BUCKMASTER): My Lords, the reason for the introduction of this Bill is that it may be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament which is at present sitting and considering the con-

159
solidation of Acts relating to the Criminal Law. Your Lordships may remember that this Committee has been reappointed from session to session for the last five years, and that the Forgery Bill and, I think, the Perjury Bill have already been the result of their labours and have been passed and become Acts of Parliament. In the course of their work it was found that if the consolidation of the Criminal Law was to proceed satisfactorily it was essential that there should be some alteration in criminal procedure, and this Bill has been introduced for the purpose of meeting that want. The drafting of the measures to which I have referred has been in the hands of a very strong Committee, presided over, I think, by Mr. Justice Avory, helped by the Public Prosecutor Sir Charles Mathews, and assisted by the eminent criminal counsel Mr. Bodkin, and other eminent people. It is under their care that this Bill has been framed, and your Lordships will sec that in substance what it does is to provide that the procedure shall be regulated by rules which are to be approved, and these rules, which are already prepared, will be submitted to the Joint Committee and, if approved by them, will form a code of procedure in criminal proceedings. I think that the history of this Bill should prove its sufficient justification, and possibly I shall be meeting the wishes of your Lordships if I avoid at this moment going into the details and the circumstances that have rendered this Bill necessary and explaining why it is that indictments in criminal procedure frequently become encumbered with matter which it is thought by wise and judicious rules may be effectively removed. I beg to recommend the Bill to your Lordships' favourable consideration, and to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I certainly do not propose to deal with the Bill as it is at present. I came down to the House with the intention of moving a great many Amendments to some parts of the Bill which I think are objectionable. But after what the noble and learned Lord has said, that the Bill is going to be referred to the Joint Committee, it would be inappropriate, I think, at this moment to discuss its merits.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I only rise to express my satisfaction that the Lord Chancellor has gone on with this Bill, which has been called for for some time past and has been the subject much consideration. The noble and learned Earl who has just spoken has said, very properly, that the Bill deals with important matters. But it is going to a Joint Committee which is much more than a Consolidation Committee, because for the purposes of this Bill it will be a Committee which will subject the provisions in the Bill to the close scrutiny which they require, and I was glad to hear from the Lord Chancellor that the rules under which the procedure will be adapted will also be before that Committee. It is no new course to take for legislation of this kind to depend largely on rules. As regards procedure that has been our system for some time past, and it is certainly no objection to this Bill that it should be so here. The Bill is a most valuable one. As the Lord Chancellor told the House, it is impossible without it to have any adequate consolidation of the Criminal Law, and I trust that your Lordships will assent to the Second Reading on the footing that the Bill goes for investigation to the Joint Committee.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, before the Bill is read a second time I should like to ask two questions of the Lord Chancellor. This Bill deals with a very important subject. In fact, I think nothing can be more important than to maintain our criminal system on the surest possible foundation, so that justice may be done and prisoners may in all cases be properly protected against any risk of unjust conviction. Subsection (2) of Clause 1 provides that the rules as to indictments shall be made by a rule committee consisting of the Lord Chief Justice of England and other persons, and shall be subject to the approval of the Lord Chancellor. I want to ask the noble and learned Lord this question. Will those rules, on which the Bill really depends, be placed on the Table of this House so that we may have a chance of discussing them before they become law? If not, it appears to me that on a very important subject we shall be delegating entirely an authority which in the last resort ought to rest with ourselves. I quite agree that rules of this kind must be drawn up by an expert committee,

161
but before they become law they ought to be submitted to the judgment of the House by way of being laid on the Table, so that if any one desires to take exception to them it will be possible to do so. As my noble and learned friend Lord Halsbury said, it is quite impossible to discuss the Bill in its present form; and when it takes a form in which it can be discussed I think that at that stage your Lordships should have an opportunity of expressing your views upon this most important topic—namely, the criminal jurisprudence and jurisdiction in this country. Therefore I hope that some assurance will be given upon that point.
