Sitting of 6 October 1915

EARL ANNESLEY.
Petition of Walter Beresford Annesley, Earl Annesley, in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Report from the Committee of Selection, that the Lords following be proposed to the House as the panel of Lords to act as Commissioners under the Act, viz.:

L. Stewart of Castle Stuart (E. Moray);

L. Southwark;

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly.

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
Trade Reports (Annual Series)—

No. 5481. Persia (Khorasan, year ended 20th March, 1914);

No. 5482. Persia (Kerman, 1913–1914);

No. 5483. Greece (Piraeus and District, 1914);

No. 5484. Portugal (Chinde, 1914);

No. 5485. Denmark (St. Thomas and St. Croix, 1914);

No. 5486. Portugal (Madeira, 1914):

Colonies (Annual)—

No. 857. Bechuanaland Protectorate (Report for 1914–1915);

No. 858. Basutoland (Report for 1914–1915);

No. 859. Gold Coast (Report for 1914):

Crown Agents for the Colonies—Accounts of the Crown Agents Office Funds for 1914:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Public Records (Customs and Excise)—Seventh Schedule containing a list and particulars of classes of documents existing or accruing in the office of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office:
Inebriates Acts, 1879–1900—Report of the Inspector under the Acts, for the year 1914:
Shops Act, 1912—Orders made by the Councils of the undermentioned Counties, County Boroughs and Boroughs, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, affecting certain classes of shops within their respective areas—

1. County Borough of South Shields;

2. Derby County (Swadlincote Urban District and Parishes of Woodville and Castle Gresley);

3. County Borough of Huddersfield (a specified area);

4. Borough of Luton (Borough of Luton);

5. County Borough of South Shields (County Borough of South Shields) (two Orders):

National Insurance Acts—The National Health Insurance (Navy and Army) Regulations (Wales) (No. 1), 1915:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

CLACKMANNAN COUNTY WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
GLASGOW WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order): Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

WAR PENSIONS, HELP TO DISABLED MEN, &c., BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Marquess of Creve.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, there is one question which I should like to put to the Government on this Motion. The

971
body which is going to deal with the expenditure under this Bill differs from that which was originally proposed in the Bill, and at first sight it did not appear clear why the Government objected to this reconstruction of the body, because the Committee as set up under the amended Bill will be a more public body than could be a Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. In the course of these discussions a good deal has been said by the Government as to the necessity of only giving public funds to public bodies. But on the face of it, the Government have preferred a non-public body to a public body, because they have taken the strong step of saying that they will not be responsible for Lord Devonport's Amendment nor for any Amendment consequential upon it. I should like to ask, Does that mean a change of policy on their part? This public body as set up by your Lordships' Amendment would be one eminently fitted to receive public contributions. Does the objection of the Government to a Committee so formed mean that they intend to rely upon private subscriptions rather than upon Government contributions? I do not think they have stated what their objection in principle or in policy is to the Amendment that was inserted by your Lordships. They did state that they regarded it as a grave alteration of the Bill, but they did not explain their policy. This Committee can act in two ways. It can be supported by public funds supplemented by private subscriptions, or it can rely principally on private subscriptions supplemented by public funds. I am rather afraid that owing to the immensely increased taxation and other causes it will be extremely difficult, in the immediate future anyhow and probably for a few years to come, to get the amount of private subscriptions required, and therefore it will be necessary to rely on public grants. That was one of the reasons why I supported the Amendment setting up a more public body than a Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund, as proposed by the Government. I think it is not unfair to ask the Government whether they intend that the large requirements under the Bill should be met by private subscriptions supplemented by Government grants, rather than the policy which certainly I thought I was supporting in setting up this public body—that of relying on Government grants supplemented by private subscriptions.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I was under the impression that I had made fairly clear to the House on the last occasion the circumstances which caused us to regard your Lordships' Amendment as striking at the root of the plan which the Government had made. The noble Viscount opposite now asks—very much in the terms of a Notice on the Paper in the name of Lord Tenterden—how far the Government are prepared to undertake the main, or at any rate the initial, burden of making these payments. I think I had better explain again what the distinction between the two schemes in our opinion is. Our scheme was that after the State had made itself responsible for pensions and separation allowances on the ordinary scale, the supplements to those pensions and allowances—demanded by circumstances which are familiar to the whole House, and into which I need not therefore go—should be provided in the first instance by a voluntary body, and the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation was chosen for that purpose. It was hoped and believed that by the association of that body with localities through the composition of the Patriotic Fund Corporation large sums might be collected which could be devoted to these supplementary purposes. But it was also recognised that owing to the causes which the noble Viscount has mentioned and to others, it might happen that before the end of the war the sums voluntarily subscribed would not be sufficient to carry on the supplementary grants on the scale on which they have been contributed hitherto; and the Government therefore stated that they would be willing by way of grant—that is to say, by allocating from public funds a lump sum to be handed over to this body and used in addition to its own resources—to do what they could to maintain those supplementary allowances on the scale of the past. That, the noble Viscount will clearly see, is a totally different proposition from the Government saying, "We will give each year from the Votes to a public departmental body such a sum as would be needed for continuing these supplementary allowances on precisely their present scale. Although we have promised this, we hope that the public will still continue to subscribe." It is quite evident, of course, that in such circumstances the public would not subscribe. If the National Exchequer has

973
undertaken an obligation the people will not put their hands in their pockets in order to relieve the National Exchequer of part of that obligation. But that is a totally different proposition from the one which we have favoured and still favour—nainely, that there should be a mainly private body with departmental representation, as happens in similar cases, to which in the event of public funds running short certain assistance might be given.
And it is important that I should point out once more that if it has to be assumed that no private subscriptions are to be forthcoming and the whole burden has to be undertaken by the Treasury, it is quite clear that the entire scale of supplementary allowances and the principles on which they are distributed must be closely re-examined and very possibly seriously modified. These allowances are made, not so much in relation to the presumed national obligation towards the individual as in respect of the particular needs of the individual owing to his or her private circumstances, and it is for that reason that we look forward with sonic apprehension to the possibility that the whole scale may have to be revised, and that is why we want, so far as possible, to keep the stream of private benevolence still current. That, I think, explains—I hope clearly—to the noble Viscount and to the House generally what the position is with regard to the provision of public funds. It is because we consider that the basis on which public funds might be provided, and probably will have to be provided, has been changed by your Lordships' Amendment that my noble friend (Lord Lansdowne) and I all through have declined to accept this alteration as one which we believe can form part of an Act of Parliament.
LORD TENTERDEN LORD TENTERDEN had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether, in the event of the House agreeing to eliminate the clause for State control, His Majesty's Government will give the House some definite and binding assurance that any deficit in the funds available for distribution will in extremis invariably be made good by the State.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I was not aware that the noble Viscount opposite was going to put a Question on lines similar to the one standing in my name
974
on the Paper. But the answer which the noble Marquess has just given does not meet the point which I was going to raise, for the construction which I place upon the remarks made by the noble Marquess is that in the event of insufficient money being forthcoming it may be necessary to restrict the allowances. I did not put down this Question for the purpose of raising a controversial matter, but, on the contrary, in the hope of assisting in bringing about a settlement of the outstanding difficulties. Many noble Lords have argued with great force that the vital reason for having State control here was that you were in the greater part going to utilise public funds. When we look at the Bill we find a system of voluntary contributions plus the aid of public funds. I do not wish to pass any adverse criticism on the Bill at this stage. At the same time I fail to see any guarantee, on the part of the voluntary contributions, as to what they will amount to; or on the part of the public funds so frequently alluded to, as to what they really consist of. Therefore 1 feel that if this safeguard of State control—I say "safeguard" because I consider that where State control exists there co-exists with it a certain amount of State responsibility—is taken away, the Government should give the definite assurance for which I ask. The weakness of the Bill is on its financial side, and if State control is deleted it will be taking away the very essence and substance of the Bill as it now stands. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House told us on Tuesday last, on the Report stage, that the inclusion of this clause for State control strikes vitally at the fundamental principles of the Bill. He told us at the same time that we were to be mindful of the fact that we were framing a measure which would outlast—
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The noble Lord speaks of the "clause for State control." To which clause in the Bill is he alluding?
LORD TENTERDEN: I allude to the Amendment which was agreed to on the motion of Lord Devonport, which in effect gives State control. I was saying that the noble Marquess told us at the same time that we were to be mindful of the fact that we were framing a measure which would outlast the lives of all noble Lords in this House. But if it is the fact that the Bill is to remain on the Statute

975
Book for many years that makes us the more anxious to secure that the measure shall have substance in it. I believe that if His Majesty's Government give a favourable reply to the Question which I am putting, it will go far towards alleviating the anxieties felt by myself and by other members of your Lordships' House with regard to this very important Bill. This is no paltry measure, no measure of a second or third-rate character, but a Bill of the very highest importance, dealing with no less a matter than that of providing pensions for the gallant soldiers and sailors who are fighting to protect our homes and our families, and, more than that, are maintaining the glorious traditions of the British Army and Navy. It is, therefore, with the greatest confidence that I put the Question standing in my name.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I am bound to say, with regard to the remarks which fell from the noble Marquess who leads the House, that after listening to his statement I am entirely in the dark as to the extent of responsibility which His Majesty's Government assume for the finance of this Bill. The noble Marquess said the other day—and he repeated it to-night—that His Majesty's Government proposed this Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, as it was originally drawn in the Bill, because they expected and hoped that it would obtain private subscriptions, and because they were willing to subscribe to this body, which would have been a quasi-private body, but were not prepared to bind themselves with regard to the finance of the Bill. Then to-night the noble Marquess stated that if the Government find that more money is wanted they may depart from the scheme proposed by the Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation and substitute another scheme altogether. I ask, What is the measure of responsibility that the Government take for financing this Bill? They say they are willing in certain circumstances to subscribe, but they say they are not prepared to make the money good. That is what I understood the noble Marquess to say to-night. I want to know how far the Government propose that this Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation should have any authority at all, and how far the Government would be bound by what the Committee might propose. Because if the Govern-
976
ment are not to be so bound, what is the use of this Committee? The Committee may make proposals; they may have collected some subscriptions; the Government may, as they say, in one or two years subscribe a certain sum to the scheme of this body; but the Government do not in any way say that if the private subscriptions are inadequate they will be responsible for the finance of the Bill. The noble Marquess has always guarded himself on that point in the way he did to-night. All along I have never been able to understand, and I do not understand now, how far the Government are prepared to make good the money that will be required.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, both my noble friend (Lord Lansdowne) and I regret extremely that, as is evident from the two speeches we have just heard, we have not succeeded in making our position lucid, at any rate to some members of the House. In the Question which was placed on the Paper by the noble Lord behind me (Lord Tenterden) I am asked whether His Majesty's Government will give the House some definite and binding assurance that any deficit in the funds available for distribution will be made good by the State. Deficit from what? There is no deficit on the State contribution. It is surely well known to every noble Lord that there is a Government scale payable by the War Office or the Admiralty respectively for pensions in the largest sense—that is to say, pensions to men and to widows and dependants—and also a scale of separation allowances. It has been felt by a great number of people that owing to the totally different original circumstances of those who have joined the Army—a fact which has become prominent in this war in a way which it never has before—either the separation allowance or the pension, which in some cases may be quite adequate to bring those who receive it into something like a similar position of life to that in which they were before they became entitled to the pension or allowance, is in other cases altogether inadequate for that purpose. It has consequently occurred that in some cases it has been thought desirable to give, for instance, the widow of a man who has been making through his own exertions a considerable income a pension of as much as, say, £100 a year. It has never been proposed that all soldiers' widows should receive £2 a week, but it