My other question is this. It is proposed that the Bill should be sent to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. I understood the noble and learned Viscount opposite to say that that was in accordance with precedent, but he cannot mean that this is a Consolidation Bill. In its terms it implies a large alteration in criminal procedure as it exists at the present time. Therefore if the Bill goes to the Consolidation Committee the House must not suppose that it is a Consolidation Bill in any sense of the term. It. only goes to that Committee in order that it may be discussed and settled in the ordinary way in which a Select Committee which was not a Consolidation Committee would deal with a proposal of this character. I welcome the Bill most heartily in its general aspect, because its tendency is to Ore greater simplicity. A leading factor in criminal jurisprudence should be the greatest possible simplicity and the absence of technical phrases and technicalities, provided at the same time that the prisoner or person charged is protected against any embarrassment, which I think might arise under certain clauses of this Bill unless the rules were properly framed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think I can best answer the noble and learned Lord's first question by saying that the rules will be a proper subject for amendment. As to his other question, I desired to make it quite plain that this Bill was not strictly a Consolidation Bill. I said that it was a Bill the necessity for which became manifest when the Consolidation Committee proceeded with their work, and that it was because of that that it had been introduced.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Then it was moved, "That it is expedient that the Bill be referred to a joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, and that the said Committee be the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills of the present Session" (The Lord Chancellor); agreed to; and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to communicate this Resolution and to desire their concurrence.

THE WAR—PEERS' ROLL OF HONOUR.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I rise to ask the noble Marquess who leads the House whether he will indicate what method he proposes to insure that the Return asked for by Lord St. Davids shall be accurately made. Since I placed this Question on the Paper a Motion has been put down in the name of Lord St. Davids—
To move for a Return of the names of Peers and sons of Peers serving in the Army and Navy, and of the position or rank in which they are serving.
I hope that Lord St. Davids may be present in view of one or two remarks that I intend to make. But I may say at the outset that in my view, if the Return is to be limited in the sense of the Motion standing in the name of Lord St. Davids, it would be in a form to which I should be very much opposed. When Lord St. Davids moved for this Return in the first instance he said that he had no preconceived notion of the form in which it should be made. I agree very much with what was said by Lord Devonport on that occasion. I suggest that it is vital that any one asking on sound grounds for a Return of this kind should have a preconceived notion as to the form which the Return should take. I admit, that personally I am opposed entirely to any such Roll or Return. I think it would be a mistake, for reasons which I will indicate as shortly as possible. But if a Return is to be made it is most important, in order to prevent invidious distinctions, that it should be as exhaustive as possible in order that the whole position may be ascertained and understood.
Let me say one or two words why it is that I adopt the view which was expressed by Lord Devonport on the last occasion and not the view expressed by Lord St. Davids. It appears to me that Lord St. Davids gave no reason whatever—

163
and I have read his speech with care—to justify his demand for a Return of this character. Therefore the reasons which I am going to suggest as possible reasons which may have influenced him are necessarily to a great extent hypothetical. He might have suggested that there was some suspicion that the sons of members of this House were not doing their duty at this time of great national crisis. There is no ground whatever for any suspicion of that kind. If there were, it ought to have been explained in order that if the accusation was reasonable it could be fairly and properly met in open debate. I take the view that it is undignified for this House to excuse itself upon a matter of this kind before some reasonable accusation has been formulated. I may use the trite French formula, Qui s'excuse s'accuse. I hope that this House, in the absence of any accusation, will not put itself on a defence in a matter in regard to which I believe there is no suspicion anywhere, and which suspicion no one could entertain for a moment who was cognisant of what has been taking place during this national crisis. I recollect a member of your Lordships' House when he was Mr. Disraeli being once criticised in the smoking room of the House of Commons as regards his domestic life. Some one asked him why he made no answer, and he said "What no gentleman would say no gentleman need answer." In the same way I would say to this House that I think it is beneath our dignity to attempt to answer an accusation of this kind until it has been made on reasonable grounds and in a form which we can understand and appreciate.
What other ground can there be for a Roll or Return of this kind? Our sons are only doing their duty, as fire all other Englishmen at the present time. We do not claim it as a merit. We only feel, as I hope we do, that our families are taking their part as are the families of all other Englishmen at this time of crisis. Why should a Return be made as regards our sons which is not made as regards all other Englishmen in this country? That appears to me, again, to be an invidious matter. I do not wish to use as regards this House such a common expression as might be implied in the word "advertisement," but there is that element in a suggestion of this kind, that we who do not claim to be doing more than our fair
164
share but who know that we are doing our fair share in this national emergency should ask that a Roll or Return should be made in our case which is not made as regards all other parents in every part of the country whose families are equally doing their duty. I feel very strongly myself, and I know many of your Lordships are of the same opinion, that it would be altogether a mistake to have a Roll or Return of this kind at this moment.
Let me say a word as regards the form of the Return. I do not know whether Lord St. Davids is here, but I suppose the Motion will be made in the terms on the Paper—namely, for a Return of the names of Peers and sons of Peers serving in the Army and Navy. I admit that in the first instance one's thoughts go to the Army and Navy. But such a Return would be nothing like an exhaustive catalogue of great public duties being undertaken by the sons of members of this House. I will take one very familiar instance. Take Red Cross work, which has less public notice, less public decoration, if I may use that expression, than service in the Army and Navy. It is at least as meritorious as regards those amongst us who have a son or sons engaged in this work. Let me take another illustration. Lord Devon-port the other day—and I must say I sympathise with him fully—referred to his own case. One of his sons is in the unfortunate position of being an interned civilian in Germany; another is unfortunately too ill to undertake public work. If you are to have a Return that is not to be invidious you must have it wide enough to show, not only what has been done, but what has prevented similar work from a son or sons in such a case as that of the noble Lord opposite; and yet it would be almost impossible to get an exhaustive and complete Roll or Return under conditions of that kind.
I come back to the question, What is the form of Return that is proposed? If it is in a limited form, I think great injustice will be done; if it is in the wider form, I think there is great risk of inaccuracy or of impossibility of getting sufficient detail. I hope that, after all, this Roll or Return may never be made at all. I trust that on second thoughts it will be seen that there are sound and strong objections to it, and that it would be undignified either to put curselves on defence before any reasonable accusation

165
has been made, or to make a Return of what our sons are doing without a similar Return being made in respect of all parents whose families are doing all that they can in this great national crisis.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, I should like to associate myself very fully with the objection stated by the noble and learned Lord—a root-arid-branch objection, as we say in the Committee rooms upstairs— to this Return being prepared at all. I had not the advantage of being here the other night when Lord St. Davids suggested this and made his speech about it, but I confess that, speaking for myself, I still suffer from almost a sense of surprise at the welcome which his proposal appeared to receive from the two noble Marquesses who are now, I suppose, in joint charge of our domestic affairs and operations in this House. Lord Crewe and Lord Lansdowne are two of the Englishmen I should have selected whose minds were least likely to be clouded by enthusiasm for anything like a Return of this kind, which, as the noble and learned Lord said just now, trenches or actually impinges upon the frontiers of self-advertisement. I feel sure that the reason the noble Marquess Lord Lansdowne, with whom I am sure we all feel sympathy in the great loss he has suffered through this war, and the noble Marquess Lord Crewe, who has also suffered from the war, gave countenance to this suggestion was that they thought that a Return of this sort would be grateful to the feelings of others amongst your Lordships who had suffered losses or had people they were fond of serving in the war. But, however that may be, I repeat that, speaking for myself, I was surprised at their acquiescing in the preparation of a Return of this sort; and I may say that, if it comes to the push a little later on and I get sufficient support, I shall move and take to a Division a counter-Resolution that the Return should not be made.
The genesis of this idea seems to me curious, and it was heralded in by what seemed to me a curious speech. But I do not want to go into that. I may say that in method and manner it was a little like the kind of speeches which we associate with the name of Petronius Arbiter. What I was going to ask was, What is the good of the Return? Lord St. Davids took the opportunity, very properly, to
166
speak highly of the working man and al that he had done. We all endorse that. Therefore no example as regards the House of Lords is necessary in the case of the working man. I quite agree with what the noble and learned Lord said just now, that as regards other people the Return would have the opposite effect of encouragement, because I think the general public, who are doing all they can to help the war, would very justly say, We do not see why a more or less close body like the House of Lords, with all sorts of clerical and other assistance at their disposal, should be entitled to prepare, as it were, a new patent of nobility or distinction which other classes in the country are not able to share. To that extent I think the Return would not only have an opposite effect, but would do harm.