977
has been felt that unless some such aid is given in a certain case much greater hardship is inflicted by her terrible loss upon that particular individual than might be the case in another instance. That is a consideration which, I am sure, would appeal to us all; and it has been felt by those responsible for the distribution of public money that this is an object to which some portion of public aid might be devoted. Those who vote the money in the House of Commons would, I feel confident, be prepared to vote from time to time a lump sum in order to assist in arriving at a scheme of that kind—not a flat rate, but a varying rate—provided that the public showed their sense of those particular needs by subscribing, as they have subscribed in the past, for that object. That seems to me to be perfectly clear. It surely must also be equally clear that it is not possible—certainly not possible for us here, and I very much doubt if it were possible for the House of Commons—to pledge public funds indefinitely to go on paying for the lives of a great number of people who have met with these misfortunes that varying scale of allowance which considerations of kindness and also of general fairness make us desire that they should receive. Parliament, I am quite certain, would not blindly pledge itself to carry on permanently the scale of allowances at the same figure at which it has been fixed by those who have had the distribution of money privately subscribed. I therefore, by way of caution, pointed out to the House that if the whole business has to be considered on that basis it is impossible to say that the scale which would be adopted, and which might have to run for fifty, or sixty, or more years, would be precisely the scale which has been arrived at while large sums of money privately subscribed have been forthcoming. If by "deficit" my noble friend behind me and the noble Earl opposite mean that the Government are expected to pledge themselves here and now to carry on until the last pension to be received in respect of this war ceases to be drawn precisely the same scale of allowances as is made just now when funds are forthcoming from private sources, I may say at once that it is altogether impossible for us to do anything of the kind; and I am certain, when this Bill goes to another place, that if somebody puts a similar question to my right hon. friends who sit there, he will get the same answer.
LORD TENTERDEN: My Lords, as the noble Marquess has alluded to the point perhaps I may explain that in asking that there should be a pledge from the Government that money should be forthcoming for any deficit, I meant on such a scale as would be approved by the Statutory Committee. I in no way inferred that the rate should be at the same high rate as when we had a much smaller Army and when the voluntary subscriptions were pouring in in large amounts. My Question was directed to getting an assurance that upon a scale decided by the governing Committee the money would in emergency be guaranteed by the State.
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: My Lords, I was surprised to hear the noble Marquess the Leader of the House make the statement to which we have just listened, because I was under the impression that in Committee the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, most emphatically assured us that the Government would be responsible in the case of any deficiency. I cannot quote his words because I have not the Official Report here, but my impression certainly was that he stated that the Government would be responsible for any deficiency that might occur in making up these supplementary allowances. I was also under the impression that Mr. McKenna, in the House of Commons, used words to the same effect with regard to the Government being responsible. Then, again, with regard to private charities, surely we all have in view the encouragement which should be given to existing charitable organisations dealing with soldiers and sailors to come forward with their experience and their funds to help to make up these supplementary allowances. I remember stating, when Lord Devonport's Amendment was before the House, that in my opinion one of the greatest objections to retaining the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation in the position that it then occupied was that it would seriously interfere with existing soldiers' and sailors' charities which had been long in existence, which had received the confidence of the public, and which were well up in their work. It surely could not have been present to the minds of any of us that public charity should be entirely cut out from helping in these objects. On the contrary, it seems to me that every effort should be made to encourage the private charities already dealing with

979
soldiers and sailors to continue their good efforts and get support from the public. But I am afraid they would not have got the same support had the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation been retained in the commanding position which it occupied when the Bill first came to your Lordships' House.
LORD SOUTHWARK: My Lords, with regard to the observations of the noble Earl who has just sat down, I may say that I am one of those who are strongly in favour of the voluntary associations not being interfered with, and being allowed to go on with their work. The noble Marquess said just now that the Government view was that supplementary grants should be provided in the first instance by the voluntary bodies. I hold strongly the opinion that that ought not to be the order. My view is that supplementary grants ought to be made under strict Treasury rules and ought to be administered by bodies like the Chelsea Hospital and the body which administers naval pensions at the present time. If you have a definite Treasury Order that the Commissioners may go to a certain point, they will stop there; and then voluntary aid would come in. But if you are going to draw distinctions between soldiers and sailors of different classes, I venture to say you will experience great difficulties, and I am convinced that you will have constant House of Commons discussions. Some men will have a grievance, and that grievance will be brought before the House; but if the whole thing were done under definite Treasury rules by the pensioning bodies that difficulty would be got rid of, and cases of hardship could then be dealt with by the voluntary bodies. You are not going to have voluntary bodies contributing to State funds, whereas if the State funds were limited and defined and generous then when the State had done its work voluntary aid could come in; and I have no doubt that a vast amount of money would be entrusted to these voluntary bodies to meet the hard cases referred to by the noble Marquess. What I feel myself, as I said on a previous occasion, is that the wisest policy for the Government would be to withdraw this Bill and bring in a Bill in another form after consideration of the recommendations in the Report of Sir George Murray's Committee. There is no doubt that we have drifted away from the original
980
intention of this Bill, which was to secure voluntary funds from the National Relief Fund and from the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. Funds from neither of those bodies are forthcoming, and at present there is nothing in the Bill in the way of providing funds. As the Bill stands no money is provided at all, except that the local committees are allowed to solicit voluntary contributions, but the contributions collected by the local bodies will not be sufficient to meet the demands that will be made. If it is desirable that there should be supplementary grants I think it is much better that they should be made by the authorities who are now making grants and have in their possession all the information with regard to soldiers and sailors. I admit that there are other questions in the way of pensions and grants that the State wish to make that could not be met in that way, and that is one of the reasons why I think it would be better that the Bill should be reconsidered and a new scheme brought in.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, whether we differ or not from the noble Lord who has just addressed the House, we shall at any rate all of us, I think, concede that he knows his own mind and that he has expressed his views with very great clearness. He objects entirely to this Bill, and he objects for the reason he has given to the House. In his view these supplementary pensions ought to be limited by fixed rules issued by the Treasury, and should in short, be given under what is commonly known as the flat-rate principle. That point was very carefully gone into by the Committee which inquired into this question, and while the Committee accepted the flat-rate principle for what may be, I suppose, properly described as statutory pensions, they were clearly of opinion that in regard to other grants a different principle should be observed, and this Bill is founded upon the assumption that statutory pensions do not enter into the scope of the measure at all. Those are pensions which are issued, one might almost say, automatically under fixed rules, whereas these supplementary grants were to be met by the machinery which we proposed under this Bill—that is to say, a Statutory Committee at the centre, closely connected, through the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, with high officials in every part of the United Kingdom, and connected, on the other hand, through the

981
local committees, with all the different parts of the country. In our view that was the best machinery that could be framed to meet the requirements of the case. But it is, I admit, open to this criticism. You may say, as my noble friend Lord Camperdown said just now, that the finance of the Bill is not of a precise or well-defined character. Throughout these discussions we have admitted that with the utmost frankness. It is impossible that the finance of the Bill should be of a definite character. We are dealing to a great extent with unknown quantities. We hope—we certainly hoped as long as the Bill remained in its original shape—that a great part of this fund would be provided by voluntary agencies. Supposing that those voluntary sources failed to contribute What was sufficient, we realised that it would be necessary for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come to the rescue, and my noble friend Lord Lichfield was perfectly correct when he quoted me just now as having indicated that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared, in the event of our expectations being disappointed, to come to the rescue with a Treasury grant. But it was impossible to name beforehand what the amount of that grant might be, and I am sure my noble friend would not expect that in the circumstances the Chancellor of the Exchequer should write what I might describe as a blank cheque for the purpose of filling up what the noble Lord behind me calls a "deficit" in the sum required for making good these allowances. For these reasons it is, I think, scarcely fair to criticise the vagueness—or, as I should rather put it, the elasticity—of the financial provisions of this Bill. Its elasticity or its vagueness, call it which you please, seems to me to be inevitable in the circumstances of the case; and the extent to which eventually it may be necessary to depend upon grants from the Exchequer must, of course, remain a matter for conjecture.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 1:
Establishment of Statutory Committee.
1.—(1) For the purposes hereinafter mentioned relating to pensions and grants and allowances made in respect of the present war to officers and men in the naval and military services of His Majesty and their wives, widows, children and other dependants, and the care of officers and men disabled in consequence of the present war there shall be constituted a Statutory Committee, consisting of twenty-five members, appointed as hereinafter mentioned.
(2) Of time said twenty-five members—
eighteen (of whom one shall be chairman and one vice-chairman and some shall be women and not less than two shall be representatives of labour) shall be appointed by His Majesty;

one shall be appointed by the Treasury;

one shall be appointed by the Admiralty;

one shall be appointed by the Army Council;

two shall be appointed by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association;

two shall be appointed by the General Council of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation.

(3) There may be paid to the chairman or vice-chairman, out of moneys provided by Parliament, such salary as the Treasury may determine.
(4) All other expenses of the Committee (including such travelling and other allowances to members of the Committee as the Committee may determine) shall be paid out of the funds at the disposal of the Committee.
(5) Seven members of the Statutory Committee shall constitute a quorum.
The Statutory Committee may appoint subcommittees consisting either wholly or partly of members of the Statutory Committee, and may delegate to such sub-committees, with or without any restrictions or conditions as they think fit, any of their powers and duties under this Act.
Subject to the foregoing provisions of this subsection, the Committee shall regulate their own procedure.
(6) The term of office of a member of the Statutory Committee shall be three years; but a retiring member shall be eligible for re-appointment.
(7) The Statutory Committee may, with the consent of the Treasury, appoint and employ a secretary, assistant secretaries, and such other clerks and servants as they may require, and may pay out of funds at their disposal to such secretary, assistant secretaries, clerks and servants, such salaries or remuneration as they, with the consent of the Treasury, may determine, and may with like consent establish a scheme of pensions for persons in their permanent employment or grant pensions to such persons on retirement.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I move to omit from subsection (1) the words "Statutory Committee," which it has been represented to me is hardly a Parliamentary expression. What we propose is really a Board, and it would be much better to call it so. I propose to accept the Amendment to my Amendment which has been placed on the Paper by Lord Lichfield, and to move to insert, in substitution for "Statutory Committee," the words "Board to be called 'the War Pensions Board' and hereinafter referred to as the Board.'"
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, lines 10 and 11, leave out ("Statutory Committee") and insert ("Board to be called the War Pensions Board 'and hereinafter referred to as the Board'").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: We took the opportunity of consulting some of our colleagues whose Departments are specially concerned with this matter as to the proposed change of title. As the result of that inquiry I am bound to say that His Majesty's Government do not think that the term "War Pensions Board," although it is compendius, can be taken as quite accurate. As noble Lords will recognise, with war pensions in the ordinary sense this Bill will in no case deal; and it is feared that to ascribe to it the title might lead people to suppose that this was a Board of the kind which it has sometimes been proposed to constitute, and the constitution of which would no doubt present many advantages—that is to say, a body dealing with the whole subject of pensions and allowances for disablement and for all war purposes. But, as noble Lords will equally recognise, the setting up of a machinery of that kind involves a very much greater change from existing conditions than anything which we propose in this Bill. It would involve, of course, taking from the War Office and from the Admiralty a number of functions which at present belong to them. I express no opinion at this moment as to how far that may be at some time or other a feasible proposition, but at this moment the only point I have to deal with is the particular title of this Board, and for the reason that it might be misleading we think that it would be wiser in the circumstances to speak of the Board as the War Allowances Board, not as the War Pensions Board; and if noble Lords would accept that change we should be willing to agree to that Amendment.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Would it not be better to call the Board the War Allowances and Pensions Board? If your Lordships will refer to the duties of the Board you will see that they have to deal with certain questions relating to pensions properly so called. Therefore I think that -in some form the word "Pensions" should appear in the title of the Board.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: It is true that it will be one of the functions of the Board to decide questions of fact with reference to pensions properly so called. But the objection I still think is a strong one to inserting the word "Pensions" in the title of the Board. We do not object to the word remaining in the title of the Bill; that is not quite the same thing.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: I hope I may be in order in asking a question relating to the constitution of the Board itself. I find in subsection (2) that of the eighteen members to be appointed by His Majesty not less than two shall be "representatives of labour." This expression seems to me prima facie to be rather vague, and I should like the Government, if they would be good enough to do so, to give us a definition as to who are representatives of labour, in order to meet questions that may arise hereafter on the construction of the Bill.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Camperdown will think it necessary to press this Amendment. I imagine that he put it down as a verbal Amendment, and as containing in his opinion a more Parliamentary description than "Statutory Committee." But the noble Marquess who leads the House attaches much greater importance to it than that. He says that the proposed alteration would practically suggest that the Committee or Board to be now constituted should administer all pensions as well as these supplementary allowances. I am not at all sure that that would not be the best solution of the whole question. But in regard to this Bill, would it not be better to leave in the words "Statutory Committee" as showing that, so far as the Bill stands at any rate, what is intended is that the Committee should administer these supplementary allowances and should not interfere with pensions in the ordinary sense of the word?
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I am quite prepared to accept the Amendment to my Amendment suggested by the noble Marquess, and to substitute the word "Allowances" for the word "Pensions." The body would then be called the War Allowances Board.
On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Your Lordships will observe that later on there is a large number of Amendments standing in my name to leave out "Statutory Committee" and to insert "Board." If your Lordships will agree to that alteration once for all when we come to those Amendments, it will considerably shorten the proceedings, for when you have made the alteration once it is consequential that it