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord in thinking that in such a Return your Lordships' House would come out well. Still, I cannot suppose that even Lord St. Davids intended that it was to be a Return for our own private delectation and consumption. If he thought that, it shows that he knows very little about the House of Lords. It is not the sort of pabulum to which we are accustomed or the sort of fare we should digest with any satisfaction, because it might very likely mean that some people were excluded whose whole circumstances had not been properly explained, and I think we should find it the sort of fare which would disagree with our stomachs. For what other purpose is the Return suggested? I do not suppose that it is to be posted on the hoardings side by side with the pictorial advertisements, some of them sarcastic, some sentimental, and some epigrammatic, upon which voluntary recruiting has to rest. Therefore I do not see what good it would be. Whatever deficiencies this House may possess I do not think we have ever been supposed to be great self-advertisers of our virtues. If anything, we have been hauled over the coals for making mistakes in the other direction. Therefore I hope we are not going now to start out on a new line and advertise our qualities of patriotism, or courage, or whatever you like to call it, in this way. In those circumstances if later on a Motion for the Return is made I shall, if I can get support, divide the House against it.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I desire to associate myself with every word which has been spoken by the two noble Lords who have addressed the House. I quite agree with Lord Ribblesdale that the speech which was the origin and foundation of this Motion certainly did contain in it things to which we are not accustomed in this House, and which, I believe in the general opinion of the House, was not in very good taste. I wish to make every excuse for the noble Lord (Lord St. Davids), because we know that he has suffered a great domestic loss in the war, and we can easily suppose that he spoke under feelings of very great tension. There is one thing that I wish to say with reference to what was stated about the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne. I was present and heard everything that was said. Lord Lansdowne administered a rebuke which, according to his usual practice, was couched in very mild terms, but it meant a great deal; and, moreover, if the noble Marquess had not spoken in the way he did, which we thought amply sufficient to convey the fact that the House generally was not in favour of the tone or the matter of Lord St. Davids's speech, that line would have been taken, I am sure, by other noble Lords in this House.
With regard to this Return, I believe we are out of order—in fact, I know we are—because the Question professes to relate only to the form in which the Return is to be made. Yet here we are discussing the Return itself, and whether it should be made. But as the two noble Lords who have spoken have been out of order, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to be out of order too, because then we shall be spared a repetition of these speeches when the Motion is before us. We shall, of course, when the Motion is moved, expect reasons to be given for the Return being asked for, and it is possible that when those reasons have been stated, it may be necessary to say something more. But, in the meantime, what is the object of this Return? Your Lordships, I am sure we are all agreed, are not in favour of giving Returns unless there is some public advantage to be derived from them. Now, what public advantage will be derived from this Return? The House of Commons has not granted a similar Return, nor, so far as I know, has one been issued by any public or private body. Why are
168
we to step forward and give a Return relating to ourselves? There can be only two reasons for our so doing. The noble Lord rather hesitated at the use of the term "self-advertisement." I do not. The Return can only be required for the purpose of self-advertisement or in reply to an attack. What attack has been made upon us? There has been no attack so far as I know, except certain remarks which were made in the course of a speech in this House which professed to be delivered with regard to a different thing altogether—namely, with regard to compulsory service and calling upon labour to give its services unstintingly. Surely we can wait until we are attacked. If anybody attacks us, then will be the time to reply. I submit that it is not consistent with the dignity of this House to volunteer a Return with regard to its members and their families.
It is quite impossible that the Return can be agreed to in the terms in which the Motion now stands, because there are many services being rendered by noble Lords and by members of their families which would not be comprised within the Return and to omit which would be very unfair. The noble Lord opposite said he would divide the House against the Motion if he had any support. He can certainly count tin my vote, and I hope on the votes of others of your Lordships. I must confess that I think the whole thing has been unfortunate from the beginning. Lord St. Davids's speech at the time was acknowledged not to be very fortunate, at least parts of it, and this Return originated from that speech. Were we to grant the Return, it would give a false impression of everything that occurred; because, after all, what was wanted to be known? You were not asked what your Lordships or your sons had been doing, but reference was made to certain things that the sons of some of your Lordships had not been doing. I shall certainly give my vote against the granting of the Return.
LORD LATYMER: The noble Earl who has just sat down mentioned that as far as he knew a Return such as the one proposed had not been issued by any public or private body. I would point out that certain private bodies have done so. I refer to the London hotels in which are posted up the names of the members of their staffs who are serving in the war.