985
should be made at every point in the Bill where the words "Statutory Committee" Occur. I now move to insert a new subsection after subsection (2).
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 2, line 4, after subsection (2) insert the following new subsection:
"(3) The Board shall be a body corporate with a common seal and power to hold land without licence in mortmain."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I raise no kind of objection to this Amendment, because I think it is required by the circumstances of the case. But if the House will allow me I will take this opportunity, as the Board is under discussion, of replying to the question asked by my noble friend below the Gangway (Viscount Bryce) with regard to the composition of the Board. He asked what is the meaning of the term "representatives of labour." I do not know whether there is any settled construction of that phrase. I should have thought that the term was a generally descriptive one, of which the Government of the day in appointing the Statutory Committee would give its own interpretation. I quite agree that it may not be altogether easy to say precisely what is popularly called a Labour Member in Parliament. I think my noble friend therefore must be content to take it, as I have said, as a descriptive term the general meaning of which is tolerably well understood by those who will have to administer the Act.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: This is the first occasion on which the Amendment to leave out "Committee" and insert "Board" occurs. A similar Amendment, as I told your Lordships just now, is necessary in a good many other cases down the Bill. May I take it that if your Lordships agree to the change on this occasion, the Amendment need not be moved again?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Hear, hear.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 2, line 8, leave out ("Committee") and insert ("Board").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I had better put in general form the other Amendments to which Lord Camperdown referred. I suggest putting them in this way—That the words "Committee" or "Statutory Committee" appearing in the Bill in the places mentioned in the Amendments standing in the name of Lord Camperdown be omitted, and that in place of such word or words there be inserted in all cases the word "Board."
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD HAVERSHAM: I propose a small Amendment which does not in any way injure the Bill or alter the sense of this clause. Subsection (4) runs at present—
All other expenses of the Committee (including such travelling and other allowances to members of the Committee as the Committee may determine) shall be paid out of the funds at the disposal of the Committee.
I move to omit the words "(including such travelling and other allowances to members of the Committee as the Committee may determine)."
In the first place this provision as it stands creates a new and, as I think, a very bad precedent, because in no charitable committee that one knows of is leave of this kind given to vote yourselves allowances and to charge the public with your travelling expenses. I happen to have served for eighteen years on the Patriotic Fund Committee, and I have never thought of being allowed to charge travelling or other expenses. Travelling expenses in this case might possibly be defended, but there is no travelling. There is not a single duty that the Committee will have to perform—and I refer your Lordships to, Clause 3 in support of my contention—which will necessitate travelling. The secretary might possibly go somewhere to make an inquiry, but that is not likely to be common; and if he did, the latter part of this clause contains a provision which would cover his travelling expenses. The duties of this Committee are entirely to settle disputed questions referred to them by the Admiralty and the War Office, or sent to them by the local committees. They have no travelling at all, and I think this sort of loose expression, "other allowances," invites expenditure which is not in the least required. My last objection to the subsection as it stands is this. In this particular case there is no Treasury check at all. In the other cases there

987
might be the check of the Treasury, but there is no word said about these allowances and expenses being approved and sanctioned by the Treasury. I think, therefore, it would be wise if we omitted these words, more especially as they do not affect the sense of the clause and are simply supererogatory.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 2, line 8, leave out from ("Committee") to ("shall") in line 10.—(Lord Haversham.)
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I hope His Majesty's Government will see fit to agree to this Amendment. I think it will be a great improvement in the Bill to leave out any such proposal as these words contain. Further than that, I think it is certain that if they remain in the Bill with regard to the Statutory Committee, all the local committees will be also asked to consider whether they should not provide something for the travelling and other expenses of their members. There has been a good deal of movement in certain quarters for indirect payments to members of various local bodies, and I think it is a very great evil.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: In these days we are all naturally opposed to superfluous expenditure of any kind, but I suggest that your Lordships should think twice before you strike these words out of the clause. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment suggested that these allowances, particularly the travelling allowances, were quite unnecessary, and he pointed to the wording of Clause 3 and said, "What is there in Clause 3 to show that the members of the Statutory Committee will have to incur any expenses upon travelling?" My noble friend seems to assume that all the members of the Statutory Committee will be resident in London. That certainly need not be the case. And I think the House should also bear this in mind, that we have provided in the Bill that amongst the members of the Statutory Committee are to be a certain number of labour representatives. If that is so, is there not some hardship in requiring these gentlemen to come up to attend meetings of the Committe and to deny them the right of compensation for their travelling expenses? I am told in point of fact that a difficulty of the kind did arise in the days of the old
988
Patriotic Fund Corporation, when it was found desirable that power should be taken to make allowances of this sort I should myself have thought that, as the whole of the proceedings of the Statutory Committee are bound to come before Parliament and to take place in the broad light of clay, there really was not very much chance of abuse growing up under this subsection, and I confess I shall be sorry if my noble friend insists upon his Amendment.
LORD HAVERSHAM: I am afraid I cannot very well withdraw my Amendment after the support it has received from the noble Earl opposite. I can only say, in answer to the noble Marquess, that I was on this Committee of the Patriotic Fund but never heard of any application for travelling expenses. The offices where the Statutory Committee will meet will be in London, and you do not pay travelling expenses up to London as a rule.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: Would not His Majesty's Government go so far as this? The subsection now reads "travelling and other allowances." Surely "other allowances" are quite unnecessary, and we might say "including such travelling expenses." That would meet the point the noble Marquess urged.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Travelling and out-of-pocket expenses?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: No.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Merely travelling expenses?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: Yes.
LORD HAVERSHAM: May I be allowed to withdraw my present Amendment, and to move to strike out the words "and other allowances" and to insert the word "expenses" after "travelling"?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 2, line 9, leave out ("and other allowances") and after ("travelling ") insert ("expenses").—(Lord Haversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2:
Establishment of local committees.
2.—(1) For the purpose of assisting the Statutory Committee in the execution of their duties, a local committee shall be established for every county and county borough, and for every borough or urban district having a population of not less than fifty thousand the council of which so desires, and for any other borough or urban district for which the Statutory Committee, on the application of the council thereof, consider it desirable that, having regard to the special circumstances of the ease, a separate local committee should be established.
(2) The constitution of a local committee shall be such as may be determined by a scheme framed by the council of the county or borough or urban district and approved by the Statutory committee; so, however, that every such scheme shall provide—

(a) for the appointment by the council of the county or borough or urban district of at least a majority of the local committee: but the members so appointed by the council need not be members of the council; and

(b) for the appointment by the local committee from amongst their own number of a chairman; and

(c) for the inclusion of women and representatives of labour among the members of the local committee.

(3) If within such time, not being less than one month, as may be allowed by the Statutory Committee, the council does not frame a scheme or such a scheme as the Statutory Committee approve, the Statutory Committee may themselves frame a scheme which shall have a like effect as if it were framed by the council and approved by the Statutory Committee.
(4) The scheme, in the case of a county, may provide for the division of the county into districts and the appointment of a sub-committee for each such district, which sub-committees are herein-after referred to as district committees, so, however, that every borough and urban district within the county having a population of not less than twenty thousand, and in the case of the county of London the city of London and each metropolitan borough, shall be a separate district, and that the council thereof shall have the right of appointing at least a majority of the members of the district committee, and in the appointment of every such district committee sonic of the members appointed shall be women.
Such a district committee may, but need not, contain any members of the local committee.
(5) A scheme regulating the constitution of any such local committee or district committee as aforesaid shall provide for the substantial representation amongst the members of the local or district committee of persons who have within the area either as members of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, or the Soldiers and Sailors Help Society, or otherwise, been performing functions similar to those to be performed by local committees under this Act.
(6) For facilitating the preparation of such schemes, as aforesaid the Statutory Committee shall as soon as practicable prepare and issue forms of model schemes.
(7) A local committee or district committee may also appoint sub-committees, either for any special purposes or for any special parts of their area, and any such committee may consist either wholly or partly of members of the local or district committee.
(8) Any two or more local committees may combine together for the joint exercise of any of their powers and duties under this Act, and may for that purpose appoint a joint committee, and may agree as to the proportions in which the several local committees represented on the joint committee are to contribute towards the expenses of such joint committee.
(9) A local committee may delegate to any district committee, and a local committee or district committee may delegate to any subcommittee, whether appointed for any particular locality or not, any of its powers and duties under this Act, whether with or without any restrictions or conditions as it may think fit.
(10) Any expenses of a local committee (except so far as they may be paid by the Statutory Committee) shall be paid out of funds at the disposal of the local committee.
(11) In the application of this section to Scotland "county borough," "borough," or "urban district" means a royal, parliamentary, or police burgh.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The next Amendment is mine. It is purely drafting, and it will make subsection (5) read, "A scheme … shall provide for the substantial representation on the local and district committee …"
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 3, line 37, leave out ("amongst the members of") and insert ("on").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
THE MARQUESS or CREWE: We agree to that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The next Amendment is to add words at the end of subsection (7). This is purely a drafting Amendment, and it is transposing Clause 5 to this place.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 4, line 10, after ("committee") insert ("and in particular may appoint a special committee which shall include representatives of employers and of labour for the care of disabled officers and men").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The next Amendment is in subsection (11), which adapts the Bill to the circumstances of Scotland. I introduced an Amendment when we were in Committee which I

991
thought was merely a drafting Amendment, but it turned out that it had the effect of enabling any burgh in Scotland to appoint a local committee. That was not intended. This Amendment places the subsection virtually in its original form.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 4, line 26, after the first ("borough") insert ("means a royal, parliamentary, or police burgh with a population of not less than fifty thousand, and").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3:
Functions of Statutory Committee.
3.—(1) The functions of the Statutory Committee shall be—

(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 child, may depend;

(b) to frame regulations for 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;

(c) out of funds at their disposal, to 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 regulations as aforesaid;

(d) out of funds at their disposal, to make grants or allowances in cases where no separation allowances or pensions are payable out of public funds;

(e) out of funds at their disposal, to make advances on account of pensions or grants or separation allowances due to any person out of public funds during any interval before the payment thereof actually commences;

(f) to decide, in any particular case, whether, as respects a wife, widow, child, or other dependant, any pension or grant or separation allowance and, as respects an officer or man, any supplementary grant has, under the regulations subject to which it was granted, become forfeited;

(g) to decide, as between two or more claimants to any pension or grant or separation allowance, which, if any, of the claimants is entitled thereto;

(h) 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 Army Council;

(i) to administer any funds which may be placed at the disposal of the committee by local committees or by any society or other organisation having funds applicable to the making of grants of the nature of those which the committee are authorised to make, or otherwise;

992

(j) 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;

(k) to make grants in special cases for the purpose of enabling widows, children, and other dependants of deceased officers and men to obtain training and employment.

(2) The Statutory Committee may refer to any local committee for their consideration and advice any question pending before the Statutory Committee, and may request any local committee to collect and furnish them with any information they may require with respect to any matter, and may delegate to any local committee the distribution within their area of any grants made by the Statutory Committee, and may pay or contribute towards the payment of the expenses incurred by the local committee in respect of any of the matters aforesaid.
(3) For the purpose of making provision for the care of disabled officers and men, the Statutory Committee shall appoint a special subcommittee which shall include representatives of employers and of labour.
(4) Paragraphs (8), (9), (10), and (11), of the First Schedule to the Patriotic Fund Reorganisation Act, 1903 (relating to funds, accounts and audit) shall apply in respect of the Statutory Committee in like manner as they apply in respect of the Corporation.
(5) The Statutory Committee shall in each year make a report of their proceedings to His Majesty.
(6) Pending the appointment of a local committee or sub-committee for any area, the Statutory Committee may make arrangements with any organisation for the performance within that area by the organisation of the functions of the local committee mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of section four of this Act.
(7) For the purpose of enabling the Statutory Committee to discharge their functions the Admiralty and the Army Council shall on request supply the Statutory Committee with such particulars as they may require with regard to any payments made by them to any officer, sailor, marine, soldier, widow, child, or dependant, and the Statutory Committee may on request duly communicate all such and similar information to any charitable body legitimately interested in the case of any officer, sailor, marine, soldier, widow, child, or dependant.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: Subsection (1), paragraph (e), provides that the Committee may, out of funds at their disposal, make advances on account of pensions or grants or separation allowances due to any person out of public funds during any interval before the payment thereof actually commences. I move to add the words "or during which the payment thereof has been accidentally interrupted." There were a good many cases of the kind in the early stages of the war, and I think this would be a useful power for the Committee to possess.
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, page 5, line 11, after ("commences") insert ("or during which the payment thereof has been accidentally interrupted").—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The next Amendment is in my name, and is to leave out subsection (4) and insert a new subsection.
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, page 6, line 12, leave out subsection (4) and insert the following new subsection:
"(4) The Paymaster-General shall be the treasurer of the Board, and he shall keep such accounts on behalf of the Board as the Treasury may from time to time direct, and the accounts of the receipts and expenditure of the Board shall be audited in such manner and by such persons as the Treasury may from time to time direct."— (The Earl of Camperdown.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4:
Functions of local committees.
4. The functions of local committees shall be—

(a) to inquire into any ease referred to them by the Statutory Committee, and to report to the Statutory Committee their advice and recommendations with respect thereto;

(b) to collect and furnish to the Statutory Committee such information as may be required by the Statutory Committee with respect to any matter, and to furnish applicants for pensions or grants or separation allowances with information and advice, especially in the event of payment being unduly delayed;

(c) to distribute any supplementary grants made by the Statutory Committee, the distribution of which has been delegated to the local committee;

(d) out of any funds at their disposal for the purpose, to make contributions towards the funds administered by the Statutory Committee, to increase pensions, grants, and separation allowances and to make grants or allowances where no pensions, grants, or separation allowances are otherwise payable;

(e) out of funds at their disposal, to make advances on account of pensions or grants or separation allowances due to any persons out of public funds during any interval before the payment thereof actually commences;

(f) to make provision subject to the approval of the Statutory Committee for the care of disabled officers rand men after they have left the service, including provision for their health, training, and employment;

(g) to solicit and receive from the public contributions towards any such purposes as aforesaid.

EARL ST. ALDWYN: With regard to the powers of the local committees, I move to add at the end of paragraph (e) of this clause the same words as your Lordships inserted just now, On my motion, in Clause 3.
Amendment moved—
Clause 4, page 7, line 17, after ("commences") insert ("or during which the payment thereof has been accidentally interrupted").—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5:
Special sub-committees for care of disabled.
5. The local committee may appoint, for the care of disabled officers and men, a special subcommittee which shall include representatives of employers and of labour.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The remaining Amendment is to leave out Clause 5. This provision has been transposed, and now appears in Clause 2.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 5.—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed and returned to the Commons, and to be printed as amended. (No. 160.)

THE ARMENIAN MASSACRES.
THE EARL OF CROMER THE EARL OF CROMER rose to ask—

(1) Whether His Majesty's Government have received any information confirmatory, of the statements made in the Press to the effect that renewed massacres of Armenians have taken place on a large scale;

(2) Whether the statements made that German Consular officials have been privy to these massacres rest on any substantial evidence; and

(3) Whether any further communications have recently been addressed to the Porte in connection with this subject.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Questions down in my name, of which there are three, require but very few words of explanation. During the last few days the country has been shocked by renewed accounts of Armenian massacres which appear to have begun again on even a greater scale than those which horrified the whole civilised world a few years ago. In one newspaper I read that the number of

995
victims amounted to as many as 800,000. The figure appears incredible, and, I should hope, is very much exaggerated. What I want to ask His Majesv's Government is whether they have any reliable information and can tell us what has actually occurred.
Again, it has been stated in the public Press that some of the German Consular officials have been privy to these atrocities to the extent even of organising and encouraging massacres. It seems almost incredible that any Government calling itself civilised, or its agents, could be party to such proceedings. On the other hand, we know from the Report of the noble Viscount, Lord Bryce, whom I am glad to see in his place this afternoon, what was the conduct of the German Army in Belgium; and we also know, from the scathing indictment which has been levelled by the French Government against the conduct of the German troops in France, what has been their conduct there. Moreover, apart from what may be the opinion of the German Government we have some evidence of what is the opinion of distinguished Germans. Just before I came to the House, I happened to take up an evening paper, and there I saw an extract from a letter addressed by the notorious Count Reventlow—with whose name many of your Lordships must be familiar—to a German newspaper, and it is so remarkably characteristic of the German view on this subject that I will read a short portion of it. This is what Count Reventlow says—
"If the Turkish authorities believe it opportune to take vigorous measures against unreliable, bloodthirsty, riotous Armenian elements, it is not only right but even their duty to do so. Turkey can always be assured that the German Empire will always be of opinion that this matter only concerns Turkey."
When Count Reventlow wrote those lines and called the Armenians bloodthirsty, he had, I think, forgotten the moral pointed by the fable of the wolf and the lamb. I do not suppose that there will be any trustworthy evidence to prove the complicity of the German Government or their agents in these massacres. But when we consider the commanding influence which is now wielded by the German Government at Constantinople, any one who knows the East will be of opinion that the German Government cannot be acquitted of a vast moral responsibility unless it can be shown that knowing the practices of the Turkish Government in this matter they took most
996
vigorous and energetic steps to stop these proceedings.
As regards my third Question, your Lordships may remember that shortly before the recess a brief discussion on this Armenian question was initiated by the noble Viscount, Lord Bryce. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House, in the course of a very sympathetic reply which he gave to the noble Viscount, after stating, what was obviously the case, that not much could be done under present circumstances to stop these proceedings of the Turkish Government, went on to say that some communications had been made to the Ottoman authorities in the sense of warning them of their responsibility and telling them that they would at sonic future occasion, if a favourable moment arrives, be called to account for their conduct. And I think it was suggested in the course of the discussion—either by the noble Viscount or myself, I forget which—that perhaps it would be advisable to make some further communications to the Ottoman authorities on this subject, either through the medium of the American Embassy or some other channel. I should like to ask His Majesty's Government whether anything of this kind has been done, and, if so, with what result. I should be the last at the present juncture to wish to ask any questions about foreign affairs which would be likely to cause embarrassment to His Majesty's Government, but I feel certain that the noble Marquess the Leader of the House and his colleagues will agree with me that in this particular case the utmost publicity is highly desirable.
There are many special reasons why the facts should be made public. In the first place, it is very desirable to lose no opportunity to let the people of this country know for what we are fighting. We are fighting for a great many things, and one of the objects which I hope we may attain by the end of this war is that Armenia shall no longer, as it has done in the past and as I fear it does in the present, constitute a sort of Turkish shambles. In the second place, we have to remember that we have some 70,000,000 Mahomedan fellow-subjects, who naturally have a certain amount of sympathy with their co-religionists and would be unwilling to believe ill of them unless they have positive proof. My belief is that all the educated Mahomedans of India would look with as great a horror as we do ourselves upon

997
the proceedings of the Turkish Government.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF CROMER: Only they ought to have information laid before them on which to form an opinion, and when they have that information I do not doubt that they will see that it would be almost tantamount to an insult to the Mahomedan religion and to the feelings of all right-thinking Mahomedans if they in any way identified the cause of Islam with the cause of the existing Government at Constantinople. Also I think it would be very advisable to enlighten Egyptian opinion. The generation of Egyptians which suffered from Turkish rule is now dying out, and I think it would be advisable to remind the present generation of what Turkish rule means.
There is vet one further reason why I urge publicity. We have heard within the last few days that a very important Near Eastern Christian community under the auspices of a Prince of foreign extraction and of strong pro-German proclivities, is apparently about to commit what is not only a grave political error but what I also venture to say constitutes one of the blackest acts of political ingratitude that the history of the world has ever known. I do not suppose that anything we can say either inside or outside this House is likely to reach the Bulgarian public. If I am rightly informed, the greater part of the Press of that country is in German bands. At the same time I think we ought to do all in our power at all events to show the Bulgarians what measure is being meted out to another important Christian community by those with whom they are apparently about to enter into what I must characterise as a most unnatural alliance. The Bulgarians themselves suffered, in a past which is not very remote, so severely from Turkish rule that it is almost inconceivable that they should not extend some sympathy to these poor Armenians who are suffering in parts of the Ottoman dominions.
Before I sit down I wish to make one further remark. I am not, and never have been, what is generally called a Turcophobe. I recognise the manly, virile qualities of the Turkish nation, and I think in this juncture many of them are
998
greatly to be pitied. My own belief is that if the Turks were left to themselves they would wish to live on peaceful terms with the Western Powers, and more especially with England. Unfortunately they have fallen into the hands of a narrow clique who have not the foresight to see that by entering into this war they have for ever doomed the real independence of the Ottoman Empire; for, my Lords, I am not quite sure but what that independence would not be more threatened if the Germans were victors in this contest than if, as I hope and believe will be the case, they are ultimately vanquished. But whatever there is to be said to palliate the errors which have been committed by the Turkish nation, not one word can be said in defence of the Turkish Government, either that of the present or that of the recent past. There were many people in this country who, when the late Sultan was deposed and the Young Turk Party Came into power, were charitable enough to think that a great change would come over the character of what I think Carlyle called "the unspeakable Turk." There were others, who spoke with greater knowledge of Eastern affairs, who were rather sceptical on that point and thought that the change was only skin-deep. Unfortunately the latter have turned out to be the truer prophets. Let me end by saying this. It appears, as far as I can make out, that the present Turkish Government, equally with their predecessors, have made government by massacre part of their political system. If that be so, if we cannot do anything else, at all events we may denounce their conduct to the whole of the civilised world, and we may warn all other races, whether Christian, Mahomedan, or Hindu, that by in any way associating themselves or sympathising with the Germans and the Turks they will in the eyes of posterity secure a taint and a stain which can never be removed.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, as my noble friend reminded the House, it was late in July that this question of the Armenian atrocities was last mentioned by my noble friend Lord Bryce, and I am happy, in reply to the noble Earl opposite, to give such information as I can in continuance of what I then said. I entirely agree with the noble Earl that it is advantageous that so far as we are in possession of officially confirmed facts they should be made known to the world at