LORD BLYTH: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord St. Davids, I beg to move for a Return of the names of Peers and sons of Peers serving in the Army and Navy, and of the position or rank in which they are serving. If ever we should arrive at the time when we have some form of compulsory military training, which I understand our hundreds of thousands in the fighting lines as well as our millions of fellow countrymen throughout the Empire never cease praying for, there would be no need for this Return. It, however, behoves us at this time of voluntary service to take every opportunity of showing that what are called the leisured classes are bearing their full share in this gigantic struggle. I was much impressed by a conversation that I recently had with a most successful recruiting officer in the Eastern Counties. He told me that he now never held a recruiting meeting either in town or village without first finding out who were the principal families in the district, when he had a list prepared of their relatives who were serving their King and Country, and the honours, if any., they had won for bravery. These particulars he made known to his audience, and, in his own language, he had found it his "trump card" for getting recruits, and a very large addition to our Army has resulted therefrom. I imagine that when my noble friend Lord St. Davids made this proposal the sole object he had in view was that the Return might be an encouragement to recruiting in this country. But I appreciate the many arguments which have been advanced on the other side, and certainly the House of Lords is the last assembly in connection with which one would expect anything in the shape of self-advertisement. Therefore I only formally move for this Return.
Moved, That there be laid before the House a Return of the names of Peers and sons of Peers serving in the Army and Navy, and of the position or rank in which they are serving.—(Lord Blyth (for Lord St. Davids).)
LORD MERSEY: My Lords, this discussion apparently has been irregular from the beginning. But there is one thing perfectly plain to me, and that is that the House desires to divide upon this question and get rid of it. I therefore move that we take a Division at once.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, if the Motion for this Return is pushed to a Division I shall vote against it. But in addition to the reasons which have been given, there is one which appears to me to make it impossible to accept the Motion as it now stands. The Motion asks for a Return of the names of Peers and sons of Peers who are now serving in the Army and Navy. Surely it ought also to include those who have fallen in the service of their country.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I am sorry that Lord St. Davids was not in his place to make this Motion in his own name. I may remind my noble and learned friend opposite (Lord Mersey) that both he and I are completely in order. It is true that some of the noble Lords who spoke earlier in the debate were not strictly in order, but we are; for we are speaking to the Motion of my noble friend behind me (Lord Blyth). I am sorry that Lord St. Davids was not in his place, all the more as the speech that he made on the former occasion has been animadverted on by more than one noble Lord in the course of this discussion, and I have no doubt that had my noble friend been here he would have wished to explain the object with which lie said what he did on that occasion.
The original Motion which Lord St. Davids placed on the Paper was to ask for a Return of Peers and sons of Peers of military age serving in the Army and Navy. It was pointed out to him that the inclusion of the words "of military age" was subject to two objections. In the first place, it did lay the noble Lord open to sonic extent to the suspicion which has been mentioned in debate—namely, that the object of the Motion was rather to show up those Peers and sons of Peers, if such there are, who might be taking an active part in the war but are not, rather than to give a list of those who are. In the second place, the limitation to military age, if it was desired to make anything like a complete list of the military and naval service of Peers, would exclude, assuming military age to be the recruiting age—and there is, of course, the further objection that the term "military age" is arbitrary and variable—sonic of the most distinguished members of your Lordships' House who are serving in a military or naval capacity. It would exclude the

171
three noble and gallant Field-Marshals, who are in their different ways assisting in the service of the war, and it would for instance have excluded, had be been alive, the honoured figure of Lord Roberts. Lord St. Davids was, I believe, impressed by these arguments, and he desires that it should be known that for those reasons he altered the form of his Motion.
On the form of the Motion I might say this, that on the earlier occasion I alluded to the fact that, as my noble friend on the Cross Benches (Lord Cromer) has pointed out, the terms of the Motion would exclude those who have fallen in action. It therefore would be necessary, if the Motion were put to the House, to alter its form in some such manner as this, "To move for a Return of the names of Peers and sons of Peers who have served or are serving in the Army and Navy during the present war, and of the position or rank in which such service has been or is being rendered." That would cover, I think, the point raised by my noble friend on the Cross Benches. Then in order that I may answer in definite terms the question of the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Parmoor), I should say that if this Motion were agreed to the simplest form of action would be to issue a circular to each member of your Lordships' House asking him to supply a return of his own military or naval service or of that of his son or sons supposing them to be so serving, and that such returns should then be checked by the two Departments, the Admiralty and the War Office, which would be in a position to do so.
But it is I think advisable, in view of the course which the debate has taken, to make one or two general observations on the subject. My noble friend Lord Ribblesdale expressed some surprise at the tone taken by my noble friend behind me, Lord Lansdowne, and by myself when the matter was before the House last time. I do not think that either of us expressed precisely the degree of enthusiasm for this Return which Lord Ribblesdale appeared to imagine we had, although it is true that we accepted the principle believing that it would be a satisfaction to the House that we should do so; and I confess that it has come as a certain surprise to us in turn to find what a large and strong body of feeling there evidently is in the House that such a Return is not desirable, and the opinions
172
which have been expressed by noble Lords are obviously deserving of the closest consideration. I confess I am not myself entirely impressed by the argument that such a Return would necessarily involve an undignified attitude on our part. The noble and learned Lord and other noble Lords have said that such a Return is not made or issued by other bodies of persons. I do not think that is quite accurate, apart from the jocular reference which was made by a noble Lord opposite (Lord Latymer). Organised bodies of Englishmen united by particular ties do, as a matter of fact, make these returns and are proud to make them. The public schools, such as Eton and Harrow, the various Universities and their colleges, the different technical colleges all over the country—these all issue such returns of their members and former members who are taking part in military and naval service, and their doing so is as a rule, I think, regarded with sympathy. It would never surprise me to hear that it would be a gratification to the Civil Servants of the country, who have come forward with such splendid devotion to offer their services in that line of life to which ex hypothesi they are not accustomed, that a complete roll of those who are serving in the ranks or with commissions should be issued. For these reasons, whatever may be the objections to be taken to such a Return, I confess I cannot see that its issue would in itself be derogatory to our proper dignity.
Then there is the question of the form, or rather the substance, of the Return. It is said, and said quite truly, that there are other services not less honourable, in some cases not less arduous, which can be performed by members of this House or by others and of which mention ought to be made quite as much as of military or of naval service. If that objection is to be pressed, and if it is to be said that no Return would be of any value unless it included all the public services which may be rendered by members either of your Lordships' House or of any other body that should issue a similar return, the answer appears to be that no imputation whatever is conveyed upon any person, old or young, by his not appearing in this particular list, and I confess I cannot understand why it should be taken as involving any possibility of such an imputation. If it were desired to publish some form of the general services of noble Lords in the manner of that

173
popular and useful compilation known as "Who's Who," the return would not only be exceedingly voluminous but it would also appear to be somewhat meaningless. If there is to be a Return at all, I confess I cannot sympathise with the objection to confining it to military and naval service alone. It is open to anybody to say that service in hospitals, if you like service in a Public Office, service rendered to the Church, and service in a great many other directions, is of equal value to the nation to that which is rendered by our soldiers and sailors. But that surely is not the question. If this Roll were issued it would stand entirely on its own merits as a Return of those who are actually serving in the two branches of the fighting forces. It would be, in fact, a kind of chapter in that General Register the taking of which, as noble Lords know, was described by my right hon. friend in another place yesterday.
Having said so much, and bearing in mind what my noble friend behind me (Lord Blyth) said, which I am very glad to accept as coming from him, that the paramount idea in the mind of my noble friend Lord St. Davids was that a Return of this sort would give an encouragement to recruiting, yet at the same time, in view of the strongly expressed and evidently strongly felt opinion to the contrary entertained be so many members of your Lordships' House, I cannot advise my noble friend to press his Motion. I think he would be wise in the circumstances not to attempt to proceed with it. It is, as the House recognises, in no sense a suggestion from His Majesty's Government, although we were willing to take it as offered by my noble friend. But all of us here feel most strongly that it is entirely a matter for the House to decide, and in view of what has been said not merely by one or two noble Lords but by several, and evidently with the sympathy of a good many more, I should advise my noble friend to withdraw his Motion.
LORD BLYTH: My Lords, I should like my noble friend Lord St. Davids to have expressed himself on this question to-night had it been possible. But if we must come to a decision now, I shall, of course, bow to the feeling of the House and withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MILK AND DAIRIES ACTS POSTPONEMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Postponement of Milk and Dairies Acts.
1. The Milk and Dairies Act, 1914, and the Milk and Dairies (Scotland) Act, 1914, shall, notwithstanding anything in those Acts, not come into operation until such a date, not being later than the expiration of one year after the termination of the present war, as the Local Government Board and the Local Government Board for Scotland may respectively by order appoint.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had on the Paper two Amendments, the effect of which would be to make Clause 1 read as follows, "The Milk and Dairies Act, 1914, and the and Dairies (Scotland) Act., 1914, shall, notwithstanding anything in those Acts, not come into operation until such date, not being earlier than the expiration of one year after the termination of the present war, unless Parliament otherwise determines."