999
large. There have been communications from the British Consul at Batoum, largely founded on statements which have been published in the newspapers at Tiflis, where there is, of course, every opportunity of ascertaining what the actual facts really are, and they are of the most deplorable character.
THE EARL OF CROMER: May I ask the noble Marquess the dates?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: That was the first week in September. The Consul described the appalling horrors which had taken place in the district of Sassoon, where the population were absolutely exterminated except so far as some few of them were able to escape. The whole country was completely ravaged. A certain number of well-known inhabitants succeeded in escaping to the mountains, but the slaughter of those who could not so escape was universal. Then there has been a great influx of Armenian, Chaldean, and other refugees into Urumiah and the Caucasian provinces. A vast number of refugees have arrived at Etchmiadzin and at other points of the Government of Erivan. They came chiefly from Melazgert, the Achesh districts and Van. The Consul states that about 160,000 of these have passed through Igdir and Etchmiadzin. He gives a most terrible description of their condition, ravaged by disease, many of them starving. They have been dying at the rate of at least a hundred a day. Nothing can be said in too high praise of the efforts which have been made locally to cope with this hideous condition of things. The Moscow Armenian Committee, helped by a great number of young voluntary workers from Tiflis and the other towns, hastened to the district and have done everything that they possibly could to relieve the misery of these poor people. But very large supplies of medical comforts and of medicines and also of foodstuffs, as may be well believed when one considers what the numbers of the refugees are, are needed if their condition is to be materially alleviated. Then at Elenovka and Ahti, two other Caucasian districts beyond Mount Ararat, there are about 9,000 refugees who are in no better case than the others. It is said in one report that unless relief is forthcoming for these it is expected that some half of them will probably die. There is also a miserable account of the refugees in Urumiah. I
1000
have not got a figure of their supposed number, but I fancy they also must be very numerous. The Russian Consul there is doing what he can to get a sanitary detachment to come down and assist them.
These are terrible facts, and I should like to say that I heartily concur with what fell from the noble Earl opposite when he stated that dreadful excesses such as these are not less revolting to Moslem subjects of His Majesty in India and to enlightened Mussulman opinion everywhere than they are to ourselves. They are, of course, in no way authorised by the precepts of Islam, and they will not be condoned by the judgment of Islam. I am also in agreement with what fell from the noble Earl when he added that these stories may well go to the heart of any European people or section of people who are disposed to bind their fortunes to those of Turkey at this moment.
We have, as my noble friend anticipated, no official confirmation of the statements which have been made that the German Consular representatives in Asia have not merely looked on at but have positively encouraged these horrors. But the statement that that has been the case has been freely made by United States observers who are in a position to form an opinion, and knowing what we know elsewhere, we are bound to state that there cannot be said to be any antecedent improbability that such is the case. The noble Earl, when dealing with the last part of his Question, alluded to the statement which I made on behalf of the Government on the last occasion, that when the day of reckoning arrives the individuals who have perpetrated or taken any part in these crimes will not be forgotten. That, of course, still holds good. There is no object in repeating a statement of that kind which was made once for all, and we have not thought that any advantage would follow from an attempt to make either direct or indirect communications to the Turkish Government on the subject. They are in possession of our views, and to reiterate them would, as we think, serve no useful purpose.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: My Lords, His Majesty's Government have, of course, been unable to obtain, except from one or two quarters, official information with regard to what has been passing in Armenia and Asiatic Turkey, so your Lordships

1001
may perhaps like to hear some further information that we have been able to glean from various accounts which have come partly from missionaries and partly from various Armenian sources of information and which bear upon the question that is now engaging the House. As the noble Marquess and the noble Earl observed, the time is past when any harm can be done by publicity; and the fuller publicity that is given to the events that have happened the better it will be, because it will be the only possible chance that exists of arresting these massacres, if they have not been completed.
I am sorry to say that such information as has reached me from many quarters goes to show that the figure of 800,000 which the noble Earl thought incredible as a possible total for those who have been destroyed since May last is, unfortunately, quite a possible number. That is because the proceedings taken have been so absolutely premeditated and systematic. The massacres are the result of a policy which, as far as can be ascertained, has been entertained for some considerable time by the gang who are now in possession of the Government of the Turkish Empire. They hesitated to put it in practice until they thought the favourable moment had come, and that moment seems to have arrived about the month of May. That was the time when these orders were issued, orders which came down in every case from Constantincple, and which the officials found themselves obliged to carry out on pain of dismissal. As was said by the noble Marquess, there is nothing in the precepts of Islam which justifies this slaughter which has been perpetrated. In some cases the Governors, being pious and humane men, refused to carry out the orders and endeavoured to give what protection they could to the unfortunate Armenians. In two cases I have heard of the Governors being immediately dismissed for refusing to obey the orders; and the massacres were carried out.
As I have said, the procedure was exceedingly systematic. The whole population of a town was cleared out, to begin with. Some of the men were thrown into prison; the rest of the men, with the women and children, were marched out of the town. When they had got some little distance they were separated, the men being taken to some place among the
1002
hills where the soldiers or the Kurds despatched them by shooting or bayonetting. The women and children and older men were sent off under convoy of the lowest kind of soldiers—many of them drawn from gaols—to their distant destination, which was sometimes one of the unhealthy districts in the centre of Asia Minor but more frequently the large desert east of Aleppo, in the direction of the Euphrates. They were driven by the soldiers day after day; many fell by the way and many died of hunger. No provisions were given them by the Turkish Government, and they were robbed of everything they possessed, and in many eases the women were stripped naked and made to travel on in that condition. Many of the women went mad and threw away their children, being unable to carry them farther. The caravan route was marked by a line of corpses, and comparatively few seem to have arrived at the destination which was stated for them. I have had circumstantial accounts which bear every internal evidence of being veracious, and I was told by a friend who lately came home from Constantinople—he belongs to a neutral country—that he had heard many accounts at Constantinople, and that what had struck him was the comparative moderation with which these atrocities were detailed by those who had first-hand knowledge of them.
To give your Lordships one instance of the systematic way in which these massacres were carried on it may suffice to refer to the case of Trebizond, a case vouched for by the Italian Consul who was present when the slaughter was carried out, his country not having then declared war against Turkey. Orders came from Constantinople that all the Armenian Christians in Trebizond were to be killed. Many of the Moslems tried to save their Christian neighbours and offered them shelter in their houses, but the Turkish authorities were implacable. Obeying the orders which they had received, they hunted out all the Christians, gathered them together, and drove them down the streets of Trebizond, past the fortress, to the edge of the sea. There they were all put on board sailing boats, carried out some distance on the Black Sea, and there thrown overboard and drowned. The whole Armenian population of from 8,000 to 10,000 were destroyed in that way in one afternoon! After that, any other story

1003
becomes credible; and I am sorry to say that all the stories that I have received contain similar elements of horror, intensified in some cases by stories of shocking torture. But the most pitiable case is not that of those who were killed outright, but of those unfortunate women who with their children were driven out to perish in the desert—where they have no sustenance, and where they are the victims of the wild Arab tribes around them. I am afraid it can be said that nearly the whole nation has been wiped out, and I do not think there is any case in history, certainly not since the time of Tamerlane, in which any crime so hideous and upon so large a scale has been recorded.
I should like to add that what little I have heard confirms what was said by the noble Earl—that there is no reason to believe that in this case Mussulman fanaticism came into play at all. So far as I can make out, these massacres have been viewed by Moslems with horror rather than with sympathy. It would be too much to say that they had attempted to interfere, but at any rate they have never shown approval of the conduct of the Turkish Government. I ought also to add, because this is of some importance in view of the excuses which, as we understand, the German Government are ready to give for the conduct of those who are their allies, that there is no ground for the suggestion that there had been any rising on the part of the Armenians. A certain number of Armenian volunteers have fought on the side of the Russians in the Caucasian Army, but they came, as I understand, from the Armenian population of Trans-Caucasia. It may be that some few Armenians crossed the frontier in order to fight alongside their Armenian brethren in Trans-Caucasia for Russia, but at any rate the volunteer corps which rendered such brilliant service to the Russian Army in the first part of the war was composed of Russian Armenians living in the Caucasus. There is no excuse whatever upon any political ground for the conduct of the Turkish Government. It appears to be simply carrying out the maxim once enunciated by Sultan Abdul Hamid: "The way to get rid of the Armenian question is to get rid of the Armenians"; and it has been carried out with far more thoroughness and with far more bloodthirsty completeness by the present heads of the Turkish Government than it was in the time of Abdul Hamid.
1004
There are still, I believe, a few places in which the Armenians, driven into the mountains, are defending themselves as best they can. About 5,000 were taken off lately by a French cruiser on the coast of Syria, and have now been conveyed to Egypt, and they tell us that in the mountains of Sassoon—to which the noble Marquess referred—and in Northern Syria there are still a few bands, with very limited provision of arms and munitions, defending themselves as best they can against their enemies. The whole race, therefore, is not yet extinct, so far as these refugees in the mountains go and those who have escaped into Trans-Caucasia; and I am sure we all wish that every effort should be made that can be made to send help to the unfortunate people who remain.
I have not been able to obtain any authentic information regarding the part taken by German officials in promoting or encouraging these massacres, and therefore it would not be right to express any opinion on the subject. But I think I may venture to say that the only chance of saving the unfortunate remnants of this ancient Christian nation is to be found in the expression of the public opinion of the world, especially that of neutral nations, which may possibly exert some influence even upon the German Government and induce them to take the only step by which the massacres can be arrested—namely, to tell the Turks that they have gone too far, and that there are some things which the public opinion of the world will not tolerate.
THE EARL OF CROMER: May I suggest to the noble Marquess that it would be a very good thing if these Consular Reports were laid before Parliament or otherwise published.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I will inquire for my noble friend whether that can be done.

SALVATION ARMY CHAPLAINS.
EARL GREY EARL GREY rose to ask—
1. Whether in a letter addressed to His Majesty's Government by General Booth, 20th November, 1914, a formal request was made "that His Majesty's Secretary of State be asked to consider the official appointment of Salvation Army

1005
chaplains of the forces, at any rate for the period of the war and what reply to this request has been made by His Majesty's Government.
2. Whether the War Office has intimated to the Chaplain-General's Department that Salvation Army officers cannot be appointed as chaplains to the forces.
3. Whether in the absence of any such intimation, the Chaplain -General's Department, acting on its own authority, has refused to recognise the Salvation Army as a religious community whose officers are qualified for appointment as chaplains to the forces.
4. Whether His Majesty's Australian and New Zealand Governments have appointed several Salvationist chaplains to accompany their forces to Egypt, and whether one of them was not the first and the only chaplain in the trenches for several days in Gallipoli.
5. Whether His Majesty's Canadian Government appointed three Salvationist chaplains for service with the Canadian troops during their encampment at Shorncliffe, and whether it is by order of His Majesty's Government, or of His Majesty's Canadian Government, that these chaplains have not been allowed to accompany to the Front the forces to which they were attached.
6. Whether His Majesty's Government will consider the expediency of placing themselves in line with His Majesty's Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand Governments, by recognising the Salvation Army as a religious community whose officers are qualified for appointment as chaplains to the forces.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, my action in addressing these Questions to His Majesty's Government has been prompted by my belief that in the past the Salvation Army has not been the recipient of very fair and generous treatment in matters which bear directly upon recruiting, and also in the hope that His Majesty's Government may make use of the opportunity which the necessity of. answering these Questions places in their
1006
hands of giving a clear indication that it is not their policy to single out from all religious denominations the Salvation Army for special disabilities as a religious community whose officers are not qualified for appointment as chaplains to the forces.
I will briefly state what the position is. Shortly after the outbreak of the war the recruiting officers refused to attest members of the Salvation Army as Salvationists. This naturally excited indignation amongst the members of the Salvation Army. A protest was made to the War Office, and the War Office promptly met the protest by informing the Salvation Army that in future the recruiting officers would be instructed to register members of the Salvation Army who desired to be recruited as Salvationists. I wish I could say from the information I have received that that assurance had in all cases been carried into effect. Later on the Salvation Army, in a letter addressed to the War -Office in November, 1914, made a formal request to His Majesty's Government that the official appointment of Salvation Army chaplains of the forces, at any rate for the period of the war, should be recognised. I am informed that no direct reply has been sent, but a sort of reply was made by the Under-Secretary of State for War, Mr. Tennant, in the other House last March, when lie said that there did not at present appear to be a sufficiently large number of Salvationist soldiers at any one military centre at home to justify the appointment of a chaplain. You will see how this works for the Salvation Army. First, the recruiting officers refuse to attest, them as Salvationists, and then the War Office informs them that there are not a sufficient number of Salvationists in the Army to justify the appointment of a Salvationist chaplain. I therefore hope that His Majesty's Government will be able to give an assurance to the Salvation Army that it is not the policy of the War Office to refuse to appoint Salvation Army officers as chaplains of the forces.
I point out in my Questions that His Majesty's Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand Governments have all appointed Salvationist chaplains, and that a Salvationist chaplain was the first and for some time the only chaplain in the trenches in Gallipoli. The Canadian Government also appointed, I think, three Salvationist

1007
chaplains for service with the Canadian troops during their encampment at Shorncliffe, and they have been very much surprised that these chaplains have not been allowed to accompany the Canadian forces to the Front. There is a wide difference of treatment of the Salvation Army by His Majesty's Government and by His Majesty's Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand Governments, and I venture to ask His Majesty's Government whether they cannot in this matter wheel themselves into line behind the Dominion Governments, who recognise the importance of giving what the Salvation Army naturally regards as its due.
"This is not a religious question only. I regard it as an Imperial question. All your Lordships are aware of the great work done by the Salvation Army on the basis of voluntary and disinterested enthusiasm at home—work done most effectively without a single penny of cost to His Majesty's Government; work which, if the Salvation Army did not exist, would have to be performed by the State, less effectively and at great cost to the taxpayer. But that is not the only work that the Salvation Army is performing. I have had an opportunity of realising what extremely valuable Imperial work the Salvation Army is doing in the Dominions, particularly in the matter of the migration of people from one part of the Empire to another. It is the only organisation which exists which has this machinery on both sides. The Salvation Army can do what no Government can do, because constitutional timidities would prevent His Majesty's Government here from interfering in the Dominions for fear of giving affront to the Dominion Governments.
And not only that, but I say that the Salvation Army is a most valuable recruiting organisation. I believe that they have recruited over 20,000 members of the Salvation Army, although they have not been encouraged to do so by the action of His Majesty's Government. I read in the newspapers to-day that the whole business of recruiting is to be transferred from the War Office to some new Department of which Lord Derby is to be the head. If Lord Derby were to obtain the co-operation of General Booth he might, perhaps, be able to increase the number of recruits; but in order to do this it is necessary to
1008
convince the Salvation Army that they are not the victims of unfair treatment, that recruiting officers will attest members of the Salvation Army as Salvationists, and that they will be treated as members of other religious communities are treated and not have a bar raised against them. I beg to ask the Questions standing in my name.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, I think I may take upon myself to assure my noble friend that there is not the least desire on the part of the War Office or of any one else to disparage the value of the Salvation Army, and I shall be prepared to assert that there is nobody here or elsewhere who is not prepared to give the fullest recognition to the admirable services that they have rendered to the community. Coming to the noble Earl's Question, there is, I am informed, no record in the War Office of the letter to which he refers, and as there is no record of the reception of the letter there is naturally no record of a reply. The second, third, and sixth headings of my noble friend's Question may, I think, be dealt with together.
The facts are as follows. When the war started the Salvation Army asked whether some of their officers might accompany the Expeditionary Force to the Continent, but they were not prepared to say how many of their adherents there were in the Force, nor in what units or formations they were to be found, nor in what numbers they were in such units or formations. The proposal, therefore, was regarded as of an impracticable nature, and, as the noble Earl will see, it was obvious in the circumstances attending the despatch of the Expeditionary Force that non-combatants should be kept within the smallest possible numbers. In December of last year the question was again raised of appointing some Salvationist officers as Army chaplains. Again no particulars were forthcoming as to the number of Salvationists serving in the Army, and it was admitted that most of those who enlist usually register themselves as belonging to one of the communions that are definitely recognised. It was pointed out that a Salvationist chaplain who went out to serve with the troops would have to roam all over the Army to get into touch with the handfuls of men scattered throughout the different units. The

1009
problem, as the noble Earl may see, is one not so much of principle but really of practicability so far as the Expeditionary Force is concerned.
Now as regards the Army at home. My noble friend has made some rather severe allegations as to the action of the War Office in regard to Salvationists, but as a matter of fact a letter was written to all the commands urging them to give the Salvation Army all possible facilities in their work among the troops, and it is on record at the War Office that the authorities of the Salvation Army expressed their sincere thanks for the steps that had been taken in this direction.
With regard to the second portion of my noble friend's Question, he seems to suggest that the Chaplain-General's Department has been acting in some way independently of the Army Council. The Army Council takes full responsibility for the policy which has been pursued. The real point is that it is impossible to appoint chaplains of any religious body except to centres at which there are a sufficient number of their members serving in the Army to give them work to do to justify their appointments. The highest estimate of the number of Salvationists serving which has been given to the War Office by the Salvation Army officials only amounts to 13,000 men, and the spiritual care of so small a number amongst a force which exceeds 1,000,000 is an almost impossible task.
As regards the fourth heading of my noble friend's Question, it is the case that the Australian and New Zealand Governments each appointed a Salvation Army chaplain with their respective contingents, but there is no information at the War Office as to whether one of these chaplains was the first and only chaplain in the trenches at the commencement of the Gallipoli Expedition.
I now come to the fifth heading of the Question. It is the case that the War Office have received representations as to alleged objections raised to Salvation Army chaplains accompanying the Canadian troops to the Continent. The War Office are in communication with the military authorities in France on this matter. The matter has not yet been settled, but the Army Council are not disposed to see any
1010
objection to duly commissioned Canadian chaplains belonging to the Salvation Army being detailed to fill places allotted to Nonconformist Churches in the authorised establishment of chaplains attached to the Canadian troops.
Perhaps I may be allowed to supplement this answer by a further explanation of my own. It occurred to me the other day when I happened to be out with the troops in France that this difficulty might arise. The Salvation Army, as we all know, is organised on a semi-military basis. The organisation of the Salvation Army is thoroughly understood in this country and in the Colonies, and therefore in the case of troops in this country no difficulties arise. The same thing would presumably occur in Egypt, which is under British administration, and in the Gallipoli Peninsula there is no Administration to consider at all. But in France it stands to reason that you have to consider the action of the French civil and military authorities; and it certainly occurred to me that considerable confusion and perplexity might be caused among French officials if they were called upon to deal with individuals apparently of high military rank who upon investigation turned out not only not to be military officers at all, but possibly officials belonging to the opposite sex. It is not a very serious objection but it is one that occurs to me, and I think my noble friend might consider it, amongst others.
EARL GREY: I understand, notwithstanding the apprehensions of the noble Lord that the despatch of Salvationist chaplains to France might be misunderstood by our Ally, that the Canadian forces are to be allowed to take out a Salvationist chaplain.
LORD NEWTON: Yes.
EARL GREY: I hope the Salvationist chaplain who is allowed to attend the Canadian forces will not be the means of creating any misapprehensions in the minds of the French officials. The noble Lord said that this letter, a copy of which I have seen, from General Booth, dated November 20, 1914, cannot be found in the pigeon-holes of the War Department. He also stated that the Salvation Army have been informed that the local authorities have been instructed to afford the greatest

1011
possible facilities to the officers of the Salvation Army in attending to the members of their Army at home, and that in return for this action on the part of the War Office the Salvation Army have expressed their sincere thanks. One of the leading members of the Salvation Army has informed me that they never expressed thanks for that at all. All that the Salvation Army have expressed thanks to the Army Council for is the assurance that the Army Council have given that their recruiting officers will be instructed to attest as Salvationists members of the Salvation Army who desire to enlist. I have only one other comment to make on the noble Lord's reply. He pointed out that in the returns of the War Office the number of members of the Salvation Army at the Front was given at 13,000, spread over a large area, and for a Salvation Army chaplain to have a roving commission to look after men of his own faith over that length of line would, according to the noble Lord, not be very convenient. Might I ask the noble Lord to make inquiry as to what is done with reference to the Jews? I am informed that there are 11,000 Jews serving in the Army, and that there is a Jewish chaplain with a roving commission who is entitled to go from one end of the line to the other to look after men of that faith. What I maintain is that the Salvation Army should be entitled to the same privileges as are given to the Jews.
LORD NEWTON: I am not sure that I am able to answer the noble Earl categorically with regard to the representation of the Jews. I believe they have a representative, although he did not figure in the list which I gave the noble Earl the other day. With regard to the French officials, I should like to make it clear that the apprehension of which I spoke existed only in my own mind; it was not an official one at all. It was only a suggestion which I put forward on my own account.

MECHANICS FROM THE RANKS.
EARL GREY EARL GREY had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether it is a fact that some of the Reserve regiments in England were paraded last week for the purpose of enabling a Staff officer to inform them that it is the duty of skilled mechanics in the ranks to come forward with the
1012
view of enabling those selected by a Government expert to be employed on work in munition factories; and whether it is the case that those selected have been informed that they will be allowed to keep the separation allowances they are at present receiving in addition to trade union rate of wages.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it was brought to my knowledge last week that the regiments of the Household Cavalry were paraded with a view to a Staff officer explaining to the men the advantages that would accrue to them if those who were qualified for service in munition factories would leave the regiment and transfer to the factories. They were informed that those who might be selected for this work would receive their present separation allowances in addition to the trade union rate of wages, which, as we are aware, amount to £5 or more on the Clyde and elsewhere. This does seem to me a wasteful and quite unnecessary expenditure of the public funds, and I hope that these instructions that have been given to the Staff officers will be put a stop to.
LORD NEWTON: MY Lords, the answers to both parts of my noble friend's Question are, broadly speaking, in the affirmative. It is, I understand, the case that officials visit all the units in this country at the present moment and examine the men who profess themselves capable of performing munition work, and if these men satisfy the tests imposed upon them they are set to work in munition factories. As regards the emoluments which they draw, the broad rule is that from the date of taking up civil employment the soldier ceases to draw Army emoluments, but draws civil pay, which will be fixed in the usual way.
EARL GREY: Then he will not have the separation allowance?
LORD NEWTON: I was going to explain that. The instructions with regard to the payment of a separation allowance to the wife or dependants of the soldier transferred to munition work as a clear addition to any other earnings or emoluments of the soldier amount to this, I take it—that no one is entitled to draw a separation allowance unless he is separated from his family. If it would be any satisfaction to my noble friend I should be glad to furnish him with the War Office instructions on the subject.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: Does the answer of my noble friend really mean this, that the separation allowances which are given to men when they are soldiers and only receiving the small pay of soldiers, are still to be continued when the men are in civil employment receiving two guineas a week—
EARL GREY: Five and in some cases ten guineas a week.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: At any rate a large sum per week. Do I understand that the separation allowance is still continued in those circumstances? Surely if it is, it ought to be deducted from the man's pay.
LORD NEWTON: My impression is that these men are entitled to separation allowances if they are separated from their families. The obvious explanation of this fact, which may seem strange to noble Lords, is that the trade unions are extremely powerful bodies and enjoy much greater powers here than in any other country.