The noble Lord said: I should like to ask my noble friend in charge of the Bill the reason for taking power for the Local Government Board to settle when the Bill should come into operation. As this clause stands in the Bill, it provides that the Act of 1914 shall not come into operation until a date not later than the expiration of one year after the termination of the present war. I have no wish to delay the coming into operation of the Act or unduly to force its operation upon the dairy interest, but I think it desirable that we should have some indication of the view of the Local Government Board as regards this matter. We should know whether their intention is to postpone the operation of the Act until after the end of the war or whether they think it might come into operation next year even if, unfortunately, the war is not then over. My object in putting down these Amendments is to get some expression of opinion as to what is in the mind of the Department in this matter. If the noble Lord cannot

175
accept the Amendments standing in my name on the Paper, I should like to ask whether he would accept an Amendment to insert, after "Local Government Board," the words "with the concurrence of the Board of Agriculture." My reason for asking that these words should be added is that the whole active part of the Act is under Orders issued by the Local Government Board, and, as the noble Lord knows, those Orders cannot be made except with the concurrence of the Board of Agriculture. It would give more satisfaction to agriculturists if, in the same way, it should be provided that the Act should not come into operation at a particular time unless the Board of Agriculture approved of its so doing.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 8, leave out ("later") and insert ("earlier").—(Lord Strachie.)
LORD HYLTON: I explained yesterday in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, why it is suggested in Clause 1 that the Milk and Dairies Act, 1914, should not come into operation until such date, not being later than the expiration of one year after the termination of the present war, as the Local Government Board may by Order appoint. The reason, as I stated yesterday, is this. There is a great dearth at present of officers connected with the public health staffs of local authorities and also of the Local Government Board and of the Board of Agriculture, and the number of officers available for service under the Act is likely to be further diminished as time goes on owing to their being detached for military service. Therefore the Local Government Board thought well that the operation of the Act should be postponed for a period not more than twelve months after the end of the war. The Act of 1914 was a child of my noble friend opposite, and I think he is taking rather an unfortunate attitude towards his own offspring in wishing to put off its operation for a still further period. At the time the noble Lord was passing the Act of 1914 through your Lordships' House he invited you to trust the Local Government Board in the matter. The view of the Local Government Board is that it would be improper to postpone the operation of the Act for a longer period than twelve months after the war. With regard to the other question of the noble Lord, as to whether
176
there would be any objection to inserting the words "with the concurrence of the Board of Agriculture," I would point out that he has placed no Amendment to that effect on the Paper, and I suggest that if he wishes to move that Amendment he should put it down for a later stage.
LORD STRACHIE: I was only anxious to find out whether inv noble friend would object to that Amendment. Had he been inclined to agree to it, I could have moved its insertion straight away. As to the noble Lord's inference that I lack confidence in the Local Government Board, I beg to say that that is not the case. When my noble friend has had as long an official experience as I have had he will know that you always have complete confidence in the Department you represent, for if you have not you cease to represent it.
LORD HYLTON: I hope I may have as long an official experience as my noble friend has had. But with regard to his suggested Amendment to insert the words "with the concurrence of the Board of Agriculture," I must ask him to place it on the Paper for a future stage of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE did not move his second Amendment on the Paper.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.

MAINTENANCE OF LIVE STOCK BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
LORD STRACHIE: May I ask on what day the noble Earl intends to take the Second Reading of this Bill?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF SELEORNE): I should like to take the Second Reading to-morrow, if that is agreeable to the House.
LORD STRACHIE: It is rather short notice. There was a discussion on the matter at the County Councils Association after the noble Earl left this morning, and they thought the Bill so important that they referred it to their Parliamentary Committee, not thinking that the Second Reading would be taken this week.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: If that is the case, I will certainly postpone it. Will next Tuesday do?
LORD STRAMIE: Wednesday would be better.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Then will put the Bill down for Wednesday.
Bill to be read 2a on Wednesday next (The Earl of Selborne). (No. 112.)

WAR LOAN EXTENSION BILL.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a, to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Hylton). (No. 113.)

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL. (No. 114.)
GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL. (No. 115.)
LAND DRAINAGE (RAVENINGHAM) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL. (No. 116.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL. (No. 117.)
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL. (No. 118.)
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Six o'clock, till Tomorrow half past Ten o'clock.