THE WELSH CHURCH ACT.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I understood that the noble Marquess who leads the House would be prepared this evening to answer two Questions which I addressed to him some days ago with respect to a Circular which the Welsh Church Commissioners have recently sent to all incumbents of Church livings in Wales. The Circular related to two matters. Part I asked them to return, by November 20 or some such date as that, particulars as to the endowments; and Part II asked them to return particulars as to their emoluments derived from such matters as Easter dues; fees for baptisms, burials, and marriages; statutory pew rents; and any other sources of income which the clergymen might enjoy. I ask whether that Circular was issued under the authority of the Welsh Church Act, and whether the noble Marquess will lay it on the Table.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I have made some inquiry into this matter since September 23, the date on which the noble Earl opposite asked me this Question. At that time I did not know of the existence of the Circular, and I should have been prepared to give such
1014
information as I had sooner, but I under-I stood that to-day would be the day most suitable to the noble Earl and his friends. It is necessary, I think, to go back briefly to the events which preceded the present state of things with reference to the Welsh Church, and I may remind the House that it was on September 18 of last year that the Suspensory Act received the Royal Assent, the same date on which the Welsh Church Act also received that Assent. By the Suspensory Act the date of Disestablishment was postponed to the end of the war, but there were certain duties laid upon the Commissioners whose particular action is being called in question by the noble Earl. It is important to point out what these Commissioners are. They were described in another place by my right hon. friend the Home Secretary as being a quasi-judicial body, and I assume, his experience being what it is, that that is a correct designation of their functions. At any rate it is clear that they are not subject to any Departmental authority. His Majesty's Government have no power to give them any instructions on any subject. Like all other persons, they are, of course, subject to the supervision, and if necessary the control, of Parliament, but they stand altogether apart from His Majesty's Government so far as the exercise their functions is concerned.
It is important in this connection that we should remember that when the negotiations, with which we are familiar, which took place in the hope of bringing about a Postponement Bill which would further have postponed the date of Disestablishment, came to an end, the Commissioners were themselves, of course, in no way responsible for the fact that those negotiations were not successful, nor was it possible for them to let their action be influenced by the fact that those negotiations had taken place. They were bound, holding the office that they do, to proceed in the natural course with the functions allotted to them under the Welsh Church Act of last year. But it is equally important to state that, provided they do fulfil those functions which they are bound to fulfil and which they are not in a position to disregard, they would naturally wish to fulfil them with the utmost possible consideration for individuals, and certainly not to do anything which can be regarded as needlessly interfering or prying into

1015
matters with which as Commissioners they have no concern, which, as I understand, is the charge brought against at any rate part of this Circular by the noble Earl.
The Circular, as is well known, is divided into two Parts. So far as Part I is concerned, which deals with endowments, I understand that the Question which the noble Earl asked the other day was not specially directed to that portion of the Commissioners' inquiries. As to whether those inquiries ought or ought not to be made at the present time is, of course, an altogether separate question. It is not a matter within the discretion of the Commissioners, and it opens up the whole question of what I described as the negotiations which unfortunately were not brought to a successful issue. Therefore it is Part II—what I may call the extra part of the Circular—about which I wish to say a word. The questions in this part of the Circular, which were quite accurately described by the noble Earl opposite when he spoke at the end of last month, are not concerned with Church endowments, and for that reason might be held, as he himself stated, not to have anything to do with the Welsh Church Act. But there is a section in the Act—Section 16—which deals with compensation to lay patrons, about one-third, speaking roughly, of the benefices in Wales being in lay gift. That section provides that "the total amount paid by way of compensation shall not exceed one year's emoluments of the benefice"—not of the endowment of the living, but of the "emoluments." It is considered therefore by the Commissioners that for the purpose of estimating the amount which may have to be paid to these lay patrons it is necessary to know what are the customary emoluments of the living — that word having been used, one is bound to suppose of set purpose, in the Act of Parliament rather than the simple word "endowment."
But there is this fact also to be borne in mind, and it is only right to mention it. The section says that any lay patron who has made application within six months after the passing of the Act for the compensation to be provided shall, at the expiration of two years from the date of Disestablishment, or, in certain other cases, on the occurrence of a vacancy, receive the compensation which the section pro
1016
vides. That, of course, as your Lordships see, postpones the period within which this payment has to be made pro tanto in proportion to the date when Disestablishment is postponed. Therefore as far as regards these particular questions I have little doubt that the Commissioners would be exceedingly unwilling, as circumstances are, to give greater trouble to individual incumbents than is necessary by the terms of the Act, and that on any representation being made in reply to this Circular that it is not desirable to give the answers at this moment but that postponement would be preferable to the incumbent, they would be prepared to fall in with that arrangement.
But I should like to ask your Lordships whether such a postponement of the questions in this Part—Part II—would, as a matter of fact, involve a saving of trouble to the incumbent of the living. The estimate of the value of this lay patronage has to be reckoned on one year's emoluments of the benefice taken on an average of the three years immediately before the passing of the Act, and I think it is therefore open to question whether much trouble would be saved to the incumbent by the postponement of answering questions of this kind, which, if they were answered after some period—it being clearly necessary that at some time or other they should be answered—would then relate to a period which had passed some time ago, instead of, if they were answered now, applying to the three years before 1914. That is a consideration which, in putting forward this suggestion as a possibility, is one that I think ought to be borne in mind, because it is only fair to consider that all these questions in this particular Part of the Circular so far as they have a value have a value in the interests of the Church only; they are not of any use for the purpose of making any kind of calculation which could diminish the compensation or sum paid to the Church or to anybody interested who is entitled to receive the payment. So far as these questions are necessary, it is only for the benefit of certain interested persons connected with the Church that the questions are put. Therefore when we are told that these questions represent an "impertinent inquiry" in which people's private affairs are inquired into, that side of the matter ought to be remembered. And it must be understood that this is not a mere desire on the part of the Commissioners

1017
to ascertain facts about the emoluments of because even if they desired to make malicious use of them—which I am certain is the very last thing they would do—there is nothing in getting such knowledge that would empower them to do so.
Before I sit down, I think I ought to tell the House for what it is worth that I received a letter from a beneficed clergyman of the Church in Wales expressing his personal view. I am not, of course, at liberty to state his name or anything about him, but he gave it as his opinion that these questions were exceedingly reasonable; he hoped they would be sent round, and he—and presumably he may have been speaking for others—found no difficulty in answering, and would make no objection to doing so. I mention that as a single instance which noble Lords can take for what it is worth. I think I have covered the whole ground which was laid open by the questions of the noble Earl opposite.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I entirely accept the statement of the noble Marquess that the Welsh Church Commissioners are a quasi-judicial body, and that His Majesty's Government have practically no control over them. They might have, I think, an indirect control over their proceedings for the future if they would fill up the vacancy now existing on the Commission by some one whom they could trust not to undertake the sort of inquiry which is included in this Circular. But as the Commissioners exist they are no doubt not subject to the control of His Majesty's Government.
There are two points in regard to this matter which I should like to mention. The first is the nature of the inquiries as to the endowments of the benefices. I ventured to state the other day that so far as I could see this was a legitimate part of the work of the Welsh Church Commissioners, and the only question was whether it was quite fair to expect individual incumbents to answer all these complicated questions, many of which they could hardly answer without legal advice. I do not know whether the Welsh Church Commissioners have been in any way in touch with a committee consisting of representatives of Welsh Churchmen which I believe is in existence and acting in such matters as are necessary for the benefit of the Church
1018
in Wales, but it does strike me that either by communication with such a Committee, or by communication with individual Bishops as to the livings in their respective dioceses, the way might have been smoothed for these inquiries, however necessary to be made, and a great deal of trouble and difficulty spared to individual clergymen.
I turn to the second part of the inquiry, that relating to emoluments. The noble Marquess has admitted that this has nothing whatever to do with the question of the Disendowment of the Welsh Church, except in so far as he considers that it would be possible to estimate the compensation to be paid to lay patrons by ascertaining the amount of emoluments referred to in this Paper. I should never have supposed that such emoluments as are named here could properly come into the valuing of an advowson. See what they are. Take the first—Easter dues. Easter dues are purely voluntary offerings. What has a lay patron to do with them? He may very likely make such an offering himself, but what right has he to be compensated on the amount of them? Then take statutory pew rents. How can those—if they exist in Wales at all—be considered as matters for which the lay patron could be compensated? Coming to the next head — Customary fees: (a) baptisms, (b) burials, (c) marriages—I believe there is a Statute forbidding the receipt of fees for baptisms. These Welsh Church Commissioners, who ought to know the Ecclesiastical Law, are actually requiring the Welsh incumbents to publish fees which, if they had received them, would have been illegitimately received. But the last inquiry is the strangest of all, "Any other receipts not included in the above." In the diocese in which I happen to live there are trust and diocesan funds which are devoted largely to the assistance of the clergy, to any cases of sickness where money is wanted, and to the education of children in cases of poverty. These funds are administered with the utmost confidence—no one knows, except the almoners and the persons who receive assistance, that any such assistance is given at all. I suppose a similar state of affairs also exists in Welsh dioceses, but the incumbent with this Paper before him would expect that he would be required to state what he had received from such sources as this or from any private source in the course of the year. How in the world could it be possible

1019
that any lay patron should be compensated on receipts such as those?
In spite of what the noble Marquess has said excusing the Welsh Church Commissioners from this inquiry, I must say that I entirely adhere to what I described it as—namely, an impertinent inquisition. I do not think it ought ever to have been made, and I hope that the effect of the attention which has been called to it may induce the Commissioners to reconsider it and to inform the incumbents that they will not be required to answer such queries. The noble Marquess says, quite rightly, that His Majesty's Government have no authority over these Commissioners, but a hint from His Majesty's Government that it would not be fair that incumbents should be expected to answer such inquiries as those I have named would, I venture to say, go a long way in confining the Commissioners to their proper legal duties.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ASAPH: My Lords, I ask your indulgence for a few moments, as the matter to which I shall call your Lordships' attention is of importance. The points raised here this evening are of rather more than Welsh concern. Let me begin with two preliminary remarks. The Bishops and laity of the Church in Wales are ready to supply accurately and exhaustively necessary and legally required answers to questions addressed to them by the Commissioners. But there is a manner and a method in seeking such information, and I venture to think, as the noble Earl has just said, that the request for this information had better have been sent either to the committee already formed of laity and clergy in Wales, or to each Bishop. I come to my second preliminary remark. The Welsh Church Act appointed three Commissioners. At the present time I think I am correct in saying that there is only one acting Commissioner. Sir William Pleader, I understand, is largely engaged in war business, and the place of Sir Herbert Roberts, who resigned some time ago, has not been filled. Therefore when I talk of the Commissioners in the plural I do so in the editorial sense of "we."
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I believe that Sir William Plender is taking quite an active part in the proceedings of this Commission.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ASAPH: The Commissioners issued this form of inquiry, and with it they put the rules which they had made themselves and which were confirmed by an Order in Council. These rules, I submit, go beyond the scope of the powers and duties given to the Commissioners by the Act of Parliament. Let me give two illustrations. The Commissioners are invested with some of the powers of a High Court, and the Act contemplates that they should sitting as a Court, receive evidence. They have the power to summon witnesses and to ask for the production of documents. In that case, witnesses being summoned, their expenses would be defrayed, and the documents would only be produced in Court for examination and not handed over. Those powers, I venture to think, are very large powers. The rules of the Commissioners, however, go beyond that. They have assumed the power of sending forth this list of questions. The list is to be filled up in two months, and on the first page of the list each incumbent is required to sign a declaration that the statements he has made are true and correct in every particular. I am informed on very high authority that no High Court in this country has the right to send out a request for such information and the further request for the sort of attestation that is asked.
But the rules of the Welsh Church Commissioners go a good deal further even than I have said. They demand—note this!—that each incumbent is to hand over for an indefinite period his title deeds and original documents. Not one word is said about the expense of doing all this. No High Court in this country has the right to demand the handing over of original title deeds and documents in this way. Imagine for a moment the position of an incumbent who hands over the agreements, we will say, with regard to his tenancy. He does not know how long the Commissioners will keep them, and no guarantee is given for their security or their return. I venture to say that examination will show that these rules of the Commissioners are really ultra vires. The power given to the Commissioners of making rules does not represent an indefinite power of amending the Act, but a limited power of making rules for certain specific purposes. Let me give one illustration. Take Rule 7. That rule certainly goes much beyond the specific purpose. It is not required for regulating

1021
procedure; it is not required for securing the execution of their powers by the Commissioners; neither is it required for carrying the Act into effect. Indeed Rule 7 is entirely inconsistent with the original Act. In the Act the burden of ascertaining what are private benefactions is laid upon the Commissioners. Now they seek to transfer that burden, to lay it upon each individual incumbent. As a matter of fact, not only do these rules go beyond the Act of Parliament, but the form of inquiry goes actually beyond the rules themselves. In Part I of the Circular such a question as this is asked of the incumbent, "Why did the previous incumbent resign?" What use that can be for carrying out the Act I do not see.
I want to emphasise the gravity of this question. Here you have the Commissioners passing rules which go beyond the original Act. The Act was sufficiently drastic, but here you have practically a new Act in the rules made by the Commissioners for extending their powers. The Home Secretary said the other night, in reference to this form of inquiry, that the Commissioners were judicial authorities desiring to discharge their responsible tasks in accordance with statutory requirements. He stated—indeed, he gave much the same answer as the noble Marquess made this evening—that the queries about the emoluments were necessary in view of the compensation of lay patrons. I quite see that. In my own diocese the lay patrons represent fifteen per cent. of the clergy. Why should this form be sent to the other eighty-five per cent. of the clergy who have nothing whatever to do with it, and nothing to do with compensation for lay patronage? I have never yet heard of a lay patron who in estimating the value of his patronage for compensation thought that he could include Easter dues and baptismal fees. But I let that pass.
In another place last week the Home Secretary made the remarkable statement that the decisions at which the Commissioners arrive are subject to an appeal to the Privy Council. That, I venture to point out, is not correct. An appeal to the Privy Council is granted in the original Act, but it is an appeal limited to certain cases. It is a very strict limitation indeed; it does not at all cover the cases where such an appeal might be of great help to
1022
us. If anyone will study this form of inquiry he will see that an individual incumbent cannot answer the very difficult and complicated questions that are asked; they cannot possibly be answered without expert and expensive advice. But all this has been overlooked. It is exactly the same with the lay patron. A lay patron in my own diocese sent me a letter he had received in which he is practically commanded to send to the Welsh Commissioners an abstract of his title. As my correspondent pointed out, the preparation of the abstract would probably cost more than the compensation he would be likely to receive.
The Home Secretary referred to commutation and to what he called—I do not think very happily— the good bargain which was in prospect for the Church in Wales owing to financial circumstances to which I need not here allude. But he overlooked one very important point. As the law stands to-day every clergyman who is appointed to a benefice in Wales knows that that benefice carries with it no vested interest, and that on the day the war ends that parish will lose every penny of its ancient endowments. During the last year there have been twenty vacancies to benefices in my own diocese. If the war is prolonged it may well be that two-thirds of the benefices in my diocese will have no vested interest at all, and when the Act comes into operation they will have nothing whatever to commute. I do not think, my Lords, that the people of this country know how the Church in Wales is at the present time being stealthily bereft of its very small endowments; nor do I think they know exactly what is going on in the Church in Wales. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners can make no grants for curates now; they can make no grants of pensions to old incumbents. I have several in my own diocese who desire to retire, but no grant of pension can be made by the Commissioners. They can make no augmentation grants to meet necessities caused by increased population; no new parishes can be formed; no additions can be made to our churchyards. And Queen Anne's Bounty cannot make any loans. Only last week a clergyman accepted a benefice and found there was no water supply—it was a small mountain parish, very poor, and the house drainage was in a very bad condition. He wanted a loan from Queen Anne's Bounty to enable

1023
him to do this work, but no such grant could be made. Nor can Queen Anne's Bounty make any benefaction to small livings, and no incumbent can sell or exchange one yard. I say this because I want the House and the people of this country to realise how the whole work of the Church in Wales, so far as any channel of communication with the Church of England is concerned, has been blocked up.
I am sure there is a very important constitutional question involved in this matter of the rules and of the original Act. The Home Secretary expressed his great antipathy to starting any topic of controversy at the present time. I agree with that. But I think it is my duty to let the facts be known as they exist in Wales to-day. A good deal has happened there in the last twelve months. The simple issue of Disestablishment and Disendowment, as you probably know, was submitted to twenty-one parishes in Wales, and every parish had a large majority against; many of them rejected the Disestablishment and Disendowment Bill—they preferred to stand out. The noble Marquess held out a prospect of the postponement of these inquiries and of some modification of that wonderful Paper upon emoluments. I cannot help thinking that the suggestion made by the noble Earl (Lord St. Aldwyn) would be a very helpful one—namely, that if the Commissioners really want to get the information and desire that it shall be prompt, exhaustive, and reliable, they would do well to put themselves into communication with the representatives of the laity.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, may I say a word with reference to what the noble Marquess said, because I understood him to be sympathetic in this respect, that he did not think it expedient that information should be asked for which caused trouble unless there was some necessity that that information should be obtained. Upon that point he suggested that the questions in Form D, Part II—the only portion to which I wish to refer—might at any rate have some reference to the compensation to be paid to lay patrons, and that that compensation would have to be assessed within two years after the date of Disestablishment. Upon that point I do not think it conceivable that any of the items comprised in Form D should ever come into
1024
the question of compensation for lay patrons. I have never heard it suggested, for instance, that Easter dues could possibly be considered as part of the matters in respect of which there should be compensation to lay patrons.
It really is not fair to put upon incumbents the duty of answering questions of this kind in order that lay patrons may be protected as regards claim for compensation. I do not believe they could make any claim for compensation on dais basis; but if they want to make it, they ought to supply the information themselves. I am bound to say that I cannot follow the argument of the noble Marquess that information of this kind ought to be sought from incumbents, giving them undoubtedly a great deal of unnecessary trouble. Perhaps he will bear that in mind if be is going to address the House again. I do not myself sympathise with compensation to lay patrons. At any rate I think it would be a monstrous thing to compensate them on the basis of Easter dues, and take into consideration emoluments of that kind.
What will be the effect of not answering these questions? Supposing incumbents say, "We do not desire to answer these questions; we do not think they are relevant," would they be subjected to any penalties? I should like the noble Marquess to give me an answer upon that. I have not been able to find any penalty, and I should strongly advise those who lave questions of this kind put to them—which appear to me to be quite irrelevant under the Welsh Church Act—that the wisest course is not to answer them. I do not, however, want them to become subject to any penalties, so perhaps the noble Marquess will give us information upon that point.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, it is not my desire to add anything to what has been said upon these forms of inquiry, but I am quite sure His Majesty's Government must agree that it is deplorable that the clergy at such a very difficult time as this should be troubled with such inquiries. I am well aware of what the noble Marquess said, that the Commissioners in issuing these inquiries are doing their duty; but I should like to remind him that the most rev. Primate last September warned His Majesty's

1025
Government when they refused to accept the Amendment moved to the Suspensory Act by the noble Earl opposite that they were inflicting very serious hardship on Churchmen in Wales, particularly the clergy themselves. I understand that the noble Marquess was not able at the time to accept the most rev. Primate's well-considered caution, but I am sure that, as the result of negotiations, His Majesty's Government without exception now feel that the development of events, the gravity of the national peril with regard to the war, makes it a very unfortunate thing that the noble Earl's Amendment last November was not more fully considered by His Majesty's Government of that day. In his speech this evening the noble Marquess was most considerate, and I hope he will take some steps to bring to the notice of the proper quarters the very reasonable suggestion of the noble Earl (Lord St. Aldwyn), a suggestion by the carrying out of which these inquiries, which are very difficult and painful at this time, would be rendered less painful and less difficult. I venture to endorse the suggestion that the Commissioners should consult others with regard to this inquiry. Had such a consultation taken place before, the criticism made upon the form would, I feel sure, have been less severe.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I am not entitled to speak again as there is no Motion before us, but perhaps by the leave of the House I may reply to one or two points that have been raised in the course of this discussion. It has been said by almost every speaker that the particular subjects about which inquiry is made in Part II could not reasonably form the basis of compensation to a lay patron. As to that, I can only say that the word "emoluments" in Section 16 of the Act does appear to cover more than the actual income of the living derived from endowment, glebe, or any regular source. I should have thought—I am, of course, speaking without authority—that the plan on which Parliament had intended to compensate the lay patron was rather comparable with a certain proportion of the sum which that patron would expect to receive if he were to sell the advowson. When the advowson is sold the sum received for it does not, I take it, by any means depend only on the actual endowment, but on a number of customary advantages which are presumed to add to the value of
1026
the living. All these matters I should have thought come within the questions in Part II, matters of consideration in the case of the sale of the benefice; and I presume that it was the intention of Parliament that a lay patron should receive payment on that scale, and not on the mere scale of the endowment. That I only put forward as an explanation of the use of the word "emoluments." And in a sense I should hope it would be so, because I think it may be presumed that in most cases where a lay patron puts in a claim for compensation of this kind the Church will get the benefit of that sum of money. Therefore I should be pleased if it were calculated on as liberal a scale as possible and included all manner of dues and customary payments, even though I quite agree that in the ordinary circumstances of compensation it would not be supposed that they would be included.
On the point of fees for baptism, which the noble Earl mentioned as not being paid now, I imagine there must be some clergy left who were appointed before the date of the Statute to which he referred. I think that Act was passed in 1872, and there are probably a few clergy who were appointed before that date, and who might therefore conceivably be entitled to receive such fees.
Then as regards the question why these interrogations are put to the incumbent and net to the lay patron. I should have thought the explanation was the obvious one that it is only the incumbent who knows the answers. I am fortunate enough —if that is the word—to be the patron of several livings myself, and I know in general terms what the endowment of each of these cures is, but I do not know what they may be worth to the occupants in this other respect, nor should I feel as patron that I had any right to inquire. Therefore I presume that the incumbent is the only person who, if these questions are to be put at all, is in the position to reply to them.
The point has been mentioned by the noble Earl and by both right rev. Prelates as to whether it would not have been more suitable and reasonable to make these inquiries directly instead of indirectly, to apply to the Church committee, or to each Bishop for the information respecting his own diocese. I am under the impression

1027
—I shall be corrected if I am wrong—that there are two opinions amongst the clergy in Wales on that subject. Although I dare say the adoption of that course would be acceptable to some, perhaps to many, yet there are others who prefer to have this information asked directly of themselves; and I presume that in making this direct inquiry that fact was in the minds of the Commissioners. The noble and learned Lord opposite asked what would happen if no replies were sent by an incumbent to these questions. I prestrtne lie was alluding both to Part I and to Part II of the Form.
LORD PARMOOR: I was referring to Part II.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: It is a question which, being of a legal character, might be more fitly put by me to him than by him to me. But the general answer, I think, is covered by what I stated about what I felt pretty sure would be the view of the Commissioners with regard to these inquiries, that where any incumbent made a representation on receipt of his paper, and said that he was not able to make replies, or that he was not able to make replies at present, the Commissioners would not, as I believe, desire to proceed, even assuming them to be in a position to do so, to exact any kind of penalty from him for not answering the questions. On this I should like to say again that I am quite sure. the Commissioners will carefully study what has been said by noble Lords and by the right rev. Prelates in the course of this debate, and that they
1028
will desire, so far as they consider it consistent with their duty, to modify if necessary their practice in any way which would cause a saving of trouble to individuals. Of course, they strongly bolt that they have a statutory duty to perform and that they must perform it; but so far as it is possible to make the performance easy to individual incumbents I am con fident that they will do all they can to lubricate the proceedings which they third, it their duty to take. The two right rev Prelates who spoke did not confine themselves entirely to the Question as it was originally put by the noble Earl opposite. Of that I do not make the slightest complaint. On the contrary I quite understand that both right rev. Prelates took this occasion to make statements of a more general character, and I only allude to it in order to excuse myself from replying to some of the more general points which they raised, because their object, I think, was rather to state the case than to get an elaborate reply.

BUSINESS OE THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, as there is no business on the Paper for to-morrow, I move that the House do adjourn until Tuesday next, October 12.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question. Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, to Tuesday